Global Warming ?

It's offical, the WORLDS Hottest Year on Record well that's what they say ? im still abit unsure who's telling the truth for or against. I n my home state Perth , Western Australia it's one of our mildest summers on record. We'ved had the odd 40c plus day but overall been mid 20's to mid 30's which is below par. Water seems to be the more important issue at least in Australia. I see L Gore trotting the globe preaching the Word ( not the benny hinn word) anyway what you's all think ? Roseman07 Downunder in Oz.. :cool :wave

 

Global warming is a natural trend of nature. Mother nature is in control not us.

Now, humans may have sped it along...maybe. It would have happened sooner or later, regardless.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_cycle

1,500-year climate cycle

• Human activities have little to do with the Earth's current warming trend, according to a study published by the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA). In fact, S. Fred Singer (University of Virginia) and Dennis Avery (Hudson Institute) conclude that global warming and cooling seem to be part of a 1,500-year cycle of moderate temperature swings.

 

In my opinion, the whole global warming topic is highly over-rated. I agree with Adrynalyne that human activity has very little to do with what is a normal cycle our planet goes through.

I read some data on gases that are commonly released during volcano eruptions . . . like the one some years ago in the Philippines . . . and was surprised at the amount of "Greenhouse" gases that are released naturally by our planet. The aforementioned volcano released more carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide - three principal gases blamed for the "Greenhouse effect" - these are the 'heavyweights', (and by the way, comprise over 95% of US "Greenhouse" emissions - and a like percentage of most other nations) based on the GWP or "Global Warming Potential" developed by the fans of this dubious science - then all of mankind's activity since the industrial age began. How many volcano eruptions have there been in the earth's history? We are still here . . .

I am not saying that man doesn't put some really nasty crap into the environment . . . we do, and that is a fact. I believe, however, the attention and trillions of dollars screamed for by the Kyoto Protocol could be better directed to those chemicals and gases that do not appear in nature and that the industrialised nations release into the air, water, and soil that all life on the planet depend on (even though the amount of these engineered gases is small compared to the natural gases, and their overall impact is hard to calculate).

The Kyoto Protocol is misguided in science and driven by politics, and needs to be scrapped.

Don't even get me started on Al Gore . . . I am aghast but not at all surprised at how well his "docu-crap" was received by Hollywood . . .

 

Apathy lies close to evil

 

I am in agreement that the earth with do as it will and we are a bit full of ourselves thinking we can control a planets enviroment.

Great post by acejones and others.

 

http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/wa/20060901b.shtml

Perth's driest and equal warmest winter on record
Rainfall - record low: The city received a record low winter rainfall of 230.4 mm over 35 days in 2006, compared with the average of 485 mm over 50 days. The previous driest winter was 260.0 mm on 40 days in 1940. Last winter, Perth recorded 438.4 mm over 45 days. Rainfall totals for individual months this winter were: June 24.6 mm (average 179 mm), July 81.0 mm (average 171 mm) and August 124.8 mm (average 135 mm). The wettest day in winter was 15 August when 27.0 mm of rain fell.

Mean daily maximum temperature: The mean daily maximum temperature for Perth this winter of 19.7°C was the equal highest mean daily maximum temperature on record, also recorded in 1976 and 1983. The average for winter is 18.6°C. Last winter the mean daily maximum temperature was 18.3°C. Daily values ranged from a cold 14.6 degrees on 21 July to a warm 26.7°C on the 29 August.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course these both occuring in the same year could be coincidence

I guess that the leading cancer in Australia is skin cancer could also be coincidental to the fact that Australia is one of the closest countries to the hole in the ozone layer as well
(assuming you believe in the hole in the ozone layer that is rolleyes )

regardless of whether we caused or assisted in any of this, if we have a chance to at least slow these processes down; even if we only care about ourselves - we should take it

 

The planet is millions of years old. It has survived massive earthquakes in the thousands, volcanic eruptions that have blackened the atmosphere for weeks, Ice ages, massive floods, bombardment from space garbage like asteroids that cause craters the size of the Grand Canyon, countless other natural disasters, and we think a few Styrofoam coffee cups are going to push it over the edge?

 

the recent rise in temps globally I think can be directly attributed to the also recent rise in the numbers of politicians worldwide spouting more and more hot air. temps seem to be on the rise wherever there is a concentration of these windbags. Adrynaline has vista.....mine are politicians and lawyers.

 

When before in history has the Earth had to survive the population explosion of a particular species of this magnitude? I mean, there was a boom of 4 BILLION (67% of the current population) people since 1950!!! (Link)

Coupled with that species' unparalleled ability to create machines/autonomous systems??

The issue isn't whether we are destroying the planet itself, but rather our ability to live on this planet; the planet will survive us, of course! Believe me, we've hit the jackpot, here! Our planet is so finely-tuned to support life. The odds of another planet like our own are infinitesimal. (Link) We beat the odds on this planet. All the variables required to support life are here. I don't think we should rock the boat, if we can avoid it...

To say that we can't have an effect on the earth is like saying that the influenza virus can't have an effect on the human body because it is too small in comparison. True, the odds of any given individual organism causing an impact is small, but with the large number of organisms, it is very likely there will be an impact (E(x)=p(x)n - expected number of occurances is equal to probability of occurance times number of possible occurances - in this case, the probability of any one human ruining the environment time 6.5 billion)

As for the "1500 year climate-cycle", I have to say, that's fairly suspect! The research was funded by freaking Exxon/Mobil! The NCPA is completely biased on the subject (Link)

Also, it's incongruent with data collected around the world!

This link is the BBC's article, titled CO2 'highest for 650,000 years'

This link has NASA's data on the subject!

CO2 ABSORBS INFRARED!! Infrared is heat. The data is there. It shouldn't be ignored.

 

A few years back, well maybe quite a few, they were predicting a new ice age, forget what that was being blamed on but I'm sure something we were doing.

 

Thank god you posted something Mata I'm sick of it being me against everyone else I'm too tired ATM the argue various points but yeh I think we're screwing up the planet,I dont really care much about anything else other than the oceans rising and people moving inland causing overpopulation problems and I dont care much about that because I doubt I'll have any kids

But are we screwing up the planet with CO2?Hell yeh,we're our own worse nightmare

 

Extinction is also a natural process. It happened before we were here, too. We either evolve, or we die off.

OOOOOOH!


BUUUUUURN!

Take that Rikky

 

I'm TRYING to grow iron lungs, I REALLY am....

 

Try harder, damnit. Only the strong survive.


roflmao

 

Great post and thanks for the extra information. Regardless if we are responsible for the current change in climate (which I think we are btw) whats wrong with recycling our resources and moving away from polluting the environment just for the sake of doing it? If I can help keep the earth clean and beautiful so my children can enjoy our beautiful planet just the same or better than how I have, it's worth it. To me, it's a moral issue, and I think its our duty to the planet that has given us so much for so long.

 

In retrospect, I have to say that my links are pretty crappy. LOL

http://www.astrobio.net/news/article236.html

Here's something much more technical/interesting on the "rare earth" we have.

 

Now that you've expressed you apathy your sure to be reincarnated.

 

I was wondering when a "nerve" would be hit.

 

Thinking things are not changing for the worse, with the shrinking rain forests and pollution etc, is sticking your head in a bucket pretending things are ok as they are and anything that isn't, is somebody else's problem.

I do not know if global warming is our most serious threat, but some of the reports I've seen look very serious and show a future that we might want to avoid. And if we take into consideration that many of the Asian countries are expanding in their way of life towards the western world. So if we have a problem, it is not getting smaller, it is going to start growing at an even more rapid speed.

We do have a problem with pollution. Fish caught in the Baltic is not recommended to pregnant or brestfeeding women, and no more than one serving a week for other people because of the toxins in them.

We also have a problem with endangered species. In the Baltic (which is a very delicate maritime environment) the fishermen are complaining that they can no longer make a living of what they make from the sea. But when the authorities try to enforce restraints, minimum size fish to catch etc, to allow the fish population to grow stronger again, they are raving and don't want to hear a word about it because it takes their jobs away. Honestly, the short-sightedness of people scares me!

This just to give a few examples of people sticking their head in buckets...

 

Not here, was joking

 

Sorry to say this but, Thinking people will give up their jobs, cars, central heating, central air, COMPUTERS,. . . . . . . blahblahblah, essentially their way of life or if you like it better, the lifestyle they have become accustom to, is another example of people sticking their head in buckets.

 

The problem with the issue is that you can't get the truth. And if you could, you wouldn't know it was the truth. Too many scientists have their careers tied up in this, one way or another, for any serious objectivity to shine through.

The Left has a position, as does the Right, that couldn't care less what the science says.

So, Climate Change is real. But no-one knows how much we are contributing to it. So why not work towards a cleaner planet?

No sane person needs a Hummer, unless they are a Marine.
Three cylinders to get to work, and batteries for the town. Enforced.
Three buck a litre tax on Gasoline. Or four or five. Whatever you want.
No, ABSOLUTELY no, toys that use gas. No Snowmobiles, no Seedoos, or Skidoos, or Dirt Bikes, or Racing Cars, the list goes on.
Any company that is not using the latest technology to reduce its emissions will be forced to, or close.


Anyone who litters will be shot. (A pet peeve)


See? They should put me in charge. No problem.


Of course, if we did all that and more, it might not even slow it down. No-one knows for sure. Do it anyway though, just in case.

One thing we must not do, is buy credits to meet ridiculous commitments.

And No Al Gore or David Suzuki. Please...

 

Anyone who litters will be shot. (A pet peeve)


See? They should put me in charge. No problem.

MrPewty, you've got my vote!

 

Sunspot activity and El-Nino Effects weather cycles more on a approximately 11 yearly basis than does Global Warming, such may indeed be a part of a 12,000 year atmospheric cycle. (Hence ice ages and inter-Ice Ages - (which we are in a.t.m.)) It is highly debateable as to how much, if any effect human pollution is adding to this. Yes, Global temperatures have increased slightly over the past 100 years, since the Industrial Revolution, but it doesn't necessarily follow that it is a direct consequence of human pollution.

Having said that, no one would deny that it is a good odea to reduce pollution, including atmospheric pollution.

Sunspot and El-Nino Effects (PDF format)

El-Nino

http://www.john-daly.com/theodor/solarnao.htm


The Earth’s rotation and Magnetospheric conditions are also linked to the above events. Then there are certain geological and volcanic events, like the one on the Philippines some years back, which produced more atmospheric emissions than all the world's nuclear arsenals put together, times a thousand. Pretty mind boggling amount of energy and emissions. Then there's always the possibility of asteroids and such.

 

Any emissions we produce are negligible compared to what the earth unleashes on itself on a daily basis.

 

Suggest you read:- Michael Crichton's "State of Fear", and it will hopefully make you take another look at the "Currently" popular "Global Warming Fad". Some of my "Environmental" friends love to say we should be like the North American Natives and take care of the "Land". What a load of:crap that is, the Natives killed everything in site and when there area became polluted and the game ran out so did they...............THINK PEOPLE........simply THINK about what you are doing, if we all treated the planet like it was our backyard (which it is unless your Star and have your own private RocketshipLOL ) the world would be a better place.

Putting World Government in charge is like having the "Mafia" in charge of the Legal system, and for those that say the "Ice Caps" are melting, Duh yea and they did in the past long before "Humankind" set foot on the planet.

The Data is out there, but so is the "Hype", and being Geeks we should be searching for it, not spreading the "Pablum" the Media does:major

 

Why do people always think we have to give up life as we know it to help the environment? If every one of the 110 million households in America replaced a regular light bulb with an energy efficient bulb we would be saving enough energy to power a city of roughly 1.5 million people. That's the magic of numbers. You can take a small action and multiply it by millions and have one heck of a big change.

After learning more about the subject and reading up on what I can do to reduce my footprint on the environment, i made a few small changes that have made a positive impact on the environment and helped keep a few more dollars in my wallet.

I didn't go out and replace all my light bulbs at once, but when ever one did go out, I replaced it with an energy efficient bulb. I've been doing this for a few months and about half the bulbs in my house are now of the environmentally friendly variety. A second positive effect of doing this, other than reducing my carbon footprint, was that we saw a reduction in our energy bill. It wasn't anything substantial, but it was more than enough to cover the price of the bulbs and we even had savings beyond that.

Another easy, and effective, energy saving tip is to set your computers to shut down or go into sleep mode when you're not using them. Instead of a screen saver, have your monitor turn off after five minutes of non use. I even have a switch that powers off/on my electronic equipment (TVs, entertainment center, gaming consoles etc). You'd be amazed by the power all these devices use up when they just sit there. When ever I want to use something, i hit the button and that's all there is to it.

I also forced my family to start recycling. Sadly, we didn't before and each week the four of us filled up three 80 gallon garbage containers. I can happily report that we now fill up two recycling bins, and have cut our garbage consumption down to one garbage container. I was amazed at how much a little more attention to what goes in what container made to the amount of garbage our family consumed.

Another step we took in the home was to adjust the thermostat to keep the house two degrees cooler in the winter, and two degrees warmer in the summer. I was amazed by the savings in gas and electricity these small changes made.

Because my family is full of big people, we need big transportation to get us around. As much as I'd love a more fuel efficient vehicle I can't fit in one. We have two Jeep Grand Cherokees and while they don't get the best gas mileage, i noted that making subtle changes in the way I drove, and keeping it in tune, resulted in a more efficient car and more money in my wallet from gas savings. Simply accelerating slower and keeping the RPMs down added another 3-5 MPG! That really adds up over time.

I was able to do all that, generating a savings of over $500 a year, without giving up my job, my car, and other luxuries I enjoy. All it took was a little thought and determination and while I may not be carbon neutral, as least I'm taking small steps in the right direction.

 

The ozone hole is a seperate issue from the global warming topic, and needs to be dealt with in it's own right. The cause is believed to be (mostly) the release of ChloroFluoroCarbons into the atmosphere, which have been regulated world-wide since the 80's if I recall correctly. I've not heard how effective this has been in reducing or reversing the loss of ozone - I think scientists are still undecided.

People lump this topic in with the Global warming question because there is a connection - in that ozone contributes to the greenhouse effect. But it is a seperate issue, overall - and certainly a problem that mankind does have an effect on.

This is exactly the kind of thing I feel the hysterical attention given to the Global warming issue should be applied to instead . . . this is a tangible, proven issue, that requires immediate action - one of MANY such proven issues. I am far more worried about this type of problem, and the man-made chemicals I mentioned before being released into the environment - the impact of which is impossible to predict since these substances never existed before we made them . . . science has nothing to "look back" at to develop a working impact model . . .

 

My Chemistry professor was telling us about how when we eliminated the use of CFS, the chemicals that chemists came up with to replace them are much more effective in holding in the suns wavelengths than CO2. So essentially in trying to stop the loss of ozone, we added to the green house effect. Same for catalytic converters. We didn't like the pollution and smog surrounding our cities so we decided to turn the outputted pollution into CO2 and other molecules that won't hang around us in the atmosphere like that. Who would have thought that by eliminating pollution, we would be greatly adding to the green house effect by spewing so much CO2 in the atmosphere? I can't back this up with a source, it's just what he said in class. I'm paying good money to go to school, so I'll have to take his word for it and hope he knows what he's talking about. If anyone knows anything else, please provide any additional information.

 

You don't have to give up much to help the environment. If you want to stop climate change however....

Let's face it, if it's as much our fault as the UN would have us believe, then even giving up life as we know it is not going to reverse it in our lifetimes.

 

One of the effects of cutting down on particulate pollution is to reduce the effect that it had on sunlight. Which was, to reflect some of it back into space. Particulates in the clouds coated with moisture acted as a mirror to much of the sun's radiation.

That phenomenon has cost the Human race plenty, in terms of lives lost due to drought, but it is theorized that it did slow the process of "Global Warming". Now that airborn particulate pollution is being reduced, it is expected that the Earth will warm faster than the models have predicted. The models were not programmed to take particulates into account.

 

I just saw this, sir . . . I'll accept this as a "proven" problem that needs to be dealt with!

 

Ah, thanks for a more technical look at the subject. I'll have to research it more, but now it's back to chem homework. Have a pleasant evening everyone.

 

I hate to be a pessimist but our time on this planet is limited. Like all forms of nature, overpopulation (the root cause of our influence on the planet) will be dealt with. It doesn't matter whether we are the cause of global warming or if it is naturally occuring the end result will be the same. We should all do what we can to reduce our energy requirements (electric cars are not the answer, not enough power to go around) for the sake of our own health, but there's getting to be too many people on the planet. Look out.

 

i.e. "Global Dimming" . . . which brings another variable (and a buzz-word I'd forgotten) into the mix.

Good point, MrPewty - highlights the diffuculty faced by those we trust to deal with these issues.

Also a good point, sibeer . . . overpopulation is another emergency issue to be dealt with . . . albiet much more diffucult. Nature normally deals with overpopulation by, well, natural means . . . if there are too many tigers, then the prey population will fall . . . thus some tigers die for lack of food . . . then the prey population increases as a result. Then, when there are multitudes of prey animals, the tigers make a comeback for a time . . . but then, well - you get the picture.

Nature balances itself.

Mankind is the first creature (that we know of) able to step out of this natural trend, and come up with alternative ways to survive. Tigers die . . . mankind however figures out ways to get around nature and multiply. We keep squeezing out the rest of life on this planet . . . and that troubles me. Not long ago in my town, a bobcat was shot for attacking pets (and a parked car, for some reason known only to the bobcat), and being a credible danger to children. I felt sorry for it . . . as it was just being what it was born to be - it was not evil . . . it was just crowded out of it's habitat by man and was trying to adapt. I worry about loss of habitat, and the other points I have mentioned in this thread, then what the deified Kyoto Protocol demands . . . again, it is misguided in science, and driven by politics . . . it is flawed.

 

One thing to keep in mind, this isn't an appliance that we can go out and replace. I keep hearing about data that isn't in, it would be stupid in the extreme to damage the environment to the point it can't be fixed, and then recognize the problem. Sometimes you work on issues before they are provable as problems, as a preventative. There is a lot of physics that is known, and we can have enough energy to go around.

Population explosions are not as big a problem in the developed world, but the 3rd world is producing enough people to make up the difference with a vengence.

There are fuels that do not involve burning carbon that has been locked down for megayears.

One of the major problems we have are the special interests. Many oil execs will not be happy until we have used most of the oil and petroleum products, then we'll change where our base fuels come from.

It's stupid really, this planet is washed in energy, all it really requires is the will to change. We are going to have to do it, why make it an emergency requirement?

 

Well written and well researched story.

Am smart enough to not say any more than that. There are always 2 sides to any story and people equally willing to go to bat for the side they believe in. Do I believe we can all take steps to conserve? Yes, do i believe that our actions are bringing about the end of the world as we know it, no more than it would happen anyways. The thing is, I don't think that there is any really conclusive way to prove either side. That is why I don't get into these discussions too often.


~C

 

I wasn't suggesting that. But when you DO get rid of the old puter, after a year or 2, to get a new one, send it to recycling, don't put it in the household trash. When you chose your new car, go for one with low emissions and low fuel consumption.

Our way of life puts a huge strain on our environment. The least we can do is acknowledge that and try to make our purchases a little more conscious.

 

Looks like ive caused abit of a stir, but datz a good debate eh. Keep it going guys, it's good reading... Roseman07 in Unpolluted OZ (sort of) :wave

 

Unpolluted ?

Kwinana - Air
Wannaroo - Water Table
Cockburn Sound - Nutrient Runoff

Thats just in your backyard - one of the most underpopulated on the planet !

 

I would have thought this was probably the easiest preventitive step we could make to help preserve the environment

legislation restricting everyone to a maximum of two offspring.

 

there was a piece on the english news this morning that most londoners are not haveing more than two children they say it is the poorer people that have more (the poor always get the blame

 

I think the Debate is over.

 

Im not much of a stats man or the jargon that gets spun, most people would drive past our beautifull Swan River every day to and from work but how many of them actualy get of the behinds and hava walk around and admire the scenery, sure ther'es been the odd algae bloom 3-4 times in last maybe 50yrs or more, the ammount of species of fish that i and so many others catch is a sure sign that the river is doing just fine, if we believe every thing we read, hear it would indeed be a very gloomy future.. Roseman07

 

I heard that that this year's odd weather isn't due completely to global warming, but rather El Niño's effects that will last for at least a few more months. I can't remember the details, though, I just remember hearing this theory on the news on a couple channels. *shrugs*

 

They already do (have done for some time) that in China which has the largest population and this law doesn't appear to have any impact on the environment there, when comparing before and after.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy

I don't the implication that a large family is necessarily more damaging to the environment than a small or no family. It is entirely what the family does or makes use of in the environment where the impact occurs.

 

I remember a time when Science could be relied upon to provide repeatable accurate data from experiments. The bulk of the Science was accomplished via independant research Labs attached to Universities. However the days of Science being automatically funded by tax dollars are long gone. Now the Scientists are forced to be whores, where they will get paid by Industry or by Government, if, and only if they spout the party line.
That's why you can align 2000 Scientists with the Global Warming Agenda because it's their payday. Whoever controls the gold controls the very core of Scientific thought. Therefore it will never be independant again, nor will it ever be reliable, under these conditions.

In the Global Warming debate, there are key questions that always seem to be ignored or shouted down. Firstly, I am amazed that the Kyoto Agreement only includes, developed countries. It seems, that undeveloped countries are not required to respond to greenhouse gas production, regardless of how much carbon pollution they cause. The analogy would be: having a smoking and a non-smoking section on an airplane. Everybody gets to breathe smoke, regardless of where you put the signage.

Secondly, if we do believe Al Gore and his badly constructed myth, why do we not include all greenhouse gas creation. When I say all, I'm referring to people's breathing and producing CO2 and farting and producing methane. That would include all livestock as well. So massive countries like China and India get pinched for the greenhouse gas bill. This is always shouted down, because if you're going to include all sources of carbon, then it raises the question of carbon sinks. Trees are carbon sinks. If you plant trees they consume carbon to build themselves. When you cut down a tree and use it to build a house or build furniture that carbon is trapped for a hundred years. In the meantime you can plant another tree. So countries like Canada, with bountiful trees and a small population have a negative greenhouse footprint. Therefore Canada has the potential to sink more carbon than it sources. Whereas China or Japan, wouldn't have a prayer. The main proponents of the Kyoto Protocols would rather nuke the planet than allow any country to include the concept of a carbon sink. They really hate that.

Thirdly. All the countries that are being blamed for Global Warming because of their greenhouse gas emissions, were not around when ice sheets covered half of North America and most of Europe. Apparently it was cold enough to freeze massive glaciers a kilometer thick but Global Warming Fanboys can't figure out whom they should blame for the warming. Who was driving the SUVs and getting electricity from coal-burning generators back then. Come on Fanboys, quickly now. Who caused the Global Warming back then, that melted all the glaciers, that got us to the 21st century. Al Gore's pack will shout you down for that. They can't stand that question, because for that, you'd require some Independant Scientific Thought. Al Gore doesn't have that. Neither do any of his Fanboys.

Fourthly. I find this one utterly laughable. One of the Scientists, whom the media was allowed to interview, expressed opinions on the evils of the greenhouse emissions that our internal combustion engines were contributing. Before the interview concluded, this Scientific Spokesperson repeated a couple of times that we must convert our existing gas-guzzlers into clean burning soybean oil or ethanol engines. Just how ignorant do these crackpots believe us to be. When I say "us", I mean "members of the public" or "consumers". The TV interviewer was very obviously as ignorant as the Scientist. Do they no longer teach Scientists that the burning of Ethanol and/or soybean oil does, in fact, produce carbon emissions and greenhouse gases. Idiots!

My conclusion, to all this balderol about climate change is that Global Warming and the Kyoto Protocols is a smoke screen for another more secretive agenda. In a mystery novel it'd be considerd a red herring that the reader is supposed to pay attention to while the real plot is taking an unsuspected turn. The Science that the Fanboys are relying upon to promote this agenda, may be true and proveable in the laboratory, however, it is suspiciously incomplete. It's as if they only want to examine facts that support their fantasy, while at the same time, ignore vast amounts of contrary opinion, logic and data. It has the suspicious smell of philosophy about it. It seems to be the new "religion" where it's more important to have faith in the agenda than it is to ask any seriously probing questions. This brings me to my final thought. In the absence of any fully validated scientific documentation, I can only conclude that the TRUE agenda of the Global Warming community, is not the reduction of greenhouse gases that we emit into the atmosphere, it is the reduction of our dependence on fossil fuels like OIL. We must stop using oil. It's an albatross around our necks, that will destroy the West and the Enlightenment that was started many hundreds of years ago. For as long as we need vast quantities of oil, to maintain our economies, we can never truly smash Iran, or any other country that needs smashing. By doing so, we'd smash ourselves. However, remove oil from the equation, and the Enlightenment can certainly continue, perhaps, with a bit of skillful manipulation for another thousand years.:cool

-JC

 

The next time you get a virus, spam or phishing scams, please send a nice Thank-You note to Mr Al Gore care of Dreamland USA, but please send it on recycled Toilet Paper. I am certain he will appreciate your recycling efforts, as well as your acknowledgement that "HE" created the net.roflmao roflmao roflmao

Great points prometheos, glad to see someone else that hasn't swallowed the drivel the media is peddling