Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 85

Thread: Global Warming Question

  1. #41
    [QUOTE=jets5ever]finlee - If you value thinking critically and doing proper research, isn't hearing a different viewpoint from an informed person part of that process? You should welcome debate and guys like Lomborg. You should read his book and I remember you giving me a line about not wanting to spend a lot of money on someone you'd likely disagree with. Sounds like your mind is made up, regardless. You have to at least admit that a LARGE part of the defense mechanism of the global warming alarmists is to resort to ad hominem attacks against people...as if research funded by green groups is ok, but research funded by capitailsts is suspect. Lomborg has been brutalized and people constantly try to say things like, "The debate is over." It's laughable to say that and completely contrary to the scientific process. I am sure you've read Kuhn's book on the Structure of Scientific Revolutions. You know how dangerous a consensus can potentially be, especially if powerful people try to quash skeptics. I know you've mentioned that you and others like you have laughed at how ridiculous some of global warming alarmisn has been. And I am sorry, but people aren't nearly honest enough about the flaws in and limitations of their research. It's all about headlines. It's getting to a point where I just laugh.[/QUOTE]


    I have Lomborg's book... it's next on my hit list. Other than that, I did begin typing up a response to some of the arguments against global warming, but decided it was Friday. Sorry... I'll put a response up on Monday about some of the arguments I don't agree with.

    later...

  2. #42
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Somerset, NJ
    Posts
    1,573
    [QUOTE=CanadaSteve]Good lord, I am not even going to bother with this. Go read something other than bias capitalist propoganda. Let me guess, Columbus is a hero, right?[/QUOTE]

    Was Columbus a capitalist?
    Are you implying that capitalism has a link to global warming? First off all countries regardless of their economic system deal with other countries on a capitalist basis which is healthy for the global economy. Second--do you think the socialist/communist or dictatorships of the world do not contribute to the pollution of our atmosphere?
    I was in Russia a few months ago and it was apparant to me there is absolutely no standards for emissions or other pollutants from both vehicles and factories. It was quite disgusting. But its us ugly capitalists responsible for "global warming".
    Regardless of our political backgrounds we all want clean clean air. We've --the US--made progress over the years without bankrupting the economy and should continue to progress within our economic means.

  3. #43
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Grand Rapids, MI
    Posts
    2,999
    This is actually precisely the garbage I didn't want. I'll be more direct.

    Jets5ever -

    Does global warming exist?

    If yes, do you believe that humans are causing it?

    If yes, is it worth our time to deal with it?

    I will accept "I'm not sure"s as answers. Nothing wrong with that - nobody's sure.

  4. #44
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    6,889
    [QUOTE=sect112row36]Was Columbus a capitalist?
    Are you implying that capitalism has a link to global warming? First off all countries regardless of their economic system deal with other countries on a capitalist basis which is healthy for the global economy. Second--do you think the socialist/communist or dictatorships of the world do not contribute to the pollution of our atmosphere?
    I was in Russia a few months ago and it was apparant to me there is absolutely no standards for emissions or other pollutants from both vehicles and factories. It was quite disgusting. But its us ugly capitalists responsible for "global warming".
    Regardless of our political backgrounds we all want clean clean air. We've --the US--made progress over the years without bankrupting the economy and should continue to progress within our economic means.[/QUOTE]


    My comment has nothing to do with that. It was in regard to the comment that "capitalism has been nothing but an amazing success story." With a comment like that, I would presume he would also buy into the story that Columbus was a national hero.

    And corporations that have come out of our capitalist paradigm were founded on colonialism, something Columbus is well aware of. Does he have a direct link? I would say not...again, it was more toward the "comment" as seen above.

  5. #45
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,943
    [QUOTE=The Paranoid Jet]This is actually precisely the garbage I didn't want. I'll be more direct.

    Jets5ever -

    Does global warming exist?

    If yes, do you believe that humans are causing it?

    If yes, is it worth our time to deal with it?

    I will accept "I'm not sure"s as answers. Nothing wrong with that - nobody's sure.[/QUOTE]

    I understand completely, and I tried being as objective as possible in my first post.

    To answer your questions, yes, yes, and yes. Although, the second question is very close to "I'm not sure."

  6. #46
    [QUOTE=parafly]the polar ice caps will melt and...an ice age will happen sooner rather than later.[/QUOTE]

    Riiiiiiiiight.

  7. #47
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [QUOTE=The Paranoid Jet]This is actually precisely the garbage I didn't want. I'll be more direct.

    Jets5ever -

    Does global warming exist?

    If yes, do you believe that humans are causing it?

    If yes, is it worth our time to deal with it?

    I will accept "I'm not sure"s as answers. Nothing wrong with that - nobody's sure.[/QUOTE]


    What do you mean by global warming? What do you mean by cause? What do you mean by deal?

    I hate to be so picky, but the devil is in the details....

  8. #48
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    6,889
    [QUOTE=jets5ever]I don't really know what a hero is in this context, sorry. I do know that capitalism has pulled millions and millions of people out of poverty, though.

    I do read a lot, from a lot of sources. Just because we disagree doesn't mean I am a fool or a person who is not well-rounded. Actually, it is precisely BECAUSE I am as knowledgable as I am that I hold such strong views. If that is cocky, so be it. It's the truth.

    Why do you think our living standard is so high? I'd be interested to hear it, though I think I can predict what you'll say....[/QUOTE]

    Yes YOUR standard of living is incredibly high, thanks to capitalism....however, poverty has INCREASED world-wide thanks to capitalism. Yes, you can point to all those people in China, Mexico, Bangladesh, etc...who had nothing, and then through the generosity of the multinational corporations that swoop in, build temporary factors for as long as their contract with local governments give them tax-exempt status, pay people 67 cents an hour and violate human right laws by allowing below standard safety and health regulations, breaching environmental controls and not allowing unions to be formed....all so (mainly) G7 countries, with Britain and the United States leading the way, can get coffee for 3.00 pound and bananas for 35 cents a pound.

    OF COURSE you love capitalism....you are part of the MINORITY who greatly benefits from it.

    Quite frankly, this political forum is getting rather mundane. We all ***** and argue over stuff without getting anywhere... frankly, my time could be better spent studying for my Masters. People are not going to see something they do not want to see. Same with all the discussions about religion and God here. You either want to see God exists or you don't. Same with these topics...either you see capitalism has a very dark side, and that human consumption that his increased thousand-fold over the past 50 years is affecting the delicate balance in our ecosystems (which affects global warming) or you don't see it.

    Ask thousands of people over these past 5-10 decades who were quite happy living in hunter/gatherer societies, or were still using barter as a means of trade and see how they have liked losing their way of life so capitalism can reign supreme....

    Anyway, no point in answering this....you see it one way, I see it another...next question.

  9. #49
    [QUOTE=CanadaSteve]Yes YOUR standard of living is incredibly high, thanks to capitalism....however, poverty has INCREASED world-wide thanks to capitalism. Yes, you can point to all those people in China, Mexico, Bangladesh, etc...who had nothing, and then through the generosity of the multinational corporations that swoop in, build temporary factors for as long as their contract with local governments give them tax-exempt status, pay people 67 cents an hour and violate human right laws by allowing below standard safety and health regulations, breaching environmental controls and not allowing unions to be formed....all so (mainly) G7 countries, with Britain and the United States leading the way, can get coffee for 3.00 pound and bananas for 35 cents a pound.

    [/QUOTE]

    Why are these local governments inviting corporations in and giving them tax exempt status if they are just exploiting their people and their resources?

    China has clearly reduced poverty and has a growing middle class since they introduced capitalism into the country. The real GDP growth of China is stagering and has impacted 100's of millions in a very positive way.

  10. #50
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    6,889
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs]Why are these local governments inviting corporations in and giving them tax exempt status if they are just exploiting their people and their resources?

    China has clearly reduced poverty and has a growing middle class since they introduced capitalism into the country. The real GDP growth of China is stagering and has impacted 100's of millions in a very positive way.[/QUOTE]


    Sorry Winston, no offence, but I'm just not going to banter this back and forth. Some people see capitalism as a shining beacon of light, others see it as a trap....

  11. #51
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [QUOTE=CanadaSteve]Sorry Winston, no offence, but I'm just not going to banter this back and forth. Some people see capitalism as a shining beacon of light, others see it as a trap....[/QUOTE]

    Canada, absolute poverty has most certainly not increased world-wide due to capitalism. You are a nice enough guy, but you are simply and profoundly wrong. The tyupe of ignorance you have is especially dangerous, since you are intelligent and educated. There is no reason for you to be this ignorant, yet you are. It boggles my mind. Didn't you previously ay something about how private property is the root of all evil or something like that? I mean, that's just crazytalk. I quite honestly have a hard time believing that people still think this way....I thought we've moved past that.

    Capitalism is far from perfect. The only thing good you can say about it is that it is infinitely better than every other system mankind has come up with.

  12. #52
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    6,889
    [QUOTE=jets5ever]Canada, absolute poverty has most certainly not increased world-wide due to capitalism. You are a nice enough guy, but you are simply and profoundly wrong. The type of ignorance you have is especially dangerous, since you are intelligent and educated. There is no reason for you to be this ignorant, yet you are. It boggles my mind. Didn't you previously ay something about how private property is the root of all evil or something like that? I mean, that's just crazytalk. I quite honestly have a hard time believing that people still think this way....I thought we've moved past that.

    Capitalism is far from perfect. The only thing good you can say about it is that it is infinitely better than every other system mankind has come up with.[/QUOTE]


    Yeah, and Jets5ever, I think that this type of thinking in regards to capitalism is dangerous. I can through dozens of statistics regarding the state of the world since its inception. Just like you can throw dozens of statistics my way. I find it equally dangerous that people believe capitalism is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

    When we use the word "prosper,' it is usually associated with microwave ovens, video games and instant coffee. Things that have made our lives more convenient. However, it has taken away much of the purpose of our lives, namely being able to live off the land and take care of our families. How many people could truly fend for themselves in case of say a poweroutage that lasted an extended period of time (check out the movie trigger effect for that concept...it isn't mine)

    capitalism by its very nature needs money to grow limitless for it to work. That very concept is based on a fallacy that it can do so when the very essence of its production comes from a limited source: The earth. Any thing we do, make or produce in some way has to come from this limited source. The gap between rich and poor cannot do anything BUT increase. A healthy economy in capitalism grows at a rate of 3 percent. Less or more causes inflation or recession. So, When money grows at three percent, someone earning 100,000 per year now has an increase of $3,000. However, someone who earns 20,000 per year now has an increase of 600. That is a gap of $2400 that has to happen. This gap can do nothing but increase.

    Capitalism has done some things correct, but it is not the be-all-to-end-all economic system that many people claim. It has taken the lively hoods of Many cultures and citizens worldwide because governments either want a piece of the pie, or they are so far in debt thanks to structural adjustment agreements with the IMF that they have no choice but to expose themselves to excelerated unrestricted capitalism.

    I apologize if my comment came across as you did no research on this topic, but I as well have studied this, personally and in university. To me, this topic is like many ones you have seen (especially) science fiction authors write about. Reminds me of Fahrenheit 451, and how Bradbury wrote about television and its control over society and what it could lead to back in 1950. Back then, people said "hogwash!" but Bradbury saw something that others didn't. Now, he could say "I told you so."

    I am not proclaiming to be a prophet, a genius, or anything of the sort. But capitalism, the theories our modern economics are based on (especially neo-liberalism) is a topic that one day someone who saw some of the stuff going on is going to say "I told you so."

  13. #53
    [QUOTE=CanadaSteve]Yeah, and Jets5ever, I think that this type of thinking in regards to capitalism is dangerous. I can through dozens of statistics regarding the state of the world since its inception. Just like you can throw dozens of statistics my way. I find it equally dangerous that people believe capitalism is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

    When we use the word "prosper,' it is usually associated with microwave ovens, video games and instant coffee. Things that have made our lives more convenient. However, it has taken away much of the purpose of our lives, namely being able to live off the land and take care of our families. How many people could truly fend for themselves in case of say a poweroutage that lasted an extended period of time (check out the movie trigger effect for that concept...it isn't mine)

    capitalism by its very nature needs money to grow limitless for it to work. That very concept is based on a fallacy that it can do so when the very essence of its production comes from a limited source: The earth. Any thing we do, make or produce in some way has to come from this limited source. The gap between rich and poor cannot do anything BUT increase. A healthy economy in capitalism grows at a rate of 3 percent. Less or more causes inflation or recession. So, When money grows at three percent, someone earning 100,000 per year now has an increase of $3,000. However, someone who earns 20,000 per year now has an increase of 600. That is a gap of $2400 that has to happen. This gap can do nothing but increase.

    Capitalism has done some things correct, but it is not the be-all-to-end-all economic system that many people claim. It has taken the lively hoods of Many cultures and citizens worldwide because governments either want a piece of the pie, or they are so far in debt thanks to structural adjustment agreements with the IMF that they have no choice but to expose themselves to excelerated unrestricted capitalism.

    I apologize if my comment came across as you did no research on this topic, but I as well have studied this, personally and in university. To me, this topic is like many ones you have seen (especially) science fiction authors write about. Reminds me of Fahrenheit 451, and how Bradbury wrote about television and its control over society and what it could lead to back in 1950. Back then, people said "hogwash!" but Bradbury saw something that others didn't. Now, he could say "I told you so."

    I am not proclaiming to be a prophet, a genius, or anything of the sort. But capitalism, the theories our modern economics are based on (especially neo-liberalism) is a topic that one day someone who saw some of the stuff going on is going to say "I told you so."[/QUOTE]

    Simple question then:

    If Modern Democratic Capitalism is not the best economic system ever developed in the history of man till now....then which system is?

  14. #54
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    6,889
    [QUOTE=Warfish]Simple question then:

    If Modern Democratic Capitalism is not the best economic system ever developed in the history of man till now....then which system is?[/QUOTE]


    I would have to say the barter system. I will go into it more when I have more time. Also, do you think this deserves its own thread, because I think we have hijacked this one?

    How are things Warfish?

  15. #55
    [QUOTE=jets5ever]finlee - If you value thinking critically and doing proper research, isn't hearing a different viewpoint from an informed person part of that process? You should welcome debate and guys like Lomborg. You should read his book and I remember you giving me a line about not wanting to spend a lot of money on someone you'd likely disagree with. Sounds like your mind is made up, regardless. You have to at least admit that a LARGE part of the defense mechanism of the global warming alarmists is to resort to ad hominem attacks against people...as if research funded by green groups is ok, but research funded by capitailsts is suspect. Lomborg has been brutalized and people constantly try to say things like, "The debate is over." It's laughable to say that and completely contrary to the scientific process. I am sure you've read Kuhn's book on the Structure of Scientific Revolutions. You know how dangerous a consensus can potentially be, especially if powerful people try to quash skeptics. I know you've mentioned that you and others like you have laughed at how ridiculous some of global warming alarmisn has been. And I am sorry, but people aren't nearly honest enough about the flaws in and limitations of their research. It's all about headlines. It's getting to a point where I just laugh.[/QUOTE]


    [B]Lomborg:[/B]

    I was reluctant to buy his book because I actually went through it at the book store. I checked three things. One was his background. Heís a statistician in the political sciences. Was it any wonder that I had never heard of him? In addition to his non-science background, he claims to know the true state of the world (see title) and debunks 10,000s of scientists and 100s of yearís worth of data. SorryÖ just a little skeptical there myself. Second, I read the chapter that I would be most familiar with. And the biodiversity chapter was soiled with careless and blatant misuse of data, sources, and oversimplification of the issues. If he was so out of touch with this area, why should have any confidence in the rest of the book and waste $30? Third, the vast majority of his 1000s and 1000s and 1000s and 1000s of footnotes that is flaunted are secondary sources and media op-eds. He sights very little from the peer-review. When he did, he was misinterpreting the work.

    SoÖ nobody is trying to lynch Lomborg here. His work is careless and misleading. I havenít read the entire book, but from what I have read it appears to be a hack job designed to look scientific to the general public because he throws out 1000s and 1000s of footnotes that the average Joe will never check. In concert, he has statistics and charts (he must know what heís doing!).

    In my opinionÖ if this guy wanted to make a statement, he would have done a meta-analysis on all the studies in those fields that his book tries to deal with. In doing so, he would have been able to find inconsistencies and biases that scientists do at a larger scale when conducting research. It would have definitely been an interesting book that would have garnished respect and amicable dialogue from the scientific fields.

    Instead, Lomborg went another route and never consulted with experts in the fields and never went through the peer-review process. Itís clearly book designed to misinform and the scientific community saw right through it. Or the guy is just an egomaniac that thinks he can debunk entire environmental fields with 10 page chapters in a book that is about 350 pages.

    But the real good news is that the county library had to book. So, the general public picked up the bill for me.

    [B]Kuhn:[/B]

    Kuhn is alright. Iíve always preferred Popper and Lakatos over him. In fact, Iíve brought up Popperís work about falsification a few times debating evolution on this forum. Having read Kuhn, you should know that Kuhn proposed that sciences can move forward without necessarily going the falsification route, i.e. his thesis on social interactions among scientists. This is where Lakatos came in and offered some really convincing arguments tying both of them together with his ideas on the methodology of scientific research programs with progressive and degenerating phases.

    AnywayÖ if you take Kuhnís ideas and try to build an argument that scientists are creating an atmosphere of peer-pressure that makes accepting anti-global warming views from being recognized, I still donít see how it justifies that youíre right in your views. The scientific community has a hard time accepting theories on big-foot and the loch ness monster, but does that mean weíre wrong? Additionally, global warming via natural causes (not man) is already including in the research. Itís the null hypothesis.

    Plus, if this is true, what are we suppose to do about it? Are you talking about Affirmative Action for conservative, global warming skeptics? Should we give preference in hiring less qualified global warming skeptics, for the sake of diversity? I assume this would be the one case were affirmative action would be supported by the right-wing.

    I suppose with fewer and fewer scientists and their respected associations and institutions disagreeing with the skeptics are indeed consistent with some kind of widespread and insidious suppression of ideas.

    But you know, it is also consistent with having the right answer.

    One more pointÖ have you applied Kuhnís theory to youíre position on capitalism? Iím just curious if Kuhnís work has any application to economics, specifically the socialism vs. capitalism debate.


    [B]Flaws in work:[/B]

    All fields of research are quite aware of the flaws in their work. Thatís how fieldsí progressÖ they continuously work on overcoming them. There is a ton of papers written in the peer-review on this and authors HAVE to acknowledge it in their work. The fact that our work is based off statistics makes uncertainties inherent. Until you actually go through the funding process, conduct the field research, and then attempt to publish, I donít think youíll ever change your view on this.

    But do me one favorÖ apply this attitude to youíre field and to youíre position on global warming. It seems that you have 100% certainty that youíre right and that all the economic models, including the ridiculously inaccurate and problematic cost-benefit analyses, are equivalent to crystal balls.

    Whatís laughable is that people act like economists are prophets with their cost-benefit analyses. They canít even budget properly for everyday local municipal projects, but some how they can predict what the future costs will be for a global phenomenon.

    If only scientists were economistsÖ

  16. #56
    [quote] "Al Gore is a Greenhouse Gasbag":

    "We don't know that polar bears haven't drowned in every interglacial period. Nobody was watching back then."

    "Sea level is rising, but it's been rising ever since warming set in 18,000 years ago...the Earth's global ocean is only going up 1.8 millimeters per year. That's less than the thickness of one nickel. At the present rate pf sea level rise it's going to take 3,500 years to get up there. So if for some reason this warming process that melts ice is cutting loose and accelerating, sea level doesn't know it. And sea level, we think, is the best indicator of global warming."

    "The thing [Gore] doesn't mention is that there are 2.4 billion people in India and China who have launched a campaign that will increase their energy consumption by a factor of 10. No matter what we do. If we somehow cut our CO2 emissions in half, you wouldn't be able to measure the difference because of the role played by India and China. It's over. If CO2 is the problem, we've already lost."

    There's all this stuff about saving the planet. The Earth is fine. The Earth was fine before we got here and it'll be fine long after we're gone."[/quote]

    This from University of Penn professor of geology and climate change studies Robert Giegengack, whose stool has more climatic change knowledge than Al Gore's little pea brain.



    [url]http://www.sas.upenn.edu/earth/giegenga.html[/url]

  17. #57
    [QUOTE=DeanPatsFan]This from University of Penn professor of geology and climate change studies Robert Giegengack, whose stool has more climatic change knowledge than Al Gore's little pea brain.



    [url]http://www.sas.upenn.edu/earth/giegenga.html[/url][/QUOTE]


    :eek: ... one geology professor.

    I guess these institutions that agree that global warming is a problem ([url]http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf[/url]) and
    ([url]http://www.royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=13619[/url]) must be wrong:

    Academia Brasiliera de CiÍncias (Brazil)
    Royal Society of Canada
    Chinese Academy of Sciences
    Academiť des Sciences (France)
    Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
    Indian National Science Academy
    Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
    Science Council of Japan
    Russian Academy of Sciences
    Royal Society (United Kingdom)
    National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
    Australian Academy of Sciences
    Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
    Caribbean Academy of Sciences
    Indonesian Academy of Sciences
    Royal Irish Academy
    Academy of Sciences Malaysia
    Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
    Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

    Here is a list of organizations that accept anthropogenic global warming as real and scientifically well-supported. But don't pay any attention to them. Giegengack disagrees... so they're also wrong.


    NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS): [url]http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/[/url]

    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): [url]http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html[/url]

    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): [url]http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm[/url]

    National Academy of Sciences (NAS): [url]http://books.nap.edu/collections/global_warming/index.html[/url]

    State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC) - [url]http://www.socc.ca/permafrost/permafrost_future_e.cfm[/url]

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): [url]http://epa.gov/climatechange/index.html[/url]

    The Royal Society of the UK (RS) -
    [url]http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=3135[/url]

    American Geophysical Union (AGU): [url]http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html[/url]

    American Meteorological Society (AMS): [url]http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003.html[/url]

    American Institute of Physics (AIP):
    [url]http://www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html[/url]

    National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR): [url]http://eo.ucar.edu/basics/cc_1.html[/url]

    American Meteorological Society (AMS): [url]http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/jointacademies.html[/url]

    Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS): [url]http://www.cmos.ca/climatechangepole.html[/url]

  18. #58
    Ok Finlee, nice list.

    What then do you, and/or the Scientific Organizations you have listed, suggest is the answer or answers now, today, to fix the problem?

    How can the problem of anthropogenic Climate Change be fixed? And how do you propose any such fix be enforced aginst every nation on Earth?

    Or, conversely, do you (and they) believe the problem can be fixed without Global Participation?

  19. #59
    [QUOTE=Warfish]Ok Finlee, nice list.

    What then do you, and/or the Scientific Organizations you have listed, suggest is the answer or answers now, today, to fix the problem?

    How can the problem of anthropogenic Climate Change be fixed? And how do you propose any such fix be enforced aginst every nation on Earth?

    Or, conversely, do you (and they) believe the problem can be fixed without Global Participation?[/QUOTE]


    I want you to ride a bike to work, Warfish.

  20. #60
    Actually, Warfish, I'm stepping out of the office to do some field work. I'll type a less sarcastic and more honest response later. Of course... that's if you really want to hear one. If not, just give me the heads up so I can spend my time doing something else.

    Nice list... :rolleyes:

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us