Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
So would it be better to try and stop climate change, or spend our time trying to prepare for it?

---

Quote:

---

"Cosmic Rays blamed for Global Warming"

Richard Gray
London Telegraph
Sunday, February 11, 2007

Man-made climate change may be happening at a far slower rate than has been claimed, according to controversial new research.

Scientists say that cosmic rays from outer space play a far greater role in changing the Earth's climate than global warming experts previously thought.

In a book, to be published this week, they claim that fluctuations in the number of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere directly alter the amount of cloud covering the planet.

High levels of cloud cover blankets the Earth and reflects radiated heat from the Sun back out into space, causing the planet to cool.

Henrik Svensmark, a weather scientist at the Danish National Space Centre who led the team behind the research, believes that the planet is experiencing a natural period of low cloud cover due to fewer cosmic rays entering the atmosphere.

This, he says, is responsible for much of the global warming we are experiencing.

He claims carbon dioxide emissions due to human activity are having a smaller impact on climate change than scientists think. If he is correct, it could mean that mankind has more time to reduce our effect on the climate.

The controversial theory comes one week after 2,500 scientists who make up the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change published their fourth report stating that human carbon dioxide emissions would cause temperature rises of up to 4.5 C by the end of the century.

Mr Svensmark claims that the calculations used to make this prediction largely overlooked the effect of cosmic rays on cloud cover and the temperature rise due to human activity may be much smaller.

He said: "It was long thought that clouds were caused by climate change, but now we see that climate change is driven by clouds.

"This has not been taken into account in the models used to work out the effect carbon dioxide has had.

"We may see CO2 is responsible for much less warming than we thought and if this is the case the predictions of warming due to human activity will need to be adjusted."

Mr Svensmark last week published the first experimental evidence from five years' research on the influence that cosmic rays have on cloud production in the Proceedings of the Royal Society Journal A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences. This week he will also publish a fuller account of his work in a book entitled The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change.

A team of more than 60 scientists from around the world are preparing to conduct a large-scale experiment using a particle accelerator in Geneva, Switzerland, to replicate the effect of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere.

They hope this will prove whether this deep space radiation is responsible for changing cloud cover. If so, it could force climate scientists to re-evaluate their ideas about how global warming occurs.

Mr Svensmark's results show that the rays produce electrically charged particles when they hit the atmosphere. He said: "These particles attract water molecules from the air and cause them to clump together until they condense into clouds."

Mr Svensmark claims that the number of cosmic rays hitting the Earth changes with the magnetic activity around the Sun. During high periods of activity, fewer cosmic rays hit the Earth and so there are less clouds formed, resulting in warming.

Low activity causes more clouds and cools the Earth.

He said: "Evidence from ice cores show this happening long into the past. We have the highest solar activity we have had in at least 1,000 years.

"Humans are having an effect on climate change, but by not including the cosmic ray effect in models it means the results are inaccurate.The size of man's impact may be much smaller and so the man-made change is happening slower than predicted."

Some climate change experts have dismissed the claims as "tenuous".

Giles Harrison, a cloud specialist at Reading University said that he had carried out research on cosmic rays and their effect on clouds, but believed the impact on climate is much smaller than Mr Svensmark claims.

Mr Harrison said: "I have been looking at cloud data going back 50 years over the UK and found there was a small relationship with cosmic rays. It looks like it creates some additional variability in a natural climate system but this is small."

But there is a growing number of scientists who believe that the effect may be genuine.

Among them is Prof Bob Bingham, a clouds expert from the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils in Rutherford.

He said: "It is a relatively new idea, but there is some evidence there for this effect on clouds."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
So would it be better to try and stop climate change, or spend our time trying to prepare for it?

---

Can't we do both? Any restraint of emissions is just going to reduce the rise and thus give more time to adjust to a changing climate.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
The United States is still by far the largest - not per capita, but total- emitter of greenhouse gases.

---

Quote:

---

We are, compared to other industrialized naitons, profligate in our energy use: car mileage requirements are more stringent everywhere else in the developed world- even China- than here.

---

Quote:

---

So, for the most part it would be ridiculously easy for the United States to reduce it's emission of greenhouse gases to less than 1980 levels with no reduction in living standards.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
In a world of unlimited resources and money we could.

---

Quote:

---

Given that we have a finite amount to spend, is there a best mix of reduction in change and preparation for the change we'll get?

---

Quote:

---

If we limit the temp increase by 2099 to 2.0c instead of 4.0c, is it going to make that much difference in drought and storm patterns? maybe we'll have to wait for more detail from the IPCC.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
Reducing emissions is mainly about reducing resource usage, not increasing it so I'm at somewhat of a loss to understand why you think doing both would require infinite resources. Most emission curbs are about buying local goods, driving less and avoiding flying if at all possible, so indeed huge curbs could be made without unlimited resources.

---

Quote:

---

The entire world's transportation sector(cars, trains, ships, rail, etc.) generates 14% of greenhouse gasses. The U.S., Canada, and Europe produce a bit less than half of that, say 6%. A 25% decrease in all transport emissions for these regions would lower world totals 1.5%, assuming the rest of the world just holds steady. I've seen projections that China and India are expected to increase their transportation emissions 3.5 to 5.5 TIMES (not percent), easily counteracting any reductions by the "industrialized" nations.

---

Quote:

---

Transport accounted for about 21% of G8 greenhouse gas emissions in 2000, about the same as the manufacturing, construction and industrial sector combined.

---

Quote:

---

Any effort to control global climate change by reducing emissions is going to require global action and cooperation. The "developing" world, to include China, India, and South America, have pretty much said that they have higher priorities, such as improving the standard of living for their people. If the industrialized nations try to reduce climate change by themselves, by whatever means, I'm not sure they're going to get much result with the rest of the world not playing.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
Have you a cite for these figures.

---

Quote:

---

Yes, but right at this moment we have the worlds biggest producer refusing to make any cuts because they might somday be larger producers.

---

Quote:

---

Why should developing countries worry when the current largest producer couldn't give a rats arse?

---

Quote:

---

Most studies predict that the world will double its consumption of energy by 2050. Since much of that growth in consumption will take place in China and India, it will involve the burning of fossil fuels.

Between them, these two countries are currently building 650 coal-fired power plants. The combined CO2 emissions of these new plants is five times the total savings of the Kyoto accords—that is, if the Kyoto targets were being adhered to by Western countries, which they are not.

---

Quote:

---

The Creeping Fascism of Global Warming Hysteria: Man-made orthodoxy is a dogma of coercion, bias, and junk science

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, February 13, 2007

The hoax of the doctrine of man-made global warming that is being foisted upon the world by decree, and the junk science that is manipulated to support it, represents a creeping fascism whose agenda to stifle open debate betrays the fact that climate change hysteria is a farce intended to crush freedoms and further centralize global power.

In an interview with a Czech newspaper, Vaclav Klaus, the President of the Czech Republic blamed the "whip of political correctness" for preventing more scientists and statesmen from going public with their skepticism on man-made global warming. This is precisely what we have arrived at, in a bizarre vacuum of common sense and without any attribution, the establishment and the controlled left have managed to squash reasoned two-sided debate about global warming by coating their argument with the nebulous claim that expressing disagreement is somehow bigoted, backward and even racist.

The very fact that the man-made advocates have to introduce such a far distant concept as race into a debate about scientific climate change makes it self-evident that their argument is inherently weak and vulnerable.

In an article we published in November about global warming being primarily caused by the sun, we commented somewhat tongue in cheek that people who express doubts about global warming would soon be compared to holocaust deniers by the media and other self-appointed cultural kingpins who demand total adherence to orthodox religion style beliefs about climate change.

Here's what we wrote:

The assertion that global warming is man made is so oppressively enforced upon popular opinion, especially in Europe, that expressing a scintilla of doubt is akin to holocaust denial in some cases. Such is the insipid brainwashing that has taken place via television, newspapers and exalted talking heads - global warming skeptics are forced to wear the metaphoric yellow star and only discuss their doubts in hushed tones and conciliatory frameworks, or be cat-called, harangued and jeered by an army of do-gooders who righteously believe they are rescuing mother earth by recycling a wine bottle or putting their paper in a separate trash can.

It's not longer a joke.

The Boston Globe's Ellen Goodman wrote an op-ed last week denouncing anyone who dares dissent against the God-like authoritative status of the IPCC UN report on climate change.

I would like to say we're at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.

This assault betrays what's at the heart of the global warming agenda - a cadre of control freaks who can't respond to the overwhelming evidence that the Sun and other long term natural cycles are responsible for climate change and thus have to resort to vile propagandistic personality attacks to sway the court of public opinion.

During a debate on the BBC's Question Time program, a panelist's appeal for viewers to simply look at both sides of the argument and consider other causes besides the man-made explanation was met with boos and cat-calls from the audience and the speaker was shouted down. It's now treated as sacrilegious to even question the force fed dogma that leads the automatons to endlessly repeat what has been brainwashed into them by the establishment media like a broken record.

"We can't afford to have this debate," they scream, arguing that the end is nigh and unbelievers need to be metaphorically burned at the stake of public opinion in the interests of human survival.

But for those with memories and the nerve to actually think for themselves, the climate doomsayers have been proven wrong throughout the decades. In the late 60's and early 70's, the in-vogue hysteria about climate change and how it spelled the end for humanity as we know it revolved around the concept of global cooling. Again, this arose out of a misunderstanding of long term temperature fluctuations and the fact that the earth was at the end of the cycle of the Little Ice Age.

Writer John Bender has done an excellent job of compiling quotes from environmental "authorities" of past decades who told us that the sky was falling yet have been completely discredited with hindsight. Keep these dire proclamations in mind when you hear yet another "repeater" regurgitate the brainwashing that he or she has been indoctrinated with by the establishment.

The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization and exploding population. -- Reid Bryson, "Global Ecology; Readings towards a rational strategy for Man", (1971)

The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer -- Paul Ehrlich - The Population Bomb (1968)

I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000 -- Paul Ehrlich in (1969)

In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish. -- Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day (1970)

Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity . . . in which the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing depletion -- Paul Ehrlich in (1976)

This [cooling] trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century -- Peter Gwynne, Newsweek 1976

There are ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production - with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth. The drop in food production could begin quite soon... The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologist are hard-pressed to keep up with it. -- Newsweek, April 28, (1975)

This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000. -- Lowell Ponte "The Cooling", 1976
If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000...This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age. -- Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling, Earth Day (1970)

The IPCC is a political body, not a scientific organization, therefore its proclamation is purely intended at achieving a political agenda. The document they released on February 2 that was devotedly afforded days of intense coverage by the compliant establishment media was a political manifesto based on a scientific undertaking that has not even been completed. How empirical is a "scientific experiment" whose conclusions are announced before tests have even been completed? The document immediately states that the "scientific" research is being edited to conform to the already released political summary.

“Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter,” states the brief.

The U.N. has confidently announced "case closed" on man-made global warming because they are editing their own uncompleted report to mirror their pre-conceived conclusion. Hardly "independent" is it?

The IPCC report was piggybacked onto a bandwagon of public relations stunts that had nothing to do with the evidence behind global warming but were enough to leave an impression in the mind of the casual viewer that the man-made explanation was a global consensus. These included the Eiffel Tower's lights being turned off for 5 minutes and a ludicrous incident in which British primate expert Jane Goodall imitated the wild call of a tropical chimpanzee.

Czech President Klaus stated, "Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment."

Man-made advocates go to great lengths to highlight the fact that transnational oil giants such as Exxon-Mobil offer thousands of dollars for reports aimed at disproving the UN theory, claiming this taints any opposing viewpoint as biased, and yet conveniently ignore the fact that it was the U.N. itself and Ted Turner, a man-made devotee and advocate of drastic population reduction to save the planet, who gifted the organization $1 Billion which in part funded the IPCC report. Is that not biased? Is that not a example of scientists being lavishly bankrolled to produce evidence that fits a pre-conceived outcome? Is the fact that a carbon tax fueled by fear of climate change that will go directly to assorted U.N. agencies itself a commentary on the U.N.'s role on hyping man-made global warming?

In addition, Greenpeace are recruiting "global warming field organizer's" whose job it is to lobby members of Congress to push the agenda for man-made global warming. So if you thought your donation was going to help save whales or protect the rainforest you're sorely mistaken - it's partly funding a PR assault that will eventually orbit right back to you in the form of a draconian carbon emissions tax that will do nothing to prevent global warming but will fill the pockets of global government and the U.N.

Not all scientists were prepared to sacrifice their impartiality to be in on the scam. Dr. Chris Landsea resigned from the IPCC in his own words because, “I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.”

Landsea is one of many climate experts, meteorologists, geologists and others who have braved the scorn of the flat-earthers to point out that man-made advocates have utilized myopic and blinkered scientific trickery to make their case.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Internet leader in activist media - Prison Planet.tv. Thousands of special reports, videos, MP3's, interviews, conferences, speeches, events, documentary films, books and more - all for just 15 cents a day!
Click here to subscribe!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Timothy Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg, recently penned an outstanding piece in which he detailed how the illusion is being played out and how skeptics of the farce are increasingly being made pariahs simply for having an opposing view. Ball puts it better than I ever could so I make no apologies for quoting his article at length.

" Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was one of the first Canadian Ph.Ds. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.

Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification.

No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?

Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.
I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.

Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.

No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent."

No one disagrees with the notion that global warming is occurring, but to discount the fact that it has anything to do with that giant flaming ball of fire in our sky that we can barely look at without being blinded is ignorance unparalleled.

How do we square the fact that almost every planet in our solar system is simultaneously undergoing temperature change and volatile weather patterns? Does this not suggest that global warming is a natural cycle as a result of the evolving nature of the sun and other celestial phenomena? Can Al Gore fill me in on this one?

Mars, Pluto, Jupiter, Saturn, Triton and numerous other nooks and crannies throughout the solar system are experiencing warming trends and volatile weather patterns. How many SUV's are there on Jupiter?

The earth and its celestial counterparts are getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time in the past 1,000 years, according to a study undertaken by the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany.

In addition, cosmic rays from exploding stars have now been found to contribute substantially to cloud formation and the greenhouse effect as the London Times reported yesterday.

The simple fact is that throughout the ages the earth has swung wildly between a warm, wet, stable climate, to a cold, dry and windy one - long before the first fossil fuel was burned. The changes we are now witnessing are a walk in the park compared to the battering that our rugged planet has taken in the past.

This is not a defense of the oil cartels or the Neo-Con wreckers, who would have every motivation to ignore global warming whether it is man-made or not.

Nor is it a blanket denial of the fact that the earth is getting very gradually hotter, but how do we reconcile global warming taking place at the farthest reaches of the solar system with the contention that it is caused by human activity? Have our exhaust fumes left earth's atmosphere and slipped through a black hole to Triton?

Countless other heroes of science have put their reputation and careers on the line in the name of truth to expose the man-made fraud and challenge the creeping fascism being engendered by means of using political correctness to hijack the debate. They have bucked the orthodoxy and risked being stripped of their credentials, as the Weather Channel’s most prominent climatologist would have it. Here are several insightful statements from these brave individuals.

I have been in operational meteorology since 1978, and I know dozens and dozens of broadcast meteorologists all over the country. Our big job: look at a large volume of raw data and come up with a public weather forecast for the next seven days. I do not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype. I know there must be a few out there, but I can’t find them. Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story. Even the lady at “The Weather Channel” probably gets paid good money for a prime time show on climate change. No man-made global warming, no show, and no salary. Nothing wrong with making money at all, but when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab. The climate of this planet has been changing since God put the planet here. It will always change, and the warming in the last 10 years is not much difference than the warming we saw in the 1930s and other decades. And, lets not forget we are at the end of the ice age in which ice covered most of North America and Northern Europe.
ABC-TV Meteorologist James Spann.

"It's not 2,500 people offering their consensus, I participated in that. Each person who is an author writes one or two pages in conjunction with someone else. They travel around the world several times a year for several years to write it and the summary for policymakers has the input of about 13 of the scientists, but ultimately, it is written by representatives of governments, of environmental organizations like the Union of Concerned Scientists, and industrial organizations, each seeking their own benefit."
MIT's Professor of Atmospheric Science Dr. Richard Lindzen on the IPCC report.
"Climate keeps changing all the time. The fact that climate changes is not in itself a threat."
Dr. S. Fred Singer, Atmospheric Physicist at George Mason University.

Man-made global warming feeds into humanity's arrogant self-importance in thinking that it has become the master and therefore the decider of the earth's destiny. On an individual level, it also helps a person stroke their ego and feel good about themselves for recycling a few beer cans or wine bottles in the belief that they're saving the planet, and also gives them the excuse to exercise their judgment against anyone who doesn't do likewise.

Fearmongering about an imminent climate doomsday also hogs news coverage and important environmental issues like GM food, mad scientist chimera cloning and the usurpation and abuse of corporations like Monsanto flies under the radar.

Global warming is cited as an excuse to meter out further control and surveillance over our daily lives, RFID chips on our trash cans, GPS satellite tracking and taxation by the mile, as well as a global tax at the gas pump.

The extremist wing of the environmentalist movement, characterized by people like Dr. Erik Pianka, advocate the mass culling of humanity via plagues and state sanctioned bio-terrorism, in order to "save" the earth from the disease of humanity. Nazi-like genocidal population control measures and the environmental establishment have always held a close alliance.

The world is laboring under enforced adherence to a program of mass deception while scientists who attempt to blow the whistle on the fraud are silenced, tarred, ridiculed and fired. The biased control freaks at the United Nations and their intellectually spayed cheerleaders, whose goal it is to use the hysteria of climate change to impose draconian control measures on society and centralize world power, have declared "case closed" on the man-made origins of global warming. However, their foolish attempts to zealously mute mere expression of an opposing view betray the inherent flaws of their own mantra and will ultimately lead to its downfall.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
Okay. Let's assume that the IPCC's latest report is correct and that things will be warming up in the next 100 years

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:


Thanks, global warming is so funny. Gotto run, turns out shoveling snow is much harder then shoveling the crap you guys are spreading.

---

Quote:

---

RUE-
I'm sorry that we're going to take down a lot of the animals and plants before we go down ourselves. I'm mean, what did they ever do except live on the same planet as an eff'ed up species that can't stop, as they saying goes, shitting in its own nest.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:
how curious it is, that we *appear to hold the balance of life in our hands- what miracle of evolution allowed us to be the guardians of this planet? ... we cant even take care of our own 'species'

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
AFA China is concerned... unfortunately they have lots and lot of coal. 350 coal-fired power plants at about 1000 MW each (that's a hefty-sized power plant) is 350,000 MW. They also plan on building a (much smaller) number of wind-turbines by 2020 totalling 30,000 MW (they have very good 'wind resources', they should take more advantage of it) and the Three Gorges Dam will produce about 18,000 MW. I've heard thet China is seriously looking into hydrogen fuel (good luck on that). I think the big problem is India, which doesn't have enough control of it's economy to reform energy production in any meaningful way.

---

Quote:

---

Geezer, I'm going to expand on the subject a bit, because there are so many easy things that COULD be done both in the USA and worldwide that aren't.

Just to toss out a few:

DC power transmission....More efficient fluorescent, diode lights...Solar ovens...Windpower.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
Okay. Let's assume that the IPCC's latest report is correct and that things will be warming up in the next 100 years

---

Thats so funny. I'm going to name my forty foot snowman in your honor.

Geezer the Snowman,
was a jolly happy soul,
without a corncob pipe cause smoking's illegal,
and two eyes made of bio-degradable dog crap.

---

Quote:

---

And that's sort of the problem. If we take steps to control emissions and they don't, it doesn't mean we avoid climate change and they don't.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:

---

And that's sort of the problem. If we take steps to control emissions and they don't, it doesn't mean we avoid climate change and they don't.

---

And that's the age-old problem of "the commons". But I'm facing a busy day today so I'll have to get back to you later.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Khyron:
Now that the Ozzies have finally gotten their arses handed to them in cricket, it looks like Howard could at last tear himself away from watching them on the telly long enough to get one of his ministers to do something sensible.

---