Global Warming - Fact or Fiction?

Originally Posted by Flightfreak

people need to be more economical if it comes to energy because on this very moments we're using way to much energy and is it impossible to provide all 100% energy by alternative sources.

It would be terribly difficult to convince everyone to go back to living in teepees, hunting for food, and riding horses again. So our only hope lies in progress.

Originally Posted by Flightfreak

Is it not like this, that the future gets stipulated by what the crowd believes and thinks now.

When it comes to progress, the crowd certainly has a hand in playing the ball. But the ones who get the ball rolling are usually creative, imaginative, inventive individuals. It's in those individuals that the hope lies.

Originally Posted by Flightfreak

We've already seen quite heavy climate shifts in the past with out influences from humanity, it can only become worse.

I see what you're saying. I'm not really arguing with you. I'm just putting the thought out that things are quite possibly not so bleak.

[hasselbrad]

Originally Posted by Flightfreak

A passive house and OLEDS would already be more than good enough.

Passive houses are basically extremely good isolated houses that don't need an extra heating unit. It looks not much different than the current average houses.

Oleds are 100% efficients leds that can produce daylight. A common glow lamp the most of you use lose lose 90% of the energy on warmth.
The technology and knowledge is there the will is not.

Most people think there are no alternatives and that they would have to change their life drastically which is basically crap. A few changes are enough to make a huge diffrence.

This would be fine by me.

Of course, a good start would be to convince Al Gore to fly coach instead of on a private jet. I refuse to listen to someone whose carbon footprint dwarfs my own.

[Hazzle]

Can we just give you all machetes and get you to fight it out?

[dave]

Originally Posted by Flightfreak

A passive house and OLEDS would already be more than good enough.

Does this link pass the 'liberal press only' filter you guys seem to be using?

I got trapped in another time and space while looking at this stuff. You can follow me in and rescue me if you feel like it.

The first nights work...

and last night old Gore made the press again...


And just to give you a clue about me, I have tried every version of 120V LED lightbulb on the market, and so far am sticking with the energy wasteful 13Watt Flourescents.

[dave]

Originally Posted by Flightfreak

You sure know a lot about computers and running models Dave. So now you were the one running the ‘biggest hydrodynamic codes in the world’ and running climatologically models at the same time? Oh boy you sure must have had super computers and faster than the Cray-1’s were, oh boy, what year was it again?
Before you make remarks like this make sure the one it is meant for isn’t a computer freak.

I spent 10 years as a Writer at The Zia Company in Los Alamos. My 'Z-Number" is Z-077608. That will identify me to the DOE for a minimum of 50 years after my death. I've had a 'Q' clearance for about 30 years with a 'Crypto' endorsement for the last 17. I started there in 1970 or so. Then I went "Contracting" for a year, first at Federated Department Stores Corporate Offices in Cincinnatti Oh, then to San Francisco, CA.
Then I brought my family back to Los Alamos and went to work for Los Alamos National Lab. First in a group trying to create a Nuclear Fusion machine. There I wrote some real-time programs in PL1-G and PLI and Fortran. After that I went to the Consulting Office for awhile. When that got too much, I transferred to CORRTEX in the Physics Division. There I helped the Physicists run/modify their Hydrodynamic Codes. I worked with those people for over 7 years. We were responsible for the end of the Cold War. We had a diagnostic (called CORRTEX) which was capable of measuring ONLY the magnitude of a Nuclear Blast. With that diagnostic we were able to begin to force the Russians to negotiate an arms reduction treaty. As soon as there was some openness there, their country fell apart. They couldn't keep denying their countrymen and supporting such a huge research budget when we got them to the peace table.

And yes, I used the Crays, I ran that particular Hydrodynamic run, (it was such a trivial thing that I'd forgotten about doing it until you forced me to remember,) and I received a copy of that UN report before it was issued to the public.

I also had my own network. I administered the network with 27 SPARCstations and 9 HP-9000s and over 250 of those [#$%^&*(] ibm-PCs. I had more computing power than did C-Division at that particular time. That upset them.

I also had a secret network which stretched from Mercury, NV to Los Alamos,NM. It was small, but it was never compromised.

So you have my story, you forced me to tell it because you insulted me by trying to denigrate me... Let's hear yours... It's pretty clear that you are a student, and at that age that 'thinks they know everything.' So prove it! Or have the sysadmin change your name to 'twit'.

make sure the one it is meant for isn’t a computer freak. Been there done that, Spent the night in John Gilmore's house. Fuck it. You're not a computer freak. I know most of the real computer freaks, and they are kind considerate people who would not speak as you have. In Computer Freak circles it is not done You just need to grow up.

Here's a picture of me on Toad Go to the Top to see why that is significant.

[dave]

Actually I should have called this 'current state of cheap 120Volt Light Bulb Replacements' as you can buy them almost anywhere for $35.00 each.

Originally Posted by Flightfreak

OLED’s aren’t on the market for mass consumption yet, its still in developing.

Well then, OLEDs must be something other than what I have. These are on eBay. I bought my first one from www.jademountain.com, but I don't think they sell them any more. They don't put out enough light, though for a Watt and a half, that's a lot of light, just not enough to be useful.

AC 110V - 36LEDs Spot Light bulb for Solar Panel Item number: 8740199280

AC 110V - 28 UV LEDs Spot Light bulb for Solar Panel US $9.99 Jun-28-06 09:27:00 PDT
AC 110V (18 RED) LED Spot Light bulb for Solar Panel US $4.99 Jul-01-06 22:10:34 PDT
AC 110V (18 BLUE) LED Spot Light bulb for Solar Panel US $4.99 Jul-01-06 22:15:54 PDT
AC 110V (18 GREEN) LED Spot Light bulb for Solar Panel US $4.99 Jul-07-06 15:43:58 PDT

[dave]

Originally Posted by Flightfreak

<snip>
Yes I was trying to denigrate you in the hope you'd explain your self a little further because the things you said did not fit the things you said before + someone who knows a lot about computers should know that computer capacity/power is relative and so thus the arguments you were using are worthless but nevertheless as a computer freak they do fascinate me. Sorry.

And yes I'm a 21 year old student and no I was probably still wearing diapers when you were already into computers.

And just because I don't work at the Labs, don't believe for a minute that I have not kept up with the field.

Originally Posted by Flightfreak

Haha Dave I was thinking exactly the same about you filtering. Anyway but like said in my previous posts, why the fuck keep on going like this? None of the articles you've posted actually prove that Global Warming is influenced by humans is not happening.

That's true. What they did prove is that the amount of Global Warming added by Humans is irrelevant. In fact, thanks to our fantastic ability to put out forest fires, we probably actually have a negative effect on Global Warming. (Or don't you believe that Lightning causes fires, and with nobody putting them out, they burn forever? )

Originally Posted by Flightfreak

They all just question every argument brought up by scientists who do research on the matter and do believe its happening all though they can't give a 100% proof.

Excuse me? Since your Scientists have never proven that it is going to happen, why, precisely, should anyone waste time proving that it is not going to happen? The first IPCC report was literally destroyed with various Scientific Proofs. It was obliterated. There was no question that it was wrong, and that the attempt by the UN Committee to take over the world governments (by making the developed nations turn off their power plants, crush their cars, and go immediately to subsistence farming [much the same riff you are riffing] ) The attempt by the UN to destroy the developed nations has failed.

It has failed so completely that the UN had to convene a second meeting of the IPCC in 2001 to attempt to redo the old report and recover their reputation and plan to 'take over the world.'

Originally Posted by Flightfreak

You won't be able to prove it’s false until the day scientists are able to calculate every possible factor that influences our climate, until the day they fully understand our climate, and that day is still way a head of us.

Excuse me. There is absolutely no reason to attempt to prove that. You, and all the climatologists everywhere have not proven that it is necessary. You seem to believe that just because you can conceive of this disaster that we need to start to destroy our way of life to avert this disaster. I believe that the chances that a huge meteor will strike the earth is more likely, what are you doing to prevent that?

Originally Posted by Flightfreak

Do you agree with me if I say this:
“You do not believe global warming is actually influenced by humans, but you do believe more research is needed”

NO. I do not believe we need more research. I, however, have no objection if YOU waste your intellect on doing it. I do know that global warming is influenced by humans, we have stopped the periodic burning of the forests. However, the total Energy expenditure of The Planet dwarfs the amount of the Energy Expenditure due to the Human Race, so no net change is worth all the verbiage you and the Climatologists are using to describe this issue. That being the case, what exactly is going on here? Are your Climatologists actually trying to influence the stupid people in the world to force them to 'take over' and force the developed countries to go back to the 'Dark Ages'? I guess that must be what you are trying to do. Why? Because when you put up a UN Committee and they come up with a final report which recommends that we stop emitting CO2, AND that final report is thoroughly debunked and proven false, you manipulate your data, you come up with erroneous Computer Models, and you lie about the results, and THEN you ask the entire world to "prove us wrong!"

Clearly, if the world has lasted millions of years and has never had the event you are prophesying, YOU need to prove that it will, not the other way around.

It is not Scientific to use incorrect data which does NOT prove your point and then say "Prove me wrong." You've already done that. You go back to the drawing board and prove what you say is going to happen will. Otherwise, it is Scientifically Dishonest to say that Your "Scenario" is even half as likely to happen as a Meteor will drop down your fireplace chimney.

Originally Posted by Flightfreak

Is it so wrong of me to give global warming influenced by humans the advantage of the doubt?

Yes, it is a waste of an otherwise good mind on a problem which does not exist. Which is based on propaganda and scare tactics.

Originally Posted by Flightfreak

Knowing that everything that would cause global warming is bad for us and the environment.

This has not been proven. In fact, several of the references we've both quoted say otherwise. A little warming is a good thing. Also, since the "Little Ice Age" lasted from 1400 to about 1900, don't you think it would be getting warmer, naturally? (Your field, your technology... You can explain how you get out of a "little ice age" without getting warmer, can't you?)

Originally Posted by Flightfreak

Why does it seem so illogical for you to do that, to give it the advantage of the doubt? Purely economical reasons? If you’re country is one of the biggest polluters of the world should you not be the first to give it the advantage of the doubt? As a lot of work is to be done about that.

It is a waste of time to argue with someone who is not actually arguing what his intent is. Since there is no Scientific Basis for your position, and your backup position is "you’re country is one of the biggest polluters of the world should you not be the first to give it the advantage of the doubt?" and what you really mean is for us to stop our progress and change places with the "Third World" countries so they can be the "First World" for awhile, and since the "Third World" is run by Dictators, Socialists, and Thieves, I see no reason to stand back and let them run the world.

If you don't agree that this is what we are really talking about, Prove that Global Warming is taking place, and tell me When it will be here. Otherwise, I'm not going to go back to horses and buggies.

You can't prove it is going to happen, and I have billions of years that it has not happened. Debating your points using your flawed data is a waste of time.

[kingdumbass]

Global warming is real....
And I think it's great.

[dave]

Originally Posted by Flightfreak

the advantage of the doubt

Sorry, this bothers me every time I see it. The phrase you mean to use is "The Benefit of the doubt". Meaning that you don't really know so you go along until you get all the facts. Not a good policy to use when you're hitchhiking and someone strange picks you up. Sort of like what we are talking about.

You are cruising along, nothing particular happening, and someone comes along and says "come with us. We need you to help us. We are on a Religious Pilgrimage to get people to change their ways and behave better. You can help us by giving us 'the benefit of the doubt' and supporting us on our mission."

"All you really have to do is do everything we want you to do for awhile, and in forty or fifty years you'll see that everything is better. And we promise to be good to you during those years that you bow to our philosophy."

[dave]

Originally Posted by Flightfreak

The data is not incorrect, the data is incomplete. As long as the data is incomplete, as long as climatologists don’t fully understand our climate we better take the advantage of the doubt and do something about everything that would cause global warming as it is bad for the environment and you and me anyway.

This is you 'pretending to know what you are talking about.' It shows that you are only 21, and 'spouting off.' When you have actually worked in a scientific field/job, there is no difference between 'incorrect' and 'incomplete.' The only thing you can deduce from incomplete data is that you have more work to do before you can make a deduction. You are breaking one of the primary rules of the Scientific Method when you make a deduction from incomplete data.

Originally Posted by Flightfreak

What’s wrong with Propaganda for a healthier world even if it’s based on incomplete data?

That's what all the Dictators say. "Trust Me, Would I Lie To You?"
Every Dictator was only trying to make everything better... Unfortunately, that Dictator was redefining 'better.'

Originally Posted by Flightfreak

As long as the data is incomplete sceptics can only question the importance of single factors but they can not deny the fact that global warming influenced by humans could be possible and as long that is not possible we better take the advantage of the doubt.

This is called "lying by omission". You don't tell the whole truth. (Most times you leave out data which doesn't agree with your idea of 'how things should be.' That's the main problem with the reports based on the IPCC reports.) Any Reputable Scientific Journal will tell you to come back when you actually have proof.

[dave]

Thanks to someone in my other discussion about this subject, I subscribed to some Canadian free press newspaper. They just sent me the first issue. I also subscribed to the Daily New Mexican, but it is really different.

Science, Leftist politics
Man-made global warming fears reach hysterical pitch
by Klaus Rohrich
Saturday, June 24, 2006
What do you get when you combine leftist politics with science? Man-made global warming. The hysteria about climate change has now reached a fevered pitch with most of the former mainstream media jumping right onto the junk science bandwagon with admonitions that if we do not change our wicked ways we will surely be destroyed.
<snip>
What would cause so many so-called climate scientists to issue alarming reports about the state of the earth’s climate and draw the kinds of conclusions that engender the current hysteria? The answer is money. If you are a climate scientist and do not subscribe to the accepted UN inspired orthodoxy then you can kiss the idea of getting any research grants good bye, as only those scientists willing to toe the line are funded.

The result is a new way of looking at scientists in that they assume the mantle of high priest who, like the fire and brimstone preachers of days, past promise swift and merciless retribution for living our sinful ways.

And then it goes on to talk about Time Magazine's contribution and Newsweek's contribution to the discussion...

Oh damn! I'm having a hard time dealing with this... 8*)

ABC news has gone so far as to ask for anecdotal evidence of man-made global warming from the public at large on their web site. This on the first full day of summer!

"Has your life been affected by global warming?" ABC’s web site asks, and then goes on to urge people to write in their anecdotal stories about how their life has changed due to global warming. This type of "journalism" is the best we can now expect from the former mainstream media, most of which seems to have bought the global warming story hook, line and sinker. What’s worse, the media is now making itself part of the story by shaping the news it reports and carefully tailoring information to suit its agenda.

I know that there are people on this discussion that never follow links in the stories quoted. So I also had to add the last paragraph of the story.

<skip>
If you’re expecting to garner information of this type from places like Time or one of the television networks, don’t hold your breath. You aren’t going to get it. The best thing anyone could do to maintain his or her sanity in this age of global warming hysteria is to remember that the entire global warming scare is driven by an agenda. One has only to examine the Kyoto Treaty to know that it isn’t about decreasing greenhouse gases. It’s about the redistribution of the world’s wealth.

FlightFreak, I'm curious. Not that it matters, but are you a Socialist? I've never actually met a Socialist who had balls enough to stand up and admit it. Well, maybe a 'Wobblie', but never a Socialist. Bruce 'Utah' Phillips is an Anarchist. You live in Belgium, so it doesn't matter if you are honest about this one tiny thing. Are you a Socialist? I phrased that wrong. What I really meant to ask is "Do you believe in some form of Socialism?" Do you believe that the rich people should give up most of what they have to support the poor?

From my other discussion over on The Santa Fe New Mexican newspaper site.

By Michael Tincher (Submitted: 06/25/2006 3:09 pm)
Mr. Wade, what makes Mr. Klaus Rohrich right and Mr. Al Gore wrong other than what you want to believe in the first place?

By Mike Jorgensen (Submitted: 06/25/2006 4:04 pm)
Well, I don't know who Mr. Rohrich is, but since Al Gore lies and distorts the scientific facts, I do like what Mr. Rohrich says and I would believe him over Gore any day based on what I read here. Michael, the fact that newspapers, TV networks, and (unfortunately) some scientists are out to make money on this hysteria (or any for that matter) is well known. Who wants to buy newspapers or listen to national news that doesn't have some looming disaster about to strike that you NEED to know about? You are compelled to listen, watch, or read, and BTW, now a word from our sponsors. And the research funding is an established fact, 10 times more funding exists for pro AGW than anti, as per the Marshall Institute's recent studies.

By David Wade (Submitted: 06/25/2006 4:06 pm)
Neither of them can claim to be right or wrong. One is a Politician, and the other is a Writer. Neither of those professions has 'Truth on our side'. Though I did find, that when I was a manual writer that telling the truth didn't usually pay as well. I suspect that we can weigh the amount of money those two have and probably get a good 'first approximation' which one tells the truth more often. Though, upon further reflection, there are writers who NEVER tell the truth. But then, there are politicians who NEVER tell the truth as well. I'd guess it would be a 'wash'.

And yes, I 'wanted to believe' that somewhere, there was someone who was capable of independently coming to similar conclusions to mine. That this entire Global Warming thing is driven by lust, and greed, and several more of the seven deadly sins...

[Hazzle]

All this thread needs to be complete is naked lesbians wrestling in mud...

Done and done...

[dave]

Take That!
and That! Yield or be wrapped in a ball of Clay!

I love it.

[AureaMediocritas]

Originally Posted by dave

FlightFreak, I'm curious. Not that it matters, but are you a Socialist? I've never actually met a Socialist who had balls enough to stand up and admit it. Well, maybe a 'Wobblie', but never a Socialist. Bruce 'Utah' Phillips is an Anarchist. You live in Belgium, so it doesn't matter if you are honest about this one tiny thing. Are you a Socialist? I phrased that wrong. What I really meant to ask is "Do you believe in some form of Socialism?" Do you believe that the rich people should give up most of what they have to support the poor?

Funny, you sound like Mc Carthy. You should have asked if "he goes green"
(ecologist party), something you might never have heard of in the U.S.
And yes, I guess ecology must be something like heresy where you live.

[Hazzle]

Err, they have a Green Party in the states. Ralph Nader has stood for president 3 times.

I think he was talking about Pete's overwhelmingly anti-corporate philosophy. Which isn't entirely ecological. Pete's politics definitely cross the line between green and socialist.

[dave]

The Santa Fe FreeNewMexican Discussion Forum

By Mike Jorgensen (Submitted: 06/30/2006 3:34 pm)A very good press release was issued by a Senate Committee on the AP article claiming scientist's support for Gore's film, here:

U.S. Government Environment & Public Works Senate Report

Of course those who choose will again ignore it.

By Mike Jorgensen (Submitted: 07/01/2006 11:51 am)A recent letter by a group of 60 prominent scientists was also sent to the new PM of Canada to re-examine Kyoto:

Citizen Review Online .Org

These are from one of the other discussions I've been having about this particular subject. It's my belief that Mike Jorgensen is a Climatologist and has been for over 35 years. (Though that's just from things he's said, and the manner in which he says it. [We all know how easy it is to pretend to be something you are not on the Internet, but I think he is truthful.] )

[dave]

Originally Posted by Flightfreak

Indeed Dave like you say and like I’m trying to explain to you. The data is incomplete, you can say the conclusion drawn out of the incomplete data is incorrect as the data is incomplete. All scientific reports I read emphasise that more data is needed. The press however likes to make breaking news that’s why you better read the reports instead of all the media articles brought up. The reason conclusions are made out of incomplete data is because there is a risk for far-reaching consequences.

I agree that the Press is responsible for a lot of this; but a much larger part of the problem seems to be the way that 'Scientists' misrepresent the situation. We are talking about 'Global Warming' which will not raise the Global Temperature more than three or four degrees in the next century. Why would you guys panic over that? The threat isn't near as bad as you all pretend. It is like you are yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded theater. You are educated enough to know that what you are talking about is a miniscule change. You know that melting the North Pole will actually lower the sea level. (i.e. Ice floats. Ice expands when frozen and contracts when it melts.) You know that if it is one degree warmer for the next ten years that is still within the error bars for the measurement. What's the big deal? People are lying. And you tell me that 'Scientists' are lying as well. Is that a crime? They are trying to pump up their image, make themselves into 'Heroes' instead of people who couldn't actually finish their Physics degrees... They just want a little 'respect.' They had no idea that 'The Press' were such nincompoops that they couldn't understand that the Climatologists were talking about a hundred year event...

Originally Posted by Flightfreak

<snip>Any reputable American republican Journal you mean.

You seem to believe that this is a Political Issue. That being the case, why should anyone care?

Originally Posted by Flightfreak

<snip>Dave IF we’re really influencing the climate, a lot more than was thought before and like you think, then everyday we do nothing is a day too much. If you want your country to wait another day, month, year, decennia, till the day, they can actually prove it is happening or not, then you do not only make a choice for your own country but for the whole world.

This is not true. Ask the Indians and the Chinese to stop their development.

Originally Posted by Flightfreak

If it is indeed happening than is your country for a huge part responsible for the consequences. Every Scientific political “neutral” journal will agree with the fact that the data is indeed incomplete and that conclusions are not yet to be made, but they’ll also agree that we better do something about the things that happen to be maybe causing it.

You've said this before, and I still disagree with you. There is no reason for us to go back to the Energy Expenditure levels of the 1920s just in case you might be right that the Earth is going to be ONE degree warmer next decade.

Originally Posted by Flightfreak

Dave, the United States of America is one of the biggest Polluters of the world and you know just as I do that you don’t change something like that in one week.

OK, lets just for a minute take this as a true statement, (It no longer is true that the US is the biggest polluter. We just have the biggest cars.) What the flip does that have to do with 'Global Warming?' You, yourself, pointed out that CO2 is not an issue with respect to 'Global Warming.' You have fallen from your 'high ground,' and now you are adding garbage into this discussion that doesn't belong here. Pollution is not a World Problem. It has no place in this discussion. You said so, many of the Scientific Papers which you quoted say so as well. Get Over It!

Originally Posted by Flightfreak

<snip>The only reason why someone should not take the benefit of the doubt is an economical reason in short term. In long term is economically seen, every day without doing something about the things that happen to “maybe” causing global warming a day backwards or do you hope that we’ll genetically adjust to the pollution we face everyday again and that we will accidentally find new oil reservoirs that will keep our rising needs satisfied?

So now you are worried about the money involved in the solution? Why? There is a trivial solution. It's called Nuclear Power Plants. Are you going to force us to put in more Nuclear Power Plants? That's what your arguments are doing. Come back with a solution that doesn't involve the US going back to the Energy Expenditure level of the 1920s OR putting in dozens of Nuclear Power Plants. Incidently, I did tell you that I worked at Los Alamos National Lab for the last twenty years or so, did I also mention that I live less than a hundred miles from 'The Four Corners Power Plants that supply most of the electricity for Los Angeles? Well, awhile back one of my Scientist friends measured the radiation levels emitted by those Power Plants. Guess what he found out? Did you know that burning coal emits radiation? It does when the coal comes from the same area where they mine the Uranium.

Originally Posted by Flightfreak

<snip>If you believe that there has to be done something about air pollution, deforestation, desertification, shrink of surface water,…

If you believe that we desperately need to do something about our dependence on oil and energy in common.

Than I agree with you on the fact that conclusions should not yet be made because the data is incomplete and so thus conclusions incorrect. Nevertheless when you claim such thing you should add that something should be done about our dependence on oil, and things like air pollution, deforestation, desertification, shrink of surface water. Those happen to be the things that maybe influence global warming.

Nuclear Power Plants.

Originally Posted by Flightfreak

<snip>I want people to realise that the only reason 1/6 of the world population today has 4/5 of the world wealth today is because the other 5/6 of the world has to do with 1/5 of the world health. (simplified!)

That's not true. The major difference between my country and yours is Democracy. Think about it.

Originally Posted by Flightfreak

<snip> For example in 1995 the USA obligated through the IMF Haiti to lower it import tax on US rice from 35% down to 3%.

Two minor points here. The President then was Clinton, a Democrat. The second point, (according to my friend Tom Smith, who knows and cares a lot more about this stuff than I) It was sugar. The major bad thing we did was the price of sugar and the taxes there. If you are going to slam our Foreign Policy, get it right.

Originally Posted by Flightfreak

Haiti is the poorest country in the Western hemisphere, and one of the most disadvantaged countries in the developing world.

No Education, a Dictatorship, and few educated workers.

Originally Posted by Flightfreak

<snip>You can’t be rich if someone else isn’t poor.

I’m not a socialist I’m Flightfreak aka Pieter, I’m not that close minded to stick to one party, to one idea. Here in Flanders we have about 8 parties going from extreme right to extreme left, from socialists to liberalists to environmentalists…

Not just a stupid close minded two biggest party system with republicans who hate everything that comes from a democrat and visa versa like in your country!

Well, Pieter, I guess I don't believe that. People are rich or poor based more on what is going on around them. I've never, personally, forced someone to be poor. As for the political systems we have here, I wouldn't know. I'm 'undeclared' or 'Declines to State' I do find it hard to talk to Republicans and Democrats because they seem to take it personal. The Democrats are trying to put in a 'nanny state,' and the Republicans seem to be going for a 'Libertarian' State, and because the Democrats have been in power so long, before this current President, there is so much 'nanny state' already installed that we are very close to Aristotle's 200 year limit for Democracy. And 'The Clintons' are trying to become the first Man & Wife Presidents... That worries me much more than the coming 400 years of 'Global Warming'.

[Bullitt]

Next 400 years of global warming, it's happening right now, it has been happening shits melting. Animals, people you name it are dying, and will continue to die. Jesus Christ get out of your bubble, this is destroying everything, not just or Democracy everything!!! So you should be worried, I don't care about the shit that fucks us up, that we start, but now we're messing everything up!! Killing everything, isn't that alittle self-centered. And get over, and stop hiding behind your denial about it's not happening, because every scientist agrees with it... NO ONE is denying it, only the ignorant, and the scared!!!

So what are you, ignorant or scared?

[runangl]

does anyone else think of the first episode of superman: the animated series, when they read all this stuff?

THE WORLD IS GUNNA END, and then brainiac will have all the information. how cool is that???