TOO LATE? Why scientists say we should expect the worst

Originally posted by Lazyninja
Scientists wouldn't have any jobs if they didn't just sell us doom all the time, and then at a later date sell us expensive solutions to them.

I understand your notion. However, I don't believe that the majority of scientists thrive on doom and gloom. In fact, in my experience, scientific theory and scientific progress is impeded for the exact OPPOSITE reason.
Many of even the best and brightest scientists are afraid and trepidatious of declaring or even predicting events or trends that have a chance of OVERSTATING or OVERSHOOTING what will actually happen. Overstated results will generate ridicule and 'never cry wolf' syndrome with their peers and the public at large. So the tendency is for them to stay on the conservative side of the spectrum when it comes to trend prediction.

A perfect example of this is the fact that scientist, over the last several years, have been constantly bumping BACK their predictions for the total absence of sea ice in the Northern Arctic region. Initially many were saying sometime after 2050. Then, the general consensus was 2030. Now just within the last few days, CBC and BBC reports were saying that this could be the case by 2015.

Thomas Friedman talks at length about this in his book HOT, FLAT AND CROWDED. In fact at one point, he uses a bit of sarcastic humour directed at Al Gore (whom he admires). He states that "Al Gore owes the world a huge apology" The reason he states this is that although many of Gore's documentary details are very contentious, most of them are by today's standards, VERY UNDERSTATED.

So why is it that when these same scientists massively understate climatic changes, they don't receive the same scorn that the "Doom and Gloom" scientists are receiving.

Great discussion everyone.
Great post....flag from me.

[edit on 10-12-2008 by rezdog]

Cosmic rays have not varied.

Because you say so? Source please.

Not quite as well-established as GHG-induced warming which has about 150 years of basic physics and climate science behind it, but I understand the need to grab at the most tenuous straws.

Well that's what I'm trying to establish for myself, by considering both sides of the argument. Just 'cos you say so' doesn't cut it for me, and patronising me doesn't help your case either.

reply to post by RogerT

There are surely hundreds if not thousands of issues which are far more prevalent, dangerous to human life, proven and immediate than global warming ( and terrorists ), yet not getting a fraction of the attention. Smokescreen.

I cannot think of anything more important than climate change let alone 1000s – give us your list. Terrorism doesn’t even come close it’s a miniscule nonsense in comparison. Not being able to look that far ahead I guess you will have to live it to eventually find out because as the thread suggests it’s TOO LATE

I think global warming is a farce. Tempetures change. The axis of the earth changes. When icemelts somewhere it usually appears somewhere else.

That said, I do think we have a long ways to go to clean up our air and water. Carbon emisisons are a problem. Why is it ok to release into the common air, what would kill you in short order, if exposed to it in a confined space? This is what people should be fighting about. Not the bs global warming crap. And the credits are pure garbage, they are basically the same as buying the right to torture the worlds people. Oxygen keeps us alive and healthy. We simply no longer have enough of it and as a result our bodies are more and more defnesless against cancer and other life impairing diseases. Ditto for pure water.

We need to hold industry responsible and require them to be virtually pollution neutral. If they need monetary help in doing so, then the goverments of the world should help finance it. Just like they need to finance the car companies to become clean and competitive.

reply to post by majestictwo


It'll be like the "Day After Tomorrow". Well i'll see you guys in Mexico...

For approximately one hundred and forty years on your planet, man has been accelerating the destruction of Nature and the pollution of the environment. This has happened since the discovery of steam power and the combustion engine. You have but a few years left in which to arrest the pollution before the situation becomes irreversible. One of the principal pollutants on Earth is the petrol-driven engine and this could be replaced immediately with a hydrogen engine that would cause no pollution, so to speak. On certain planets, this is called the clean motor. Prototypes for such an engine have been constructed by various engineers on your planet but they must be industrially manufactured in order to replace petrol engines. Not only would this measure mean a seventy per cent reduction in current levels of pollution by combustion waste, but it would also be more economical for consumers.

The big petrol corporations had been terrified at the idea of this motor being popularized for it would mean loss of sales for their oil and subsequent financial ruin.

Governments, too, who impose enormous taxes on these oils, would suffer equally. You see, it always comes back to money. Because of it, you have a whole economic and financial context that opposes progress towards radical change in the interest of all human life on Earth.

The people on Earth allow themselves to be pushed around, bullied, exploited and led to the abattoirs by political and financial cartels which are sometimes even associated with well-known sects and religions.

When these cartels fail to win the people with clever advertising campaigns intended to brainwash them, they try to succeed through political channels, and next through religion or through a clever blend of the lot.

Great men wanting to do something for mankind have simply been done away with. Martin Luther King is one example; Ghandi is another. =Thiaoouba Prophecy by Michel Demarquet www.myspace.com/secretsofgod

Originally posted by majestictwo
reply to post by RogerT

 

I cannot think of anything more important than climate change let alone 1000s – give us your list. Terrorism doesn’t even come close it’s a miniscule nonsense in comparison. Not being able to look that far ahead I guess you will have to live it to eventually find out because as the thread suggests it’s TOO LATE

Well I did actually post a handful to be getting on with - surprised you missed that as it was the major part of the post?!

Oh and by the way, the terrorism reference was tongue in cheek, that's another media crock the masses enjoy getting hysterical over.

Yes, ok, if you fully buy into the Global Warming Hysteria, then I can appreciate your point, but even the so called 'scientific consensus' doesn't agree with the hysteria or the certainty that many people have been taught to adopt.

According to the IPCC:

"8 of 11 climate parameters are poorly understood"

also

In the new (fourth) IPCC Summary for Policymakers there are 12 key variables pertaining to temperature changes between the years 1750 and 2000. The IPCC characterizes its confidence level as “high” on only one of those variables. Two are characterized as “medium,” one is “low,” and eight are “very low.”

www.energypulse.net...

OK, so you can start to panic about the thread title, which is pointless as it's already too late, or you can take a closer look at the body which is supposed to represent the 'scientific consensus' on the matter.

Of course, there is no scientific consensus as the tens of thousands of dissenting scientists etc are demonstrating.

However, when even the claimed consensus are so unsure of their conclusions, shouldn't we at least consider that something is not quite right with the media projection of this issue?

Originally posted by Lazyninja
Scientists wouldn't have any jobs if they didn't just sell us doom all the time, and then at a later date sell us expensive solutions to them.

Of all the people who populate the professions, scientists are generally the more liberal and open-minded. Most human beings can be bought if the bribe is high enough, but I feel we are aiming at the wrong target when we lump environmentalists together with politicians and Vegas casino owners.

This has got to be the worst, most red-neck, confused thread I've ever seen on ATS. It churns my stomach to read through most of it.

Could it be that we are scared, too and feel helpless? Now we are pointing fingers at the scientific community... a community that fuels most of what is posted on ATS.... we are all to blame to some degree or another for pollution.

One of my favorite bumper stickers: "Save the planet - Kill yourself."

Happy holidays,

Paul (already so sick from heart and cancer stuff that I might not make it to see the End of The World in 2012, so I'm pulling out all the stops)

reply to post by RogerT


Sorry I missed some of your post but sleep called.
I read how interested you are in discovering your own truth - good to here.

The world doesn't revolve around American science or any individual country for that matter it is a collaboration of many as I am sure you are perfectly aware.

With your own reasoning take a look at stuff "downunder" there is brilliant stuff happening. Check out Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. The CSIRO is one of the largest and most diverse scientific institutions in the world.


Start here at the scientists and the climate change debate
Link

The Swindle

Cheers..

Forgot a link Majestictwo

[edit on 11-12-2008 by majestictwo]

Originally posted by RogerT

Cosmic rays have not varied.

Because you say so? Source please.

I gave one.

Well that's what I'm trying to establish for myself, by considering both sides of the argument. Just 'cos you say so' doesn't cut it for me, and patronising me doesn't help your case either.

IIRC, I thought it was a reciprocal thing. I'm not here to convince you, I couldn't care less.

There really isn't both sides. This is essentially comparable to wacky creationists vs. evolutionary biology. Strangely enough, I know some of the 'contrarian' scientists are actually creobots.

On one side we have the weight of the scientific literature, backed by 150 years of science, the vast majority of the scientists, and the totality of scientific organisations.

On the other we have a few shills from oil-funded think-tanks, pseudosceptics, internet cargo-cult science, an army of strawmen wielding cherrypick-bombs camouflaged in FUD, noise-dwelling, and creationist-like lists of random 'scientists'.

There are real questions out there and real scientists asking and trying to answer them, but the denialist pseudoscepticism I see is tragically funny.

[edit on 11-12-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by infolurker
Glaciers are growing around the world, including the United States
Global Warming? New Data Shows Ice Is Back

www.iceagenow.com...

In the interest of denying ignorance I suggest you look at your source and the selective nature with which your source fiddles the facts in the persuit of his own self interest through exploiting the denial of GW.

The data, he said, came from a website called www.iceagenow.com. Iceagenow was constructed by a man called Robert W Felix to promote his self-published book about "the coming ice age". It claims that sea levels are falling, not rising; that the Asian tsunami was caused by the "ice age cycle"; and that "underwater volcanic activity - not human activity - is heating the seas".

Wow, the asian tsunami was caused by the Ice age cycle. I though it was an earthquake under the sea that displace a large volume of water that then moved in a wave towards land. But hey, thats is just what scientist said. Those cash grabbing scientists, damn them.

Is Felix a climatologist, a volcanologist or an oceanographer? Er, none of the above. His biography describes him as a "former architect". His website is so bonkers that I thought at first it was a spoof. Sadly, he appears to believe what he says.

Source

Look at Glaciers here.
World Glacier Monitoring service WARNING:no books for sale at this site.
PDF GLOBAL GLACIAL CHANGE REPORT

will voiced at the Bali Climate Change Conference held
in December 2007.
UNEP’s flagship Global Environment
Under the auspices of the International Council for
Science (FAGS/ICSU), the International Union of Geodesy
and Geophysics (IACS/IUGG), the United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation
(UNESCO), the World Meteorological Organisation
(WMO), and the UNEP, the World Glacier Monitoring
Service (WGMS) collects and compiles the basic
glacier data from all parts of the world and provides
information on the state and trends of glaciers in almost
all mountain regions.

Wow, all these guys are just in it for the cash.


You can have your architects version in the book he's selling, i'll take the real thing. As hard as it is to swallow.

BTW, can all those people claiming that scintist are raking it in. Can you point out where you get you facts from. Can you also link the money to reports that make false claims. Can you also show that these scientist do not use the money for research. Thanks.

And also, can you please stop using political mismanagement and stupidity(carbon cap and trade) as some kind of scientific rebuttle of all scientific works pointing to global warming caused anthropogenically. As if we would not see big buisnesses switch from one form of exploitation(of the earth and the environment) to another( the attempt to save us from the previously mentioned form of exploitation).

Can't wait for all those links to Fred Singer and think tanks, and blogs.


[edit on 11-12-2008 by atlasastro]

Originally posted by majestictwo

I cannot think of anything more important than climate change let alone 1000s – give us your list. Terrorism doesn’t even come close it’s a miniscule nonsense in comparison. Not being able to look that far ahead I guess you will have to live it to eventually find out because as the thread suggests it’s TOO LATE

How about cancer for a start, how about unemployment, etc etc

You can indulge in your little cult worship if you wish, leave the rest of us out of it

rubbish the worlds getting colder not warmer in england we have had the coldest wettest summer annd winter since records began.

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by RogerT

Cosmic rays have not varied.

Because you say so? Source please.

I gave one.

My apologies, I didn't read thoroughly enough and missed the last sentence of the source you quoted but failed to link to. But that's ok, I do that myself quite often, either can't be bothered to find the online paper or don't want to reveal my source

"A further comparison with the monthly sunspot number, cosmic galactic rays and 10.7 cm absolute radio flux since 1950 gives no indication of a systematic trend in the level of solar activity that can explain the most recent global warming."

So I have your quote from a paper in May 2005 saying it doesn't and a complete paper with data in 2007 saying it does. Since your source doesn't include the data, or at least your quote doesn't, then what I have is 'your guy says no and my guy with further research at a later date says yes and here's the data and calculations to prove it'. If you were me, which side would sway you?

In any case, it hardly validates the claim you made that the theory is not well supported, and if it is accurate, being 'well' supported is quite irrelevant.

There really isn't both sides. This is essentially comparable to wacky creationists vs. evolutionary biology. Strangely enough, I know some of the 'contrarian' scientists are actually creobots.

Subjective, Ad hominem, totally false and carries no weight in any intelligent debate. You lose.

On one side we have the weight of the scientific literature, backed by 150 years of science, the vast majority of the scientists, and the totality of scientific organisations.

Even if that were true, and from my very pre-cursory searches it ISN'T, this sounds a lot like the argument for the coming Ice Age in 1970, not to mention the flat earth, orbiting sun, amalgam is perfectly safe trust me, and just about every other scientific consensus cock-up throughout known history.
A fact doesn't need scientific consensus or weight of literature, it just needs proof.

On the other we have a few shills from oil-funded think-tanks, pseudosceptics, internet cargo-cult science, an army of strawmen wielding cherrypick-bombs camouflaged in FUD, noise-dwelling, and creationist-like lists of random 'scientists'.

Oh dear. You lose again.

There are real questions out there and real scientists asking and trying to answer them,

I think you have hit the nail on the head here. 'Trying to answer the questions'. Thank you for the honesty of uncertainty, which I am finding is quite rare amongst those that support AGW.

Maybe, since we are still 'trying to answer the questions', we should allow a contrarian voice the same respect and avenue of expression that we allow those that begin with the 'politically' accepted conclusion and then seek data to validate it.

[edit on 11/12/08 by RogerT]

With your own reasoning take a look at stuff "downunder" there is brilliant stuff happening. Check out Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. The CSIRO is one of the largest and most diverse scientific institutions in the world.


Start here at the scientists and the climate change debate
Link

The Swindle

Ok thanks I went straight to the Swindle article.

I skimmed through looking for something that I could relate yesterday's reading to and found this statement:

The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide today is 25 per cent higher than the maximum level recorded at any time during (at least) the 650,000 years prior to the Industrial Revolution

which seems to be a popular statement from the AGW side.

My first question is why stop at 650k years. I've seen several statements that 150 million or so years ago CO2 ppm was 4000 and the planetary life was thriving and temperatures cooler.

Digging a little further I found this

Jim, 2 major problems with your key argument. first what changed something over 600k years ago that makes 600k years special. Go back 150 millon years and CO2 was muvh higher, but temperature wasn't. second, the ice cores tell us nothing about peak CO2 in the past 600k years. In a high precipitation region like like Law Dome, it takes about 80 years for the ice to close, so the record is at best an 80 year moving average, that certainly smears the peak. Also the sampling frequency beyond ca 100k years is in the order of 100 years, further smearing any peak. For Vostok, which is a very low precipitation high desert, it is estimated that ice closure takes 4000 to 6000 years, and the sampling definition is in the order of 1000 years. At prior interglacials we see measured CO2 a little above 300 ppm, which suggests a peak well above 300 ppm. Fossil leaf stomata for the brief warming just prior to the Younger Dryas (ca 12,000 y BP) show CO2 concentration of at least 340 ppm. There are several other problems with ice cores that probably decrease the trapped CO2 concentration before measurement, like depressurization, handling and storage issues that have simply not been measured, so ice cores a a very blunt instrument. Also for Vostok, the linkage is warming first, and apart from the big interglacial peaks one can see at least brief excursions where contemporaneous warming and CO2 concentration go in opposite directions. Also note the curve John shows of the logarithmically declining warming effect of increases in CO2 concentration, which explains why past high CO2 concentrations had no significant effect.

www.energypulse.net... about half way down the very long page in the comments section.

Basically, either this person is a very convincing liar, or the AGW position is either a lie or misled by false data. Since the 'highest CO2 levels of all time' is one of the most vociferous statement of the AGW hysteria, any refutation of this or even some reasonable doubt about this, must make us think again.

Originally posted by RogerT
My apologies, I didn't read thoroughly enough and missed the last sentence of the source you quoted but failed to link to. But that's ok, I do that myself quite often, either can't be bothered to find the online paper or don't want to reveal my source

It was a scientific abstract with full reference, you could find it easy enough. Without personal or institutional subscription, you won't have access to the full article.

So I have your quote from a paper in May 2005 saying it doesn't and a complete paper with data in 2007 saying it does. Since your source doesn't include the data, or at least your quote doesn't, then what I have is 'your guy says no and my guy with further research at a later date says yes and here's the data and calculations to prove it'. If you were me, which side would sway you?

Complete paper what? The two articles assess different things. The Svensmark paper you noted earlier is an experimental study using a reaction chamber. A little box they put gases and stuff in.

It shows that ions in particular atmospheric conditions can lead to greater amounts of aerosol particles.

That's it.

In any case, it hardly validates the claim you made that the theory is not well supported, and if it is accurate, being 'well' supported is quite irrelevant.

Showing that negative ions produce an increase in aerosol particles is like one single step in the process to clouds. He's doing further experiments, he even got millions of Euros for them. They are interesting enough, I have no issues with the idea at all.

But it is still not well-supported. He has prelim data. And even if we accept that cosmic rays do increase condensation nuclei, which influence cloud formation, which influences climate....

...cosmic rays have been pretty stable for over 30 years.

No trend. No effect.



Again, to be very, very clear here...

...I have absolutely no issues with the idea of cosmic rays modulating clouds. The lack of trend in cosmic rays does not show the hypothesis to be incorrect, it just means it is very unlikely to be an important influence at this time.

Subjective, Ad hominem, totally false and carries no weight in any intelligent debate. You lose.

lol

An intelligent debate? I find that elsewhere, I come here for lulz.

I lose what? Did you think we were having a debate or something? ATS does have a subforum if you like that sort of thing, not my cup of tea though.

It's true though. The actions of deniers in both areas is very, very similar. One driven by religious ideology, the other usually by political. Both anti-science. To find overlap is interesting enough.

Even if that were true, and from my very pre-cursory searches it ISN'T, this sounds a lot like the argument for the coming Ice Age in 1970, not to mention the flat earth, orbiting sun, amalgam is perfectly safe trust me, and just about every other scientific consensus cock-up throughout known history.
A fact doesn't need scientific consensus or weight of literature, it just needs proof.

They laughed at Galileo, they laughed at the wright brothers, they laughed at Bozo the Clown

Going all the way back to my entry into this thread was related to some slightly retarded comment about how most 'researchers' do not support the notion of anthro climate influence.

Yet, I've seen your comment on thousands of scientists, so, yeah, who cares? I guess it's the OISM list of random people.

Who cares if some random dufus with a degree in biochemistry doubts something outside his area of not that much expertise? I wouldn't even put much weight on his opinion on biochemistry, lol. Who cares if some random idiot with a PhD thinks climate science is a hoax, when he has some expertise in an area of economics or electrical engineering?

I'm more interested in the evidence and thoughts from those who research this particular area. That even includes Svensmark.

Oh dear. You lose again.

Enjoy your imaginary trophy.

\O/

I think you have hit the nail on the head here. 'Trying to answer the questions'. Thank you for the honesty of uncertainty, which I am finding is quite rare amongst those that support AGW.

Eh? The IPCC and the vast majority of experts are well aware of uncertainties. Even right down to the very predictions, the acceptance of uncertainties are obvious - 2x CO2 = 3'C (range 2-4.5'C).

But I like your Luntzean-focus that uncertainty is just so important. Indeed, I'm sure you think it should be the main issue. However, the days of political gagging and distortion of science & scientists are thankfully coming to a close.

Maybe, since we are still 'trying to answer the questions', we should allow a contrarian voice the same respect and avenue of expression that we allow those that begin with the 'politically' accepted conclusion and then seek data to validate it.

You appear to be projecting here.

Again, the idea of GHGs influencing climate is well-supported by almost 150 years of research. It is a scientific conclusion. The idea of CO2 increases altering climate is so 19th Century. Zombie Arrhenius overestimated, though. Yet you grasp tenuous preliminary hypotheses (which even if correct, would make little difference), misinterpret the article and appear to be jumping to wild unsupported implications.

So who's seeking data to bolster an ideology here?

There are 'contrarians' who deserve respect - indeed, there are many I pay attention to - and there are wacky denialists and pseudosceptics who deserve little, and lying shills who get none from me.

[edit on 11-12-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by bloodcircle
Quite easily, we will eventually either pollute ourselves into extinction or we will use up all of the natural resources we require to live.

Why? I mean on what basis do you make these arguments? Why would we need to use up all 'natural' resources when transmutation might soon be a reality? Since there is no fundamental reason why we should pollute at all why should this destroy the planet unless by the design of some? Why should the limits of your imagination ( and i could just call it ignorance) be construed to be the limits of humanities potential?

As animals with an innate ability to break things, we are not infallible.

Innate ability to break things? Based on what? What have we 'broken'?

It's happened to far more gracious creatures throughout history under far more hospitable circumstances.

Gracious? Where they at least sentient? Who or what are we talking about here?

The difference is we have the nack of sticking bandaids on things as we go along, but that has no choice but to come to a end for us at some point.

What band aids? What 'we'? Where are 'we' in control of ANYTHING on this planet? Did 'we' ask for polluting industry, filthy rivers, smokey skies and or toxic foods? Do you not see that 'we' do our best to preserve ourselves and that these things are normally done when we have no choice or when the few has power over the many?

I see how as the egotistical animals we are, we've got an absolute disregard for what we do to this planet for profit and/or power, so I do consider that if things point towards a sudden change in the global climate (Warmer or colder, I don't give a toot because it all ends up bad in the end)

Speak for yourself when it comes to ego. The only person here accusing humanity of gross negligence/intentional destruction is after all YOU. When you one day get off your high horse ( and sell your pc, your car and your home and go live in the bush) maybe we can hold a civil discussion as to what has and will get done if the people if this planet were in fact in charge of their destinies.

as a result of some of the things that we have done, then I will indeed make as much noise as those I see throw about glib insults and random facts without so much as a thought from their own brain even entering into it.

Right. Humanity deserves what it may get despite the fact that the vast majority had absolutely no say , or even knowledge of, the problems caused by the activities of the few?

And if at the end of the day it turns out that -IF- the global climate is warming and it's completely natural, well think how much more pleasant it will be if we've stopped buggering up the atmosphere as opposed to not?

Well since 'our' ( right, we own the factories, lol ) industrial activities do not seemed to have changed the climate 'we' are not even guilty of that despite the fact that 'we' are paying a high price for the extra few dollars the capitalist classes can make by employing the cheapest means of manufacture.

Ultimately, *I* have no control over what conglomero buiscorp does, so I'll just plod along, mostly trying to ignore the people who seem to be eager to use a big stick to beat people as soon as they mention G

Well who do you think have forced these industries from destroying everything in sight thus far? Do you think they did it themselves giving up profit in the process? 'We' FORCED them to change and if you don't want to be part of that continuing struggle your whining about non existent global warming is as misplaced as your inaction to attempt doing something about the pollution of our rivers and oceans.

But maybe it's just easier to throw your hands into the air and accuse humanity in general for this 'apparent' ( according to you) attempt to destroy itself when every bit of education and economic power we gain seem to result in us cleaning up our local environments and generally standing up to those who wish affect our quality of life.

Just a fluke that....

Stellar

reply to post by majestictwo




They've got us paying taxes for the air we breathe. The world's water supplies, a divine gift, is nearly completely privatized worldwide. Monsanto is putting family run farms out of business.

1,000 years ago, the Vikings were farming Greenland. Then a mini Ice Age hit.
Sun Cycles.

You want to reduce CO2? Plant Trees, HEMP and stop letting them dump pollutants or allow chemical pesticides from running into rivers and into the Seas.
The Plankton would be grateful, since they make the majority of O2.

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by saint4God


Alrighty, just didn't want you to de-credential yourself. Although you and I haven't the funding to go out and get the data, we do have access to see the data that was gathered. In addition, we can compare it to the data of other scientists. Read their explanations, summaries, etc. Scientists are just as split on this as everyone else. Primary reason? Lack of data, a problem we'll have for another thousand years or so unless we're able to recover a history we didn't record to determine if this is cyclical change.

I agree. The problem is that I can't technically even verify the data they collected to see if it's accurate. How do I know for certain that it wasn't cooked? How do I know what agendas (if any) proponents of different theories have? How do I know if a study I'm reading is bonafide or not? How can I verify whatever information exists ostensibly to tell me that? Etc.

I guess I'm one of those people who is in danger of their mind being so open that their brain falls out (lol) because, technically, I can't prove anything.

Of course, there's something to be said for human trust too, I suppose. Trusting isn't knowing though, right? My dilemma lol.

Originally posted by ahnggk


Global warming is not a conspiracy, we never spent a cent on it because we've always used 'green products' for as long as I remember, but we feel it. I used to sleep with thick blankets on December two decades ago, in the past couple of years I could sleep naked in the same month.

Hey, too much information lol jk. I have no idea where you live, but where I am, we just had one of the coldest Octobers and Novembers on Record, EVER.

BTW, they just received an entire LOAD of snow in Houston, Texas, and upwards of 8-Inches of Snow in New Orleans, Louisiana, so I wonder what happened to this Global Warming?