Global Warming is Bullsh!t!

[RainMaker]

I think it's funny when people use the line about scientists lying about this for the money. I don't view scientists working on research like this as the "in it for the money crowd".

But what gets me is they ignore the massive interest Big Oil and Big Energy have to stop this. You're talking about pennies in grants when it comes to what these companies can lose by allowing innovation into the marketplace. They have massive amounts of money to throw at lobbyists and PR firms. Heck, they are the ones that buy off our politicians to start trillion dollar wars so we can lay claim to some oil-rich lands. But somehow the scientists without all this firepower are the ones obstructing the issue.

That's not a stance on the issue as I'm not a scientist and couldn't grasp the complexity of it. I would rather trust the opinions of climatologists than oil executives and talking heads. But if you don't think Big Oil has influence, just look back at the campaigns where they somehow managed to herd enough sheep into a room to chant "Drill Baby Drill" at rallies. That's some fucking public relation skills.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I would rather trust the opinions of climatologists .

That would be nice. But do you know that the head of the UN IPCC - possibly the most important influence on this whole debate - is a Hindu vegetarian railway engineer from India who, not surprisingly, advocates reducing CO2 emissions by eating less red meat, taxing airlines out of existence and using trains instead, imposing the majority of CO2 cuts on the developed world while simultaneously defending the Indian government's recent decision to base it's development on coal fired power stations? You'll also be pleased to know he hates America

But climatologist? A railway engineer?

But not being a climatologist does not make you a stranger on the IPCC.

I'm a sceptic. I'm proud to be a sceptic. After all I'm a scientist and the very essence of science is scepticism. Any man who sets out to demonise the word "sceptic" is no scientist.

But my scepticism on this is less about the message - I accept that the world is warming and CO2 a significant cause in that - but more about the messengers and the manner of their communication of the message that savages the science.

An hour ago I watched a news item on TV. They interviewed a contributor to the Copenhagen summit. A politician I think. He told us how he was horrified that the world had warmed up by "three to five" degrees in the last century. He didn't bat an eyelid as he said it.

I too would be horrified if those figures were even remotely correct. But no one bothered to correct him or question his numbers. These numbers went out onto the airways as fact.

That's the crap that causes my scepticism! Too much of the message is coming from guys who haven't got a clue, couldn't care less about that because they're on the band wagon - and probably the gravy train too.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Also, it's only a political football in the US. The rest of the Western world, even conservatives in those countries, admit the Earth is warming due to human activity.

[Neon_Chaos]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

As I said before, even if global warming is a massive hoax created by a conspiracy of Al Gore, Greenpeace, small start-up wind companies, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster, we should still be working toward a world with a small carbon footprint.

Also, it's only a political football in the US. The rest of the Western world, even conservatives in those countries, admit the Earth is warming due to human activity.

Even in 3rd world countries, we pretty much are resigned to the fact that the weather has gotten shittier the past decade. Of course, we couldn't care if they call it global warming or not, just that pollution and the burning of fossil fuels is a definite factor.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos

Even in 3rd world countries, we pretty much are resigned to the fact that the weather has gotten shittier the past decade. Of course, we couldn't care if they call it global warming or not, just that pollution and the burning of fossil fuels is a definite factor.

I remember back in the 80s reading about how folks were getting spoiled because we were in a mild weather pattern, and when it returned to normal they'd be all upset at the increase in hurricanes and other severe weather incidents when in reality we'd just be regressing to the mean. Maybe the climatologists actually got one right ;-)

[gstelmack]

This is an interesting take on why it's so difficult to have a good discussion from either side in this debate:

The distorted global-warming debate - CNN.com

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

That would be nice. But do you know that the head of the UN IPCC - possibly the most important influence on this whole debate - is a Hindu vegetarian railway engineer from India who, not surprisingly, advocates reducing CO2 emissions by eating less red meat, taxing airlines out of existence and using trains instead, imposing the majority of CO2 cuts on the developed world while simultaneously defending the Indian government's recent decision to base it's development on coal fired power stations? You'll also be pleased to know he hates America

But climatologist? A railway engineer?

But not being a climatologist does not make you a stranger on the IPCC.

I'm a sceptic. I'm proud to be a sceptic. After all I'm a scientist and the very essence of science is scepticism. Any man who sets out to demonise the word "sceptic" is no scientist.

But my scepticism on this is less about the message - I accept that the world is warming and CO2 a significant cause in that - but more about the messengers and the manner of their communication of the message that savages the science.

An hour ago I watched a news item on TV. They interviewed a contributor to the Copenhagen summit. A politician I think. He told us how he was horrified that the world had warmed up by "three to five" degrees in the last century. He didn't bat an eyelid as he said it.

I too would be horrified if those figures were even remotely correct. But no one bothered to correct him or question his numbers. These numbers went out onto the airways as fact.

That's the crap that causes my scepticism! Too much of the message is coming from guys who haven't got a clue, couldn't care less about that because they're on the band wagon - and probably the gravy train too.

I don't care what someone on the UN says. I'm talking about actual climatologists. Scientists who study the climate. Not their messengers, not their advocates, but the actual scientists.

I don't understand what messengers like Al Gore or the Indian railway driver have to do with the actual science and beliefs of these scientists. It's another case of trying to discredit the messenger because the other stuff can't be. It's typical politics and should have no business in real science.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't understand what messengers like Al Gore or the Indian railway driver have to do with the actual science and beliefs of these scientists. It's another case of trying to discredit the messenger because the other stuff can't be. It's typical politics and should have no business in real science.

But you immediately discredit any climatologist who has ties to big energy?

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

it probably has more to do with some dispute they are having with a competing local university because of personal dislike of other scientists than anything else i'd bet

It could simply be self-reassuring: East Anglia will be the first to go here if sea levels rise!

[molson]

Do people really think "big energy" isn't going to continue to control energy in the future, no matter its form? Their fates aren't necessarily tied to oil and coal.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by molson

Do people really think "big energy" isn't going to continue to control energy in the future, no matter its form? Their fates aren't necessarily tied to oil and coal.

I don't care who delivers energy to us- be it Exxon, the Catholic church, or the Seattle Clown College if they can deliver it cleaner and with a higher regard to the environment. Right now the system in place only incentivises them to deliver it in the way that maximizes their profits.

SI

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't care what someone on the UN says. I'm talking about actual climatologists. Scientists who study the climate. Not their messengers, not their advocates, but the actual scientists.

I don't understand what messengers like Al Gore or the Indian railway driver have to do with the actual science and beliefs of these scientists. It's another case of trying to discredit the messenger because the other stuff can't be. It's typical politics and should have no business in real science.

You may not care, and you may be right not to care, but unfortunately whether or not YOU care what someone at the UN thinks doesn't really matter. We live in the world we have, not the world we want to have, and in the world we have, the entire Copenhagen conference is being run by the UN, Al Gore's hanging out there and will be promoting his ideas, and the science is most definitely politicized on both sides.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Don't worry Cam, when the UN/Obama/Al Gore reeducation camps come, we'll let you have a toy gun to play with.

i couldn't help myself -

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Don't worry Cam, when the UN/Obama/Al Gore reeducation camps come, we'll let you have a toy gun to play with.

So you're okay with these folks spouting off half-truths, misleading facts, and outright lies?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

So you're okay with these folks spouting off half-truths, misleading facts, and outright lies?

Obviously you didn't see the movie. It was well over 50% true.

[DaddyTorgo]

Steve - I think you left the ZOG out of your list of organizations - or were you theorizing that the ZOG will take over the UN and make it a puppet?

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

i couldn't help myself -

It doesn't take much to amuse you, does it?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

It doesn't take much to amuse you, does it?

oh c'mon it was funny. the image of you with a little toy gun in some "reeducation camp" type setting? it got me laughing.

no offense or anything - was just a funny mental-picture

[AlexB]

TBH Steve is the only reason I'm reading this thread - he's hilarious! His posts are either a fantastically ironic commentary on alarmists, or he is Al Gore - I'm still 50:50.

I'd be putting my money on The Inconvenient One if it weren't for the 'should we have waited on Iraq' analogy earlier - that threw me: pure genius!

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't care what someone on the UN says. I'm talking about actual climatologists. Scientists who study the climate. Not their messengers, not their advocates, but the actual scientists.

In a perfect world that would be the fine. But the scientists' voices are being drowned out by the politicians and the media. And why would the average guy know better?

On this morning's news we have our indian friend pontificating on climate change. He was introduced as the IPCC's "head scientist".

He's a @#$%^&* railway engineer!

I don't understand what messengers like Al Gore or the Indian railway driver have to do with the actual science and beliefs of these scientists

Unfortunately it's the Al Gores and railway engineers who are driving the message. The real scientific message is buried beneath the crap these guys are putting out. You can't get at the scientific message for the crap and you're left wondering what the real truth is.

Let me illustrate that thus:

A couple of weeks ago I read about the American government setting up a high level think tank at MIT. Apparently they have brought together a number of the best scientists in the appropriate fields, both pro and anti climate change. Believing that the world's politicians simply will never agree to the level of cuts necessary to cut CO2 sufficiently their remit is to see if there's a way of combating CO2's global warming through technology. Some thing that creates a counteractive global cooling.

Apparently they believe they have a solution and it will only cost $50 million dollars instead of the trillions cutting CO2 will cost though considerable research is still needed before the idea is considered safe.

Sounds great right? Trouble is that the credibility of the whole debate means that I haven't a clue whether this is true or a piece of crap put out by the "sceptics". That is the consequence of the loss of control of the debate by scientists.

Even if it is true the situation illustrates how the rigidity of the pro climate change argument is damaging research. That's because the solution has come from studying why the last ten years of world temperatures have leveled out. This leveling out, of course, is something the pro climate change crowd like to ignore because it doesn't quite fit their ideas.

In other words a potential solution has been missed because the scientists have chosen to ignore a piece of inconvenient data.

The leveling out of world temperatures, at the very least, tells you that CO2 warming is not the only cause operating on climate change because CO2 is continuing to be emitted in increasing amounts but the temperature is not rising - multiple causes of climate change is something the pro climate change scientists like to deny. Something apparently has happened recently that has countered the CO2 warming.

But that, of course, is only true if the leveling out is true and in the current climate who can believe anything?

That is the consequence of this high-jacking of the debate by politicians and media - who can believe anything that either side says?

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

oh c'mon it was funny. the image of you with a little toy gun in some "reeducation camp" type setting? it got me laughing.

no offense or anything - was just a funny mental-picture

You don't have to explain away or apologize for your sense of humor. I just don't think it takes much to amuse you.

BTW, thought this line at Deceiver.com was great.

hxxp://deceiver.com/2009/12/07/no-sleep-till-carbonhagen/

Taking a private jet to a conference on stopping global warming is a bit like traveling in a sedan chair carried by indentured servants to a summit on stopping human trafficking.

The whole piece is pretty good though. 1200 limos driven in from as far away as Germany and Sweden? And this was interesting as well:

The airport says it is expecting up to 140 extra private jets during the peak period alone, so far over its capacity that the planes will have to fly off to regional airports – or to Sweden – to park, returning to Copenhagen to pick up their VIP passengers.

The funny thing is that people like Steve Bollea would rather get annoyed at me for not being skeptical, rather than getting fucking furious at the people who are both advocating for new laws governing our behavior while they put on a conference with a carboon footprint the size of Morocco. I guess it's not just the scientists who want to politicize this issue.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Yes, they all should've flown coach on Southwest instead. By the way, nice line with "new laws governing our behavior." All laws govern behavior. That's the whole point of them. But I'm sure it sounds scary.

What's the matter with video-conferencing? Especially in a case like this where the discussion is so focused on carbon footprint?

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Yes, they all should've flown coach on Southwest instead. By the way, nice line with "new laws governing our behavior." All laws govern behavior. That's the whole point of them. But I'm sure it sounds scary.

The funny thing is that people like Steve Bollea would rather get annoyed at me for not being skeptical, rather than getting fucking furious at the people who are both advocating for new laws governing our behavior while they put on a conference with a carboon footprint the size of Morocco. I guess it's not just the scientists who want to politicize this issue.

I realize I'm largely recycling my last post, but a) it still fits and b) it's good for the environment.

I also compost SteveBollea's posts. They make for great fertilizer.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I also compost SteveBollea's posts. They make for great fertilizer.

Cam Edwards is a green weenie ... who woulda thunk it?

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

oh c'mon it was funny. the image of you with a little toy gun in some "reeducation camp" type setting? it got me laughing.

no offense or anything - was just a funny mental-picture

I gotta agree with DT here. Well maybe one or two too many laughing smilies.

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

...

I also compost SteveBollea's posts. They make for great fertilizer.

This one deserves a few smilies too

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Cam Edwards is a green weenie ... who woulda thunk it?

I prefer the term "gweenie", thank you very much.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

What's the matter with video-conferencing? Especially in a case like this where the discussion is so focused on carbon footprint?

That makes far too much sense.

[sterlingice]

Well, we don't know if anything will come from this meeting (probably not). But I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that most high pressure deals and decisions don't get made over video conference lines.

SI

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

But I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that most high pressure deals and decisions don't get made while traveling abroad for political PR events.

Fixed.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Well, we don't know if anything will come from this meeting (probably not). But I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that most high pressure deals and decisions don't get made over video conference lines.

SI

But they've never had to be made over video conference lines before. However, if our planet is dying, then isn't it time learn to do things differently?

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Well, we don't know if anything will come from this meeting (probably not). But I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that most high pressure deals and decisions don't get made over video conference lines.

SI

Perhaps, but isn't this an area where we need to start modifying our behavior? Why should it be necessary to negotiate and make deals in person when there are other options available?

I know on a much more micro level, it annoys me how little real progress has been made by companies adopting telecommuting and video conferencing as standard practices - still a ton of waste that happens on a local level in that area, based mainly (IMO) on fear of change, or at the very least not enough willpower to overcome the status quo.

An event like this, especially given the subject matter, would be a good way of promoting smarter practices that show efforts to lower carbon footprint is something more than lip-service.

[mauchow]

So.. Greenhouse Gases are going to kill us all.

[RomaGoth]

More great news from the pinnacle of factual information, the U.N.:

By CHARLES J. HANLEY, AP Special Correspondent Charles J. Hanley, Ap Special Correspondent – 1 hr 2 mins ago
COPENHAGEN – This decade is very likely to be the warmest since record-keeping began in 1850, and 2009 could rank among the top-five warmest years, the U.N. weather agency reported Tuesday on the second day of a pivotal 192-nation climate conference.
In some areas — parts of Africa and Central Asia — this will probably be the warmest year, but overall 2009 "is likely to be about the fifth-warmest year on record," said Michel Jarraud, secretary-general of the World Meteorological Organization.
The decade 2000-2009 "is very likely to be the warmest on record, warmer than the 1990s, than the 1980s and so on," Jarraud said at a news conference, holding up a chart with a temperature curve pointing upward.
If 2009 ends as the fifth-warmest year, it would replace the year 2003. According to the U.S. space agency NASA, the other warmest years since 1850 have been 2005, 1998, 2007 and 2006. NASA says the differences in readings among these years are so small as to be statistically insignificant.
The data were released as negotiators at the two-week talks in Copenhagen worked Tuesday to craft a global deal to step up efforts to stem climate change, digging into the dense technicalities of "metrics" and "gas inventories."
Governments, meanwhile, jockeyed for position leading up to the finale late next week, when more than 100 national leaders, including President Barack Obama, will converge on Copenhagen for the final days of bargaining.
Scientists say without an agreement to wean the world away from fossil fuels and other pollutants to greener sources of energy, the Earth will face the consequences of ever-rising temperatures: The extinction of plant and animals, the flooding of coastal cities, more extreme weather, more drought and the spread of diseases.
In Britain, Prime Minister Gordon Brown urged fellow Europeans to raise their bid on reducing greenhouse gas emissions to pressure the U.S. and others to offer more at the Copenhagen negotiations.
"We've got to make countries recognize that they have to be as ambitious as they say they want to be. It's not enough to say 'I may do this, I might do this, possibly I'll do this.' I want to create a situation in which the European Union is persuaded to go to 30 percent," Brown was quoted as saying by Britain's Guardian newspaper.
The EU has pledged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent by 2020, compared with 1990, and is considering raising that to 30 percent if other governments also aim high. EU leaders will have an opportunity to make such a move at a summit on Thursday and Friday in Brussels.
On Monday, when the climate conference opened, the Obama administration gave the talks a boost by announcing steps that could lead to new U.S. emissions controls that don't require the approval of the U.S. Congress.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said scientific evidence clearly shows that greenhouse gases "threaten the public health and welfare of the American people" and that the pollutants — mainly carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels — should be reduced, if not by Congress then by the agency responsible for enforcing air pollution.
As Congress considers the first U.S. legislation to cap carbon emissions, the EPA finding will enable the Obama administration to act on greenhouse gases without congressional action, potentially imposing federal limits on climate-changing pollution from cars, power plants and factories.
The announcement gave Obama a new card to deal in what is expected to be tough bargaining next week at the climate conference. In preparation, Obama met with former Vice President Al Gore, who won a Nobel for his climate change efforts, on Monday at the White House.
The EU called for a stronger bid by the Americans, who thus far have pledged emissions cuts much less ambitious than Europe's. The U.S. has offered a 17 percent reduction in emissions from their 2005 level — comparable to a 3-4 percent cut from 1990 levels.
The result in Copenhagen "will mostly be on what will be delivered by the United States and China," the world's two biggest greenhouse-gas emitters, EU environment spokesman Andreas Carlgren told reporters. He said he would be astonished if Obama did not put more on the table.
Whether the prospect of EPA action will satisfy such demands — and what China may now add to its earlier offer — remains to be seen. And success in the long-running climate talks hinges on more than emissions reductions. Most important, it requires commitments of financial support by rich countries for poor nations to help them cope with the impact of a changing climate.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

More great news from the pinnacle of factual information, the U.N.:

This thread needs a UN-based laugh track. Some of this stuff is so bad it's laughable.

Saw this op-ed over at Real Clear Politics about the situation.........

RealClearPolitics - Torquemada in East Anglia

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

This thread needs a UN-based laugh track. Some of this stuff is so bad it's laughable.

Saw this op-ed over at Real Clear Politics about the situation.........

RealClearPolitics - Torquemada in East Anglia

We can also play the laugh track everytime the UN asks us to send troops somewhere while they sit home on their asses. But, that is a bit off topic here I suppose....

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

More great news from the pinnacle of factual information, the U.N.:

This is precisely why I get so angry about the presentation of the climate change argument. This is the deliberate misrepresentation of data.

The sceptical argument is that temperatures have ceased to increase in the last ten years. How many years are the hottest on record is irrelevant - no one is arguing that temperatures didn't rise before 1998.

The statistics show that there has been no year hotter than 1998. Therefore temperatures have leveled out, or even reduced, since 1998.

That is the very opposite of global warming predictions. That is "the inconvenient truth" that needs answering and no slight of hand with statistics will change that and the refusal to deal with it and factor it in is precisely why scepticism is justified !!!!

And another fact worth mentioning: records began in 1860. We were exiting a mini ice age in 1860.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

This is precisely why I get so angry about the presentation of the climate change argument. This is the deliberate misrepresentation of data.

The sceptical argument is that temperatures have ceased to increase in the last ten years. How many years are the hottest on record is irrelevant - no one is arguing that temperatures rose before 1998.

The statistics show that there has been no year hotter than 1998. Therefore temperatures have leveled out, or even reduced, since 1998.

That is the very opposite of global warming predictions. That is "the inconvenient truth" that needs answering and no slight of hand with statistics will change that !!!!

umm...10 years in the blink of global climitology is the equivelent of like 1 second in your life. would you mesure how good your day was going based on 1 second? how about how good your life was going?

(note...the numbers are not to scale...just saying...you can't draw any conclusions from 10 years of data)

[Warhammer]

Yet you can on 3 seconds?

EDIT: Sorry, I should have said the previous 2?

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

umm...10 years in the blink of global climitology is the equivelent of like 1 second in your life. would you mesure how good your day was going based on 1 second? how about how good your life was going?

(note...the numbers are not to scale...just saying...you can't draw any conclusions from 10 years of data)

You should have seen all of those magazine issues and online articles after the aberrational 2005 hurricane season saying that the next year will be even worse. Anyone can justify their position (pro or con) based on a 1-year, 10-year, 150-year sample.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

umm...10 years in the blink of global climitology is the equivelent of like 1 second in your life. would you mesure how good your day was going based on 1 second? how about how good your life was going?

(note...the numbers are not to scale...just saying...you can't draw any conclusions from 10 years of data)

The whole argument is based on 160 years not a "global climatology" scale. Ten years is not the "blink of an eye" when records are only from the last 160 or when we are dealing with the next 41 years (until 2050).

If you want to extend the period then it's plain that the global temperature was higher than today both in the first few centuries AD when Romans were growing grapes in Scotland and during the 12/13 centuries when the Vikings settled a green and fertile Greenland. Was humankind in danger of extinction then. Not in my history books.

I'm not a sceptic about global warming but the leveling out of temperatures in the last 10 years needs dealing with and not shovelling under the carpet with misrepresented statistics. This morning's statement by "British scientists" that 2009 was "one of the hottest on record", was clearly meant to answer the leveling argument during the Copenhagen summit but, not only does it not do that, it actually confirms it because 2009 was still lower than 1998.

The predictions are increased temperatures and that hasn't happened. This suggests that something has (temporarily perhaps) countered the effects of CO2 warming indicating that CO2 is not the only influence..

Scientists need to deal with ALL the information not cherry-pick that that suits the theory.

[tarcone]

LOL on global warming. I remember in the 70s when the next ice age was coming. Scaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrryyyyyyyyy.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Al Gore is love.

[CamEdwards]

I thought this was interesting:

The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Some of the “Homogenizedâ€� Temperature Data isÂ*False

[tarcone]

Have you heard the latest on how the dinosaurs became extinct? They were so large that the poop the left caused too much CO2 which in turn caused global warming. That killed them all off and with no dinosaurs the Earth cooled and regenerated itself.

[RainMaker]

[CamEdwards]

either the scale in that painting is way off, or that's MC 30 Foot Jesus riding a Diplodocus.

[RomaGoth]

I still don't get why he is carrying an alligator in one hand. Is he going to swing that thing at someone or something?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

I still don't get why he is carrying an alligator in one hand. Is he going to swing that thing at someone or something?

He has an alligator because chainsaws hadn't been invented yet.

[RainMaker]

If you're bored and a nerd, this is kind of a fun online tool. You can follow NASA's satellites and see all the data they've grabbed. Takes awhile to load and they might make you download something but it's fun to play with once you get the hang of it.

Eyes on the Earth

[Glengoyne]

How can this thread be on page three this week? Is everyone who cares about global warming in Copenhagen?

Also, by looking at the last page or so, have all of the global warming alarmists quit following the thread? If I'm going to be called a flat earth skeptic, then I'm going to dub those who disagree with me "alarmists".

I was made happy by Al Gore's misstep. Happy enough to come here and


Bump.