As freak weather becomes the norm, we need to adapt by Niki2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

You guys would be funny...if you weren't so sad, and so scary because it is people like you who have put us in the situation we're in. It's not just abou "climate change" or "global warming" or whatever you want to snark about that, it's much more complex.

Just for fun, I challenge you. How do you explain away the following? Your response should be amusing. I don't want to deal in political snarks about "conservatives" and "liberals" and how "stupid" or "deranged" the "other side" is; you of course can continue to do so if you wish, but if you've got the guts and brains, tell me how you would explain that the following doesn't mean we're not in trouble:

Quote:
A team of 30 scientists across the globe ( http://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/researchnews/tippingtoward
stheunknown/contactdetails.4.1fe8f33123572b59ab800010646.html) have determined that the nine environmental processes of climate change, biodiversity loss, nitrogen levels, freshwater consumption, ocean acidification, land use, phosphorous levels, chemical pollution and aerosol loading must remain within specific limits, otherwise the "safe operating space" within which humankind can exist on Earth will be threatened.

The researchers have determined that the world has already crossed the boundary in three cases: biodiversity loss, the nitrogen cycle and climate change. Freshwater consumption, ocean acidification, land use and phosphorous levels are close to the boundary. Chemical pollution and aerosol loading are still being pinned down. As it stands now:

Up to 30% of mammals, birds and amphibians will be threatened with extinction in this century;
Biodiversity loss has happened faster in the past 50 years than at any other time in human history;
We're losing ice sheets; sea levels are rising; weather patterns are changing;
Carbon dioxide is making the oceans more acidic, causing the loss of corals, shellfish and plankton;
Widespread fertilizer use is changing the nitrogen and phosphorous cycles even more than the carbon cycle;
Excess nitrogen and phosphorous pollute our rivers, lakes, oceans and atmosphere;
Global freshwater use doubles every 20 years, at more than twice the rate of population growth;
We've already passed the tipping point of climate change, biodiversity loss and nitrogen levels;
We're about to pass the tipping point of freshwater consumption, ocean acidification, land use and phosphorous levels.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 25, 2012 3:49 PM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
You guys would be funny...if you weren't so sad, and so scary because it is people like you who have put us in the situation we're in. It's not just abou "climate change" or "global warming" or whatever you want to snark about that, it's much more complex.

You are right we are responsible, it's not about climate change, and it is complex.

People like us created a world of freedom and prosperity that allow otherwise idle liberals the opportunity to think deeply about the world they live in. They speculate, postulate, and pontificate because in the world we created without their help they don't need worry about their next meal, serving their patron or lord, or getting off their asses to contribute to the real world.

But it's not that complex after all...in the end it comes down to fear. They fear the true creative spirit that drives a man to build a business, sacrifice for a future, and do right by god and country in the name of liberty. The truth is they've been left behind, alone in the world...useless, worthless, powerless.

As for your example. It's 2012, according to scientists we've already destroyed the world. Cities are underwater, a pandemic has killed us all, their was a nuclear war, all the plants have died, the ozone layer is gone. You should learn by now not to listen to scientists who put their conclusions ahead of their science...and whose grants are controlled by those liberals I've already mentioned.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 25, 2012 4:24 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Niki,

On the topic of adapting to extreme conditions, I think you'll find that humans do adapt once the need to do so is beaten into them by repeated catastrophe. The catastrophe needs to be relatively frequent so that people don't 'forget' how terrible it is.

Places like California and Miami have adjusted themselves to account for extreme conditions. If extreme conditions become more regular, the adjustments will continue to be refined and improved.

As long as something doesn't kill us entirely, and as long as it kills us with sufficient regularity, humans change their behavior or their environment to compensate for it. What's worrisome to me isn't the idea of regular, extreme weather patterns. Some humans will always survive such things. What's worrisome to me is the idea of something sudden and all-consuming that leaves no time for adaptation.

Adapting is something I think Humans do well. Reacting to predicted but not recently experienced problems is something we do not do well, in my opinion.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term fits.)
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 25, 2012 4:42 PM

DEVERSE

Hey, Ive been in a firefight before! Well, I was in a fire. Actually, I was fired from a fry-cook opportunity.

Is pollution happening? Yes it is and it isn’t good. But is it going to kill the planet? Probably, much in the same way the growing piles of horse manure in New York were predicted to kill the city and eastern US in the late 1800’s if “something” wasn’t done.

If one were curious enough, and if they were available on the web I suppose, one could look up the research conducted by the US meteorological service in the late 1920’s and 1930’ and that was continued for a few years by some relatively prestigious and renowned scientists of the day (they quit because of WW2 - better stuff to research then). According to their calculations, by the year 2000 the world was going to suffer another “mini” ice age and it was predicted that most of Canada was going to have to be abandoned because it would be uninhabitable due to the cold. Whoda thunk eh?

Now, about 8 months ago, a group of 500 scientists published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scare.
More than 300 of the scientists involved cross the globe found strong evidence that;
1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warming’s similar to ours since the last Ice Age and
2) that the current Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance.

This data, their study and the list of scientists involved pretty much refuted the claims the consensus of 57 scientists (none involved in any study by the way – just a board that says research is valid or not) who placed the blame of global warming on humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850.
Also found was evidence that;
3) sea levels are failing to rise as has been predicted
4) that storms and droughts are actually becoming fewer and milder with this warming as they did during previous global warmings;
5) that human deaths will be reduced with warming because cold kills twice as many people as heat; and
6) that corals, trees, birds, mammals, and butterflies are adapting well to the routine reality of changing climate.

Further, global warming may be occurring and it has affected weather patterns. However, the magnetic field of the earth has changed significantly as well, so much so that in 2008 almost every airport in North America had to reclassify their runways and change navigational data at FFRSC sites to guide aircraft to landing paths.
The change in magnetic fields is also believed to have caused a fairly significant change in weather patterns as the earth should tilt rather smoothly from 22 to 24.5 degrees (the normal is 23.5) which causes seasonal changes. However, this smooth transition has become less smooth and the earth is actually “wobbling” in a .5 to 1 degree range. Now, that may not seem like a lot, but consider that all it takes is a 23 degree change to bring summer to the farthest parts of the arctic and a change of 1 degree can be the difference between a summer with a 90 day growing season (which most crops rely upon north of the 50th) or a 78 day growing season which means that crops will not have sufficient time to grow and be harvested because it will not be warm soon enough and get cold too quickly at the end of the season. Obviously, a shortened season is also going to effect the type and severity of weather to some degree and a changing magnetic field (and weakened BTW) which protects earth from solar radiation is also going to have an effect on the weather and temperature.

The theory of global warming is based upon computer modelling. I will tell you that that is my specialty, I have degrees in computational fluid dynamics, thermodynamics and fire protection engineering. I teach this as well.
The best computer modelling system for global warming is only considered to be 22% accurate. The worst is 11% accurate. Given what I know of computer modelling, I can enter exactly identical data and change 1 parameter by a minute amount and come up with a totally different answer at the end of the model. In other words, I can manipulate the data or the way the data is handled and pretty much make it tell me what I want it to tell me.
Even if completely honest in the research and data, would you bet your life and future on something with 22% accuracy? Because that is what these global warming scientists are asking us to do.

I have no problem believing that there are things going on in the world that are not very good for us. I am concerned about the strontium-90 that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bomb has made a part of every living thing since 1945 and which can be traced to a significant number of health issues worldwide.

I am concerned with the pollution 300 tons of “expended” uranium rounds littered across the world by a certain country's military and that are causing birth defects and increased infant mortality rates. Also how this dust is being carried around the world and when inhaled or ingested, causes chemical and radioactive damage to the bronchial tree, kidneys, liver and bones and increases the incidence of cancer.

I am concerned about the Great Pacific and North Atlantic garbage patches which through analysis of pelagic debris identifies the vast majority comes from one country, but not every country is innocent of the pollution in the oceans.

I am concerned that two countries pollute 4 times as much as any other country on earth and neither have any specific strategy on reducing this pollution.

I am concerned about a lot of things, but not global warming so much cause there isn't a darn thing anyone can do about it and even if it were man made CO2 causing the problem (which I strongly doubt as man made CO2 is only 3% of what nature produces), if all CO2 production were stopped today, including all CO2 that comes from nature, it would take 100 years before any positive effect could be observed. So unless there is some strategy to stop nature from producing CO2, we are doomed anyway, may as well just let her rip.

As a last, I don't normally have a suspicious mind but a research company founded in 2007 by an agency with a specific interest in generating revenue from environmental "studies" tends to limit my belief in their conclusions without a good second source of information.

Oh let the sun beat down upon my face
With stars to fill my dream
I am a traveler of both time and space
To be where I have been

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 25, 2012 5:47 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Now, about 8 months ago, a group of 500 scientists published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scare.

Link? Name? Title?

SignyM: I swear, if we really knew what was being decided about us in our absence, and how hosed the government is prepared to let us be, we would string them up.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 25, 2012 6:24 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Oh never mind, I found it.

I'm afraid your post is quite a bit of hype, and very little fact.

First of all, it's a literature review (not a study) by a single person (not a group of 500 or 300 scientists) named Dennis Avery (not a climate scientist but a food policy person), and it came out in 2007 (not 8 months ago).

Dennis Avery is listed as a fellow at the Hudson Institute:
"Dennis T. Avery (born 24 October 1936) is the director of the Center for Global Food Issues at the Hudson Institute, where he edits Global Food Quarterly." Avery - not a climate scientist. "The Hudson Institute is an American conservative not for profit think tank founded in 1961, in Croton-on-Hudson, New York, ..." both from wiki

Here is where I found the documents:

http://heartland.org/policy-documents/challenge-scientific-consensus-g
lobal-warming

"A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance. "This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850," said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery."

So I briefly looked over the available titles of the papers. Many of them go back many, many years - some decades. (see partial list below of the first few papers listed) Perhaps Avery doesn't realize it, but the science has moved on since then. The titles themselves were generally not terribly applicable to GLOBAL climate modeling, or even climate modeling or sometimes even surrogates for climate.

The List:
500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares
(An alphabetical listing is provided separately)
Dennis T. Avery
Center for Global Food Issues
September 14, 2007

W. Dansgaard et al., “North Atlantic Climatic Oscillations Revealed by Deep Greenland Ice Cores,” in Climate Processes and Climate Sensitivity (1984) REALLY OLD

W Dansgaard et al., “Evidence for general instability of past climate from a 250-kyr ice-core record,” Nature 364 (1992) REALLY OLD

Claude Lorius et al., “A 150,000-Year Climatic Record from Antarctic Ice, “Nature, Vol. 316, pp. 591-96, 1985 REALLY OLD

T. Cronin, “Climatic Variability in the Eastern U.S. over the past Millennium from Chesapeake Bay Sediments, Geology, Vol. 28, p 3-6, 2000 PRETTY OLD

Gerald H. Haug, “Climate and the Collapse of Maya Civilization,” Science 299 (2003) PRETTY OLD

David Hodell et al., “Solar Forcing of Drought Frequency in the Maya Lowlands,” Science 292 (2001) PRETTY OLD

I give this an F.

SignyM: I swear, if we really knew what was being decided about us in our absence, and how hosed the government is prepared to let us be, we would string them up.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 25, 2012 6:31 PM

WISHIMAY

Link?Name?Title?

TRAP!!!!!

You post just one link they'll want a note from yo mama signed in blood by a notary AND a retinal scan the next time....

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 26, 2012 12:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Another side of climate change/global warming (for those who believe in it): that we need to start adapting because nothing will be done to change it.
Quote:
IT HAS been yet another week of extraordinary weather. Torrential rainfall caused chaos across the UK. A record-breaking heatwave drifted across the US, broken by freak thunderstorms that left a trail of destruction from Chicago to Washington DC. Meanwhile, in India and Bangladesh more than 100 people were killed and half a million fled when the monsoon arrived with a vengeance.

We have become used to reports of extreme weather events playing down any connection with climate change. The refrain is usually along the lines of "you cannot attribute any single event to global warming". But increasingly this is no longer the case. The science of climate attribution - which makes causal connections between climate change and weather events - is advancing rapidly, and with it our understanding of what we can expect in years to come.

From killer heatwaves to destructive floods, the effects of global warming are becoming ever more obvious - and we ain't seen nothing yet. Our weather is not only becoming more extreme as a result of global warming, it is becoming even more extreme than climate scientists predicted.

Researchers now think they are starting to understand why. Human activity cannot be held solely responsible for all of these extreme events, but by adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, we have loaded the climate dice. Only political leaders and corporate masters have the power to do anything about that - but they are doing little to help.

Those opposed to cutting emissions sometimes argue that we will simply adapt to a warming world. That is fast becoming a necessity, rather than a choice, but we are doing a lousy job of it. Take the recent devastating forest fires in Colorado. Recent weather conditions have been ideal for them, but they were worsened by forest-management practices that led to a build-up of combustible fuel . Elsewhere in the US, subsidised insurance encourages development in coastal areas that are increasingly at risk from storms and flooding.

China, too, is failing. Most of rapidly growing Shanghai is barely above sea level. The land is sinking and the sea is rising. In a century or two, it will be another New Orleans.

And what sort of extreme events will we have to endure by 2060, when the planet could already be 4 °C hotter and counting? We need to start planning for a future of much wilder weather now, to prepare for ever more ferocious heatwaves, storms, floods and droughts.

For example, building codes should be toughened so that homes and offices can withstand whatever is thrown at them. Vital infrastructure should be situated in areas far from the risk of floods and other natural disasters, as Thailand learned the hard way last year when an economically important industrial site was destroyed by floodwater.

We are in this position as a result of decades of foot-dragging over emissions cuts and clean-energy investment. That was perhaps understandable given the distant and abstract nature of the threat. Now the threat has become a real and present danger. Those who offer blithe reassurances of our ability to adapt need to start putting their money where their mouths are.
I don't actually see any of this "adapting" happening any time soon, either. It would require accepting that global warming is happening for anyone to start changing things; we're too comfortable as a species with our shoreline villas, too unwilling to retrofit places against weather like we've been doing here and elsewhere against 'quakes.

Given I believe we've passed tipping point, it's doubly sad to see that not only are people comfortable ignoring global warming, they're equally comfortable not lifting a finger to adapt to what's coming--even tho' they're seeing it with their own eyes.

Couple of examples (I can't get the whole article without subscribing, but here's a taste):
Quote:
ITS NICKNAME is the icebox of the nation. The village of Pellston in Michigan often sees arctic winters, with a thermometer-shattering record low of -47 °C in 1933. Even by late March, it is usually a very chilly place. But not this year. On 22 March the Pellston weather station registered a temperature above 29 °C, vaporising the previous record for that date by more than 17 degrees.

This was just one of thousands of weather records smashed by the "summer in March", a 10-day event that affected much of North America. Many people enjoyed the unseasonal warmth, but most of the other extraordinary weather events of the past decade have been far less welcome. In 2003, the summer in Europe was so hot it killed tens of thousands. Russia in 2010 suffered even more staggering heat.

According to the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, June was one of the hottest on record in the US since data collection began in 1880.
But nah, it's just weather, no global warming HERE!

Yes we do need to adapt. Here we had 10 years of low rainfall, record high temperatures and the worst bushfires in recorded history, followed by several years of record rainfall and massive flooding. We got the double whammy. So we need to be able to survive extremes, because those once in 100 year events are becoming very regular.

It's going to need money poured into infrastructure, ingenuity and long term planning. Alas for us, those features are sadly lacking in our current system of government.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 26, 2012 12:49 AM

drought first decade of 2000 in victoria

black saturday fires 2009

The Black Saturday bushfires[7] were a series of bushfires that ignited or were burning across the Australian state of Victoria on and around Saturday, 7 February 2009. The fires occurred during extreme bushfire-weather conditions, and resulted in Australia's highest ever loss of life from a bushfire;[8] 173 people died[5][9] and 414 were injured as a result of the fires.

As many as 400 individual fires were recorded on 7 February. Following the events of 7 February 2009 and its aftermath, that day has become widely referred to as Black Saturday.

Temperatures reached 46 c that is 115 F for you imperial types.

and aftermath of 2009 fires Victoria

floods 2011 Victoria

cyclone yasi approaches northern australia 2011

state capital Brisbane flooded 2011

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 26, 2012 1:00 AM

Extreme weather events are becoming increasinly common.

This is a list for my city.

List of weather events

1863 - A major flood puts Port Melbourne underwater leaving thousands homeless across the city and drowning one man at Princes Bridge.[2]
26 July 1882 - snow fell for half an hour in Melbourne.[3]
1882 - Elizabeth Street in Melbourne was in flood.
1891 - The great flood causes the Yarra River to swell to 305 metres (1,001 ft) in width.[4] Described as the worst flood in history it leaves thousands homeless and causes at least one death.
1908 - A heatwave strikes Melbourne.[5][6]
2 February 1918 - The Brighton tornado, an F3 class and the most intense tornado to hit a major Australian city, strikes the bay side suburb of Brighton.
9 November to 1 December 1934 - Torrential rainfall of up to 350 mm. Yarra River becomes raging torrent. Extensive damage with 35 dead, 250 injured, and 3,000 homeless.[7][8][9][10]
13 January 1939 - Melbourne experiences its second hottest temperature on record, 45.6 °C (114.1 °F), during a four-day nationwide heat wave in which the Black Friday bushfires destroy townships that are now Melbourne suburbs.[11]
1951 - A moderate cover of snow blankets the central business district (CBD) and suburbs.[12][13]
3 December 1954 - Record wet day causes flooding in Elwood and Flemington with homes also evacuated and Flinders Street and Swanston Street and major events cancelled.[14]
1972 - Elizabeth Street is flooded after a massive downpour of rain.[15][16]
8 February 1983 - The city is enveloped by a massive dust storm that "turned day into night".
16 February 1983 - Melbourne is encircled by an arc of fire as the Ash Wednesday fires encroach on the city.
18 September 1984 - Storm causes flooding of 100 homes in the eastern suburbs.[17]
December 1990 - Heatwave causes 4 deaths.[18]
26 December 1999 - Flash flooding damages 300 homes with the worst effect on Broadmeadows.
December 2003 - Freak storms
February 2005 - Freak storms[19][20][21]
January 2009 - A heatwave results in a record three successive days over 43 °C (109 °F).[22] This is closely followed by Melbourne's hottest day on record on 7 February, when the temperature reached 46.4 °C (115.5 °F) in the CBD. This same heatwave triggered the Black Saturday bushfires, the worst in Australian history.[23]
6 March 2010 - Storms pass directly over Melbourne bringing large hail, flash flooding and high winds, causing widespread damage across western and central Victoria, stopping all modes of transportation in Melbourne. CBD streets of Flinders, Spencer and Elizabeth were spectacularly flash flooded.
10 November 2011 - Severe storm caused flash flooding in Croydon and Frankston.[24]
25 December 2011 - Severe thunderstorms, large hailstones, flash flooding and reports of tornadoes caused major damage to houses and vehicles in the worst hit areas of Fiskville, Melton, Taylors Lakes & Keilor Downs.[2

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 26, 2012 1:46 AM

JONGSSTRAW

I'll wager it was pretty hot in Melbourne in September 1942, when battle-weary and victorious US Marines were given R&R there after stopping the Japanese invasion force at Guadalcanal. Young ladies whose boyfriends were off fighting elsewhere greeted the arriving Yanks with their own version of freaky heat. Thanks mate!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 26, 2012 2:15 AM

I dunno... sounds to me like climate change and the excessive gun violence would make sense to the science-minded people here.

I've seen more than several people post that we're all "just animals". In a way, that is true, and I won't even argue many little differences that may seem inconsequential at face value but when added up mean something much different than that.

The point is that I believe that we're MUCH worse than animals in many different ways, although we have, and have shown the capacity to be much better than we as a whole come off.

All of this is irrelevant to the point though.

The point is... before "Man" came into the picture Nature always found a way to balance things out. Most of this balancing was done in a non-violent fashion, but there are records of insane volcanic eruptions and ice ages' on the charts that served as a virtual "Noah's Flood" back before the first human was ever born.

I think these man-made changes are happening now. Just because they're man-made doesn't make them any worse than other cataclysmic "happenings" in the history of the world... at least... in the scheme of things.

Personally, I don't even think the climate change is really a bad thing.

When things get worse, people will adapt or die. If it's too late for all of us, even the most adept at adapting will likely die off too. If the race as a whole is lucky, there might be a few of us who survive and live on to tell their grandchildren stories of how complex the world was before mankind fell and how we should not repeat their mistakes.

If none of us survive??????

Not such a bad scenario for any new life-forms who eventually exist here.

Personally, I feel it's pretty arrogant of us to say that we even possess the power to "kill" the Earth.

Look at Her fighting back now. I think this is child's play compared to what She can do. She's just firing warning shots past our heads with her six-shooter now. She hasn't even brought out the rocket launcher yet, let alone Her own nuclear arsenal.

My guess.... we're lucky if, as a species, we survive another 100 years. At that time, our presence here is a mere blink of an eye for Earth. It may take 10 times as long for Her to truly recover when She sheds Herself of us, but even ten times as long is really nothing in the timeline.......

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." ~Shepherd Book

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 26, 2012 5:28 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

There it is. I challenged Hero and Raptor to explain the items I put up...both disappeared completely. Oh, I take that back; Hero did respond, with some political gobble-de-gook which is totally irrelevant to the question at hand. So then comes Deverse, who posted information I find downright amazing, and as Kiki investigated, was put forth by a conservative think tank, some of it out of date, and listed absolutely no facts to support the amazing claim that

3) sea levels are failing to rise as has been predicted
4) that storms and droughts are actually becoming fewer and milder with this warming as they did during previous global warmings;
5) that human deaths will be reduced with warming because cold kills twice as many people as heat; and
6) that corals, trees, birds, mammals, and butterflies are adapting well to the routine reality of changing climate

Just those four statements are patently false given observable data. The idea that sea levels are failing to rise "as predicted" (they don't mention what was predicted) is provably false by the recent material on COUNTRIES (islands) which are having to be evacuated because of the rapid rise of sea levels.

Stoms, droughts, etc., are OBSERVABLY worse just to us laymen, and have been SHOWN to be getting worse, not through "computerized models" but by data on current conditions observable by anyone over time.

The mere concept that current conditions will be better for humans because cold kills more humans than heat isn't even worth going INTO.

The adaptation of other species to changing climate is just plain wrong, given, BY MEASUREMENTS, coral reefs alone are dying at an amazing rate (the ubiquitous "canary in the coal mine") and BY MEASUREMENT, the ocean's acidity is increasing and species are going extinct at a rate previously unseen. Some are adapting as things are now; even those who have adapted up to this point in time can't possibly adapt to the extreme conditions which are increasing.

But the material serves its purpose in making people feel they have "scientific data" which refutes what they don't want to believe anyway, so no minds will be changed. That's the crux of it; with enough money, those with the desire to keep people from accepting what is going on can put out "facts" which will alleviate any tiny doubt which might encroach on the minds of those who don't want to believe in the first place. It's a waste of time to try; the human brain is all too adept at believing what it WANTS to believe.

The most amusing aspect of that is that those of us who accept not just global warming, but that the earth is changing in myriad ways which will make survival difficult, if not imppossible, DON'T WANT to believe it--it's the last thing we want to believe! Those who deny it have obvious reasons for wanting it not to be true; our future survival would then be in no danger and things could go on just the same. I wonder which group makes more sense, those who recognize there is a problem and want to change things, or those who deny there is a problem and want to go on just as we have?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 26, 2012 5:40 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Anthony, what you say is true, but there's a fallacy in it. California has adapted (to a point) to earthquakes; ONE problem, as Florida has adapted to hurricanes. But if you put together (leaving global warming out of it) reduction in availability of fresh water, acidification of the oceans, decrease in biodiversity, and the other things I listed, all increasing at the same time, it would take a massive global effort to counteract it. Yes, mankind had adapted in the past, but it's been on a small scale, and frequently involved just moving, or building differently. When our very survival is endangered--say just by the loss of bees, which impact so MUCH of our survival--or by lack of fresh water, which is already happening, I'm not as optimistic as you that, by the time it is evident enough for enough people (and governments) to decide to do anything about it, we have that ability.

Mankind's major adaptations have been in moving away from dangerous places or building differently...there will be fewer and fewer places to move to, and building differently can't impact things like the acidification of the oceans--OCEANS, understand, complete oceans which are our last "breadbasket". I think, with us covering the globe as we do, it's too big for us to adapt to.

Adaptation takes time, on a scale such as this. It's far more hopeful that something cataclysmic WOULD make people sit up and take notice; things happening thousands of miles away, and/or at a rate people cannot observe for themselves, aren't likely to cause people to change...by the time it's happening in front of them, and ON A GLOBAL SCALE, they can't run from it to some other place or change quickly enough to reverse its effects, in my opinion. And that's what we face today.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 26, 2012 7:51 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Niki,

I think we will find that individual communities scattered across the globe will adapt effectively, learning how to grow food and acquire water and build shelter and generate power as needed on a very limited scale sufficient to sustain them through the ongoing crisis. The human race is likely to survive, to my mind. But not all humans everywhere. That's an unrealistic expectation, even if it would be nice.

I guess we're about due for a culling. All species endure them, and none thrives to my knowledge without one or more in its history. Even if 99% of all humans die, that leaves- what? Somewhere around 60 million to carry on to the next age of man? Even if 99.9% die, we're left with something like 6 million scattered about? I wouldn't be surprised if we've seen similar cullings in unwritten history. In a hundred-thousand years, today's troubles will be a footnote. I hope we can avoid disaster, but unless we manage to completely sterilize the globe of everything that walks or crawls, both humans and the earth can be expected to survive in the long run.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term fits.)
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 26, 2012 9:55 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Yes, Anthony, that has happened in the past, and would be nice to believe in some ways. But I don't see it. How long will it take the Earth (if it can) to recover? How does mankind--or any other species--survive until it does? I don't see it as a "crisis", but more as "crisEs", and the combination of all of them seem too much for humanity to overcome, for the length of time it will take until life is sustainable once again. What would they eat? Given most mammalian species will become extinct, not meat. Given the oceans will be acidified, not fish. Given fresh water and land will be contaminated and there will be droughts and floods, growing things is...well, problematic.

I'm glad you have an optimistic viewpoint; I would like to share it, but I do not. We have never faced a situation where so much will be against our survival, ALL over the world, and I don't see losing so much upon which we are interdependent as giving us much chance.

Which is not to say I won't do everything I can in the meantime...the longer we can stave it off, the better, and selfishly, I don't want to be around to see it happen. One can fight on without hope, that's all I know how to do, and weep for all that will be lost and those who will have to endure it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 27, 2012 3:26 PM

I'm just repeating my post here for the Niki's of the world who turn a blind eye to meaningful posts out of the spite of a woman scorned....

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I dunno... sounds to me like climate change and the excessive gun violence would make sense to the science-minded people here.

I've seen more than several people post that we're all "just animals". In a way, that is true, and I won't even argue many little differences that may seem inconsequential at face value but when added up mean something much different than that.

The point is that I believe that we're MUCH worse than animals in many different ways, although we have, and have shown the capacity to be much better than we as a whole come off.

All of this is irrelevant to the point though.

The point is... before "Man" came into the picture Nature always found a way to balance things out. Most of this balancing was done in a non-violent fashion, but there are records of insane volcanic eruptions and ice ages' on the charts that served as a virtual "Noah's Flood" back before the first human was ever born.

I think these man-made changes are happening now. Just because they're man-made doesn't make them any worse than other cataclysmic "happenings" in the history of the world... at least... in the scheme of things.

Personally, I don't even think the climate change is really a bad thing.

When things get worse, people will adapt or die. If it's too late for all of us, even the most adept at adapting will likely die off too. If the race as a whole is lucky, there might be a few of us who survive and live on to tell their grandchildren stories of how complex the world was before mankind fell and how we should not repeat their mistakes.

If none of us survive??????

Not such a bad scenario for any new life-forms who eventually exist here.

Personally, I feel it's pretty arrogant of us to say that we even possess the power to "kill" the Earth.

Look at Her fighting back now. I think this is child's play compared to what She can do. She's just firing warning shots past our heads with her six-shooter now. She hasn't even brought out the rocket launcher yet, let alone Her own nuclear arsenal.

My guess.... we're lucky if, as a species, we survive another 100 years. At that time, our presence here is a mere blink of an eye for Earth. It may take 10 times as long for Her to truly recover when She sheds Herself of us, but even ten times as long is really nothing in the timeline.......

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." ~Shepherd Book

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." ~Shepherd Book

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 29, 2012 3:10 AM

That's cool Niki. Niki who always has so many words to back up whatever position she supports, yet has nothing to say twice here.

I can only take your silence on the matter as your way of safely hiding behind the bunker you've distanced yourself from me already in the public RWED view, even though I know that you know I make a lot of sense here.

When things get REALLY bad, and I do expect that to happen in the not so distant future, and when there is no internet for any of us, at least not allowed to civilians like you and I, I do hope that you take this post away with you and remember it.

Honestly, I would think that you would revel in this scenario unfolding. Afterall, we're nothing more than Animal's evolved "plus 1", and we're a bane to the Earth. You'd be hard up to find an argument out of me on that matter......

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." ~Shepherd Book

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 29, 2012 6:53 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Makes me laugh. Seems to drive you NUTS that I don't read your posts, apparently, eh? Don't let it bother you so much; I'm only one voice here and there are many better and wiser ones; pay attention to them and don't take it so personally.

Okay, I read that one, and I agree with a lot of it. As to the second one, however, NO WAY do I "revel" in what's happening. In the first place, I do love my species, difficult as that is sometimes. For another, there's no way I want to see the suffering that I believe is coming; I weep for future generations. And lastly, in this order, it tears me up to think of all the species that will become extinct before it all unfolds.

By the way, most scientists agree that if we really do fuck it up and go extinct, insects will take over--they're about the only ones who can survive what we've done to the earth. We've already had a long, long discussion as to whether humans are better or smarter than animals, so it's not worth getting into. And few here have ever written posts I would take away with and remember, any more than I have!

So there, you got an answer. Nowadays, mostly I don't read your posts because they always end up being about you, what you own, your views on women (which I find abhorrent and asinine), your job, etc., etc., which I find boring. I'm sure many avoid my posts for the same reason when I go off on a tangent about my own life. Back when I did bother to read them, many of them sounded like you were drink anyway. If your posts stayed on topic, I'd probably read them more. I haven't "bunkered" anything, I just scroll past your posts exactly the same way I scroll past PN's...only difference is, there's less scrolling involved in yours. While I find your posts somewhat less offensive than Raptor's (mostly because he's a one-note voice who seldom makes sense), he and I have had somewhat of a "truce" when it comes to dogs for a long time; I've "known" him for far longer than I've known you. Stick around long enough, stop sounding so much like a mysogynist, self-absorbed drunk, I might start paying attention. Why it should matter that I don't escapes me.

Like I said, I don't know why it bothers you to the extent it does that I ignore you, I'm only one minor player here and not that important in the scheme of things.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 29, 2012 1:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
I'll wager it was pretty hot in Melbourne in September 1942, when battle-weary and victorious US Marines were given R&R there after stopping the Japanese invasion force at Guadalcanal. Young ladies whose boyfriends were off fighting elsewhere greeted the arriving Yanks with their own version of freaky heat. Thanks mate!

been watching the pacific?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 29, 2012 1:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by DEVERSE:

I am concerned about a lot of things, but not global warming so much cause there isn't a darn thing anyone can do about it and even if it were man made CO2 causing the problem (which I strongly doubt as man made CO2 is only 3% of what nature produces), if all CO2 production were stopped today, including all CO2 that comes from nature, it would take 100 years before any positive effect could be observed. So unless there is some strategy to stop nature from producing CO2, we are doomed anyway, may as well just let her rip.

This is the kind of attitude that will kill our species off rather quickly. It's the 'i'll crap in the river because its heading downstream and doesn't affect me' kind of thinking. The same mentality that leds to ships emptying their bilge or throwing distretus overboard, or letting sewerage run into the sea. The kind of mentality that has led the polution that so concerns you.

Even if climate change is totally unfixable, that we will have to live with it to some degree, slowing the amount of change would be useful. And even if this is not possible, then investing in low carbon emitting, low poluting energies is going to be useful for a whole load of reasons, limiting pollution, shifting from finite power sources to less finite or infinite sources. I can't see any lose in this.

Quote:
As a last, I don't normally have a suspicious mind but a research company founded in 2007 by an agency with a specific interest in generating revenue from environmental "studies" tends to limit my belief in their conclusions without a good second source of information.

And how does that revenue compare with what high carbon emitting industries are likely to lose? It would be like a child's pocket money in comparison.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/01/exxon-mobil-climate-
change-sceptics-funding
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/28/climate-change-scept
ic-willie-soon

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 29, 2012 1:35 PM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

The List:
500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares
(An alphabetical listing is provided separately)
Dennis T. Avery
Center for Global Food Issues
September 14, 2007

W. Dansgaard et al., “North Atlantic Climatic Oscillations Revealed by Deep Greenland Ice Cores,” in Climate Processes and Climate Sensitivity (1984) REALLY OLD

W Dansgaard et al., “Evidence for general instability of past climate from a 250-kyr ice-core record,” Nature 364 (1992) REALLY OLD

Claude Lorius et al., “A 150,000-Year Climatic Record from Antarctic Ice, “Nature, Vol. 316, pp. 591-96, 1985 REALLY OLD

T. Cronin, “Climatic Variability in the Eastern U.S. over the past Millennium from Chesapeake Bay Sediments, Geology, Vol. 28, p 3-6, 2000 PRETTY OLD

Gerald H. Haug, “Climate and the Collapse of Maya Civilization,” Science 299 (2003) PRETTY OLD

David Hodell et al., “Solar Forcing of Drought Frequency in the Maya Lowlands,” Science 292 (2001) PRETTY OLD

While I agree with your point, your conclusion, and your criticism of Deverse's post, I take issue with your judgement of these sources. Something from 1985 is not "REALLY OLD". It may have been superseded by something newer, or something using newer methodology or technique, but it isn't yet OLD, nor Irrelevant. Something from the 1960's might be seriously old, certainly something from the 30's or 40's would be. But in science, some old stuff going back to Newton and Galileo is still valid.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 29, 2012 1:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Yes, Anthony, that has happened in the past, and would be nice to believe in some ways. But I don't see it. How long will it take the Earth (if it can) to recover? How does mankind--or any other species--survive until it does? I don't see it as a "crisis", but more as "crisEs", and the combination of all of them seem too much for humanity to overcome, for the length of time it will take until life is sustainable once again. What would they eat? Given most mammalian species will become extinct, not meat. Given the oceans will be acidified, not fish. Given fresh water and land will be contaminated and there will be droughts and floods, growing things is...well, problematic.

I'm glad you have an optimistic viewpoint; I would like to share it, but I do not. We have never faced a situation where so much will be against our survival, ALL over the world, and I don't see losing so much upon which we are interdependent as giving us much chance.

Which is not to say I won't do everything I can in the meantime...the longer we can stave it off, the better, and selfishly, I don't want to be around to see it happen. One can fight on without hope, that's all I know how to do, and weep for all that will be lost and those who will have to endure it.

The point for me is not just survival as a species, because we may well do that, its about the misery that will accompany these changes.

Adaption needs money and resources to be thrown at it. Wealthy western nations may be able to spend a bucket load on adapting our living conditions, but the poorer parts of the world will see their suffering increase 10 fold. And then eventually the wealth of western nations will be eroded.

I know from my own personal investment how much it costs to adapt to extreme climates, and I am no where near properly adapted. We'd have to invest in protecting ourselves from fire by building a fire shelter and installing a sprinkler system. That would be close to 100 grand. Water storage tanks and a grey water system - done properly probably another 20-30,000. We've just replaced all the guttering,gdown pipes and drainage to cope with the volumn of rain and really we could redo the draining throughout the whoe block - around $10,000 all up.

That's just me, and we cna't afford to do it all. Now add that to everyone who wants to do the same and its a LOT of money and that doesn't even count changes to infrastructure, roads, transport, emergency systems etc etc

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 29, 2012 5:15 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Yup. Exactly why I find it astonishing that anyone would think anyone else would "revel" in what's coming. The ONLY salvation to my imagination is that hopefully I won't be around long enough to watch it--the world is so full of horrors as it is, which will pale in comparison to what's coming. I'm all for mitigating it as much as we can, for the sake of our children and children's children, not just throwing up my hands and saying "well, we can't stop it, and it won't affect me much, so screw it". That mentality is totally abhorrent to me!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 30, 2012 12:58 AM

THE earth's land has warmed by 1.5 degrees Celsius in the past 250 years and "humans are almost entirely the cause", according to a scientific study set up to address climate sceptic concerns about whether human-induced global warming is occurring.

Richard Muller, a climate sceptic physicist who founded the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project, said he was "surprised" by the findings. "We were not expecting this, but as scientists, it is our duty to let the evidence change our minds."

He said he considered himself a "converted sceptic" and his views had received a "total turnaround" in a short space of time.

"Our results show that the average temperature of the earth's land has risen by 2½ degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of 1½ degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases," Professor Muller wrote in an opinion piece for The New York Times.
Advertisement

The team of scientists based at the University of California, Berkeley, gathered and merged 14.4 million land temperature observations from 44,455 sites across the world dating back to 1753. Previous datasets created by NASA, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Britain's Meteorological Office and the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit had gone back only to the mid-1800s and used five times fewer weather station records.

The funding for the project included $US150,000 from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, set up by the billionaire US coal magnate who is a key backer of the climate sceptic Heartland Institute think tank. The research also received $US100,000 from the Fund for Innovative climate and Energy Research, created by Bill Gates.

Unlike previous efforts, the temperature data from various sources was not "homogenised" by hand - a key criticism by climate sceptics - but, instead was "completely automated to reduce human bias". The BEST team's findings, despite their deeper analysis, closely matched the previous temperature reconstructions, "but with reduced uncertainty".

Last October, the BEST team published results that showed the average global land temperature has risen by about 1 degree Celsius since the mid-1950s. But the team did not look for possible "fingerprints" to explain this warming.

The latest data analysis reached much further back in time but, crucially, also searched for the most likely cause for this rise in land temperature by plotting the upward temperature curve against suspected "forcings". It analysed the warming impact of solar activity - a popular theory among climate sceptics - but found that, over the past 250 years, the contribution of the sun is "consistent with zero".

Volcanic eruptions were found to have caused "short dips" in the temperature rise in the period from 1750 to 1850, but "only weak analogs" in the 20th century.

"Much to my surprise, by far the best match came to the record of atmospheric carbon dioxide, measured from atmospheric samples and air trapped in polar ice," Professor Muller said. "While this doesn't prove that global warming is caused by human greenhouse gases, it is currently the best explanation we have found, and sets the bar for alternative explanations."

Professor Muller said his team's findings went further and were "stronger" than the latest report published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

In an unconventional move aimed at appeasing climate sceptics by allowing "full transparency", the results have been released before being peer-reviewed by the Journal of Geophysical Research. All the data and analysis may be freely scrutinised at the BEST website.

This follows the pattern of previous BEST results, none of which have yet been published in peer-reviewed journals.

When the BEST project was first announced last year, the prominent climate sceptic blogger Anthony Watts was consulted on the methodology. He stated at the time: "I'm prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong." However, tensions have since arisen between Mr Watts and Professor Muller.

Early indications suggest that climate sceptics are unlikely to accept BEST's latest results fully. Professor Judith Curry, a climatologist at the Georgia Institute of Technology who runs a blog popular with climate sceptics and who is a consulting member of the BEST team, told The Guardian that the method used to attribute human emissions to the warming was "way over simplistic and not at all convincing in my opinion".

She added: "I don't think this question can be answered by the simple curve fitting used in this paper, and I don't see that their paper adds anything to our understanding of the causes of the recent warming."

Professor Michael Mann, the Penn State paleoclimatologist who has faced hostility from climate sceptics for his famous "hockey stick " graph showing a rapid rise in temperatures during the 20th century, said he welcomed the BEST results as they "demonstrated once again what scientists have known with some degree of certainty for nearly two decades".

He added: "I applaud Muller and his colleagues for acting as any good scientists would, following where their analyses led them, without regard for the possible political repercussions. They are certain to be attacked by the professional climate change denial crowd for their findings."

Professor Muller said his team's analysis suggested that there would be one and half degrees of warming over land in the next 50 years, but, if China continued its rapid economic growth and its vast use of coal, then that same warming could take place in less than 20 years.

"Science is that narrow realm of knowledge that, in principle, is universally accepted," wrote Professor Muller. "I embarked on this analysis to answer questions that, to my mind, had not been answered. I hope that the Berkeley Earth analysis will help settle the scientific debate regarding global warming and its human causes. Then comes the difficult part: agreeing across the political and diplomatic spectrum about what can and should be done."

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-results-co
nvert-sceptic-let-the-evidence-change-our-minds-20120730-23769.html#ixzz226OhAYi1

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 30, 2012 3:01 AM

Care to extrapolate on the first post you agree largely with Niki?

Believe it or not, I do value your opinion.

I also value Kwick's, although I can't say whether his constant personal attacks on my character or your ignoring me bothers me more.

I'm trying to be better in the matters you spoke of here. Last time I hope to say it here, given the shitty hand I was dealt, I didn't do half bad for myself.

Not that it matters once the planet is ruined, but it is what it is.

You're probably one of 3 people who post more here than I do, besides PN.

I'd ask you one more time to go over any posts I've put about Women here and tell me that I'm really a misogynist. Sorry about the C word to you.... but really, I'm the least misogynistic person you probably know in real life. It sucks that I come off that way after letting the C-Bomb slip.

Anyway, glad to see that I'm not on some magical automatic "ignore" from you in the "red room". Maybe next time it will only take 2 posts to get your attention.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." ~Shepherd Book

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 30, 2012 8:41 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Amusingly, Magons, KPO just put up the article you posted as a thread of its own (which I think it deserves). Just noticed it and had to smile, dunno whether he didn't see yours, you posted yours after he posted his, or he thought it important enough for its own thread. Whatever caused it, I'm glad he did because I think it's important enough for hits own thread.

Six, there's nothing to extrapolate on--I went back and re-read it; I agree with virtually all of that post. I don't think we're "worse" than animals; I don't think it's arrogant of us to think we've killed the earth, given how we have affected it globally, and I don't know if the earth will be able to survive us and rebuild. Other than that, I agree with everything you wrote.

I'm still mystified at WHY my ignoring you should bother you anywhere near as much as Mike's attacks. But that's neither here nor there, if it does, it does. I haven't read your posts in so long all I remember is how you were then, so okay, I'll take you off "ignore" and see how it goes. One of the reasons I don't bother with your posts, as I mentioned, is that so much of them is about things in your life. I only skim some of Frem's posts for a similar reason, so I'll try to skim past those parts in yours as well in future. I ignore PN for obvious reasons, but I DO read Raptor's, tho' I try to refrain from responding directly. The insanity he spouts from his right-wing talk-show hosts is just too crazy to encourage. But I won't go back and re-read anything; your attitude toward women, from what you wrote, was abhorrent to me and there's no cause to revisit it.

I appreciate your apologizing for your previous obscenity. It wasn't that which caused me to ignore your posts, it was the reasons I enumerated previously. I've had FAR worse before, trust me--mostly from Kane, who was an aberration I hope never returns. Worse than that by far from the Firefly site I was on previously. I'm immune to attacks, nobody on the internet is important enough to let anything bother me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 31, 2012 3:43 AM