Christian Questions for Christians Answer Christian Questions

3/22/2006

Obvious Sin

Filed under: General, The Environment — supak.com @ 8:52 am

Isn’t the fouling of the earth fundamentally sinful?

17 Comments »

I would like to propose the idea that Christians who believe our planet is precious and who realize human caused global warming will wreak major consequences to life on Earth including millions of humans, utilize 12 Step for Recovery to Oil Addiction.

Comment by usbusi — 6/14/2006 @ 12:05 pm
Way to clear the blogs. Were we making too much sense? You just can’t let the truth be known.

You liberals are always looking for the knee-jerk response. In the mid 70’s, you all thought the
next ice age was coming due to aerosol emissions. Global warming just 30 years later? 19,000
international and relevantly experienced scientists have signed a petition calling the whole
global warming issue “poppycock”.

A couple of degrees up or down over 5,000 years really doesn’t concern those of us who can think.
Liberals “feel”, they don’t think. You all immediately have to respond to things. You blame humans
for their impending doom. Did the brontosaurs cause their own extinction by driving SUVs? Was it
the Raptors rampant gun use? Triceratops urban sprawl? If only they were all vegans…

Shelly? C’Mon!

Comment by Caniac — 6/21/2006 @ 11:43 am
Hey, Caniac, can you back this up:

“19,000 international and relevantly experienced scientists have signed a petition calling the whole global warming issue ‘poppycock’.”

Please tell me who that was. Provide a link to the petition. Show me the signatures. Otherwise, get lost. I was a grade schooler in the 70’s. And 100% of the non-oil-company-funded scientists (that means peer-reviewed science, not the kind George Bush preaches) agree that we are heating the planet, melting the ice, changing the climate, and raising sea level.

Oh, and remember, a few degrees up or down, a few feet up or down (ocean level) doesn’t really matter much to the molton-core ball of rock with a thin shell of delicately balanced air and water that 6 billion of us live on.

Comment by supak.com — 6/21/2006 @ 5:38 pm
I wore blue pants yesterday. Unless you concluded your schooling in the 4th grade, you must know that 100% is an impossible number to prove. Read this and I’ll get back to you…

Gorey Truths: 25 Inconvenient Truths for Al Gore
Murray Op-Ed in National Review Online
by Iain Murray
June 22, 2006

With An Inconvenient Truth, the companion book to former Vice President Al Gore’s global-warming movie, currently number nine in Amazon sales rank, this is a good time to point out that the book, which is a largely pictorial representation of the movie’s graphical presentation, exaggerates the evidence surrounding global warming. Ironically, the former Vice President leaves out many truths that are inconvenient for his argument. Here are just 25 of them.

1. Carbon Dioxide’s Effect on Temperature. The relationship between global temperature and carbon dioxide (CO2), on which the entire scare is founded, is not linear. Every molecule of CO2 added to the atmosphere contributes less to warming than the previous one. The book’s graph on p. 66-67 is seriously misleading. Moreover, even the historical levels of CO2 shown on the graph are disputed. Evidence from plant fossil-remains suggest that there was as much CO2 in the atmosphere about 11,000 years ago as there is today.

2. Kilimanjaro. The snows of Kilimanjaro are melting not because of global warming but because of a local climate shift that began 100 years ago. The authors of a report in the International Journal of Climatology “develop a new concept for investigating the retreat of Kilimanjaro’s glaciers, based on the physical understanding of glacier–climate interactions.” They note that, “The concept considers the peculiarities of the mountain and implies that climatological processes other than air temperature control the ice recession in a direct manner. A drastic drop in atmospheric moisture at the end of the 19th century and the ensuing drier climatic conditions are likely forcing glacier retreat on Kilimanjaro.”

3. Glaciers. Glaciers around the world have been receding at around the same pace for over 100 years. Research published by the National Academy of Sciences last week indicates that the Peruvian glacier on p. 53-53 probably disappeared a few thousand years ago.

4. The Medieval Warm Period. Al Gore says that the “hockey stick” graph that shows temperatures remarkably steady for the last 1,000 years has been validated, and ridicules the concept of a “medieval warm period.” That’s not the case. Last year, a team of leading paleoclimatologists said, “When matching existing temperature reconstructions…the timeseries display a reasonably coherent picture of major climatic episodes: ‘Medieval Warm Period,’ ‘Little Ice Age’ and ‘Recent Warming.’” They go on to conclude, “So what would it mean, if the reconstructions indicate a larger…or smaller…temperature amplitude? We suggest that the former situation, i.e. enhanced variability during pre-industrial times, would result in a redistribution of weight towards the role of natural factors in forcing temperature changes, thereby relatively devaluing the impact of anthropogenic emissions and affecting future temperature predictions.”

5. The Hottest Year. Satellite temperature measurements say that 2005 wasn’t the hottest year on record — 1998 was — and that temperatures have been stable since 2001 (p.73). Here’s the satellite graph:

6. Heat Waves. The summer heat wave that struck Europe in 2003 was caused by an atmospheric pressure anomaly; it had nothing to do with global warming. As the United Nations Environment Program reported in September 2003, “This extreme wheather [sic] was caused by an anti-cyclone firmly anchored over the western European land mass holding back the rain-bearing depressions that usually enter the continent from the Atlantic ocean. This situation was exceptional in the extended length of time (over 20 days) during which it conveyed very hot dry air up from south of the Mediterranean.”

7. Record Temperatures. Record temperatures — hot and cold — are set every day around the world; that’s the nature of records. Statistically, any given place will see four record high temperatures set every year. There is evidence that daytime high temperatures are staying about the same as for the last few decades, but nighttime lows are gradually rising. Global warming might be more properly called, “Global less cooling.” (On this, see Patrick J. Michaels book, Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media.)

8. Hurricanes. There is no overall global trend of hurricane-force storms getting stronger that has anything to do with temperature. A recent study in Geophysical Research Letters found: “The data indicate a large increasing trend in tropical cyclone intensity and longevity for the North Atlantic basin and a considerable decreasing trend for the Northeast Pacific. All other basins showed small trends, and there has been no significant change in global net tropical cyclone activity. There has been a small increase in global Category 4–5 hurricanes from the period 1986–1995 to the period 1996–2005. Most of this increase is likely due to improved observational technology. These findings indicate that other important factors govern intensity and frequency of tropical cyclones besides SSTs [sea surface temperatures].”

9. Tornadoes. Records for numbers of tornadoes are set because we can now record more of the smaller tornadoes (see, for instance, the Tornado FAQ at Weather Underground).

10. European Flooding. European flooding is not new (p. 107). Similar flooding happened in 2003. Research from Michael Mudelsee and colleagues from the University of Leipzig published in Nature (Sept. 11, 2003) looked at data reaching as far back as 1021 (for the Elbe) and 1269 (for the Oder). They concluded that there is no upward trend in the incidence of extreme flooding in this region of central Europe.

11. Shrinking Lakes. Scientists investigating the disappearance of Lake Chad (p.116) found that most of it was due to human overuse of water. “The lake’s decline probably has nothing to do with global warming, report the two scientists, who based their findings on computer models and satellite imagery made available by NASA. They attribute the situation instead to human actions related to climate variation, compounded by the ever increasing demands of an expanding population” (“Shrinking African Lake Offers Lesson on Finite Resources,” National Geographic, April 26, 2001). Lake Chad is also a very shallow lake that has shrunk considerably throughout human history.

12. Polar Bears. Polar bears are not becoming endangered. A leading Canadian polar bear biologist wrote recently, “Climate change is having an effect on the west Hudson population of polar bears, but really, there is no need to panic. Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear (sic) to be affected at present.”

13. The Gulf Stream. The Gulf Stream, the ocean conveyor belt, is not at risk of shutting off in the North Atlantic (p. 150). Carl Wunsch of MIT wrote to the journal Nature in 2004 to say, “The only way to produce an ocean circulation without a Gulf Stream is either to turn off the wind system, or to stop the Earth’s rotation, or both”

14. Invasive Species. Gore’s worries about the effect of warming on species ignore evolution. With the new earlier caterpillar season in the Netherlands, an evolutionary advantage is given to birds that can hatch their eggs earlier than the rest. That’s how nature works. Also, “invasive species” naturally extend their range when climate changes. As for the pine beetle given as an example of invasive species, Rob Scagel, a forest microclimate specialist in British Columbia, said, “The MPB (mountain pine beetle) is a species native to this part of North America and is always present. The MPB epidemic started as comparatively small outbreaks and through forest management inaction got completely out of hand.”

15. Species Loss. When it comes to species loss, the figures given on p. 163 are based on extreme guesswork, as the late Julian Simon pointed out. We have documentary evidence of only just over 1,000 extinctions since 1600 (see, for instance, Bjørn Lomborg’s The Skeptical Environmentalist, p. 250).

16. Coral Reefs. Coral reefs have been around for over 500 million years. This means that they have survived through long periods with much higher temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations than today.

17. Malaria and other Infectious Diseases. Leading disease scientists contend that climate change plays only a minor role in the spread of emerging infectious diseases. In “Global Warming and Malaria: A Call for Accuracy” (The Lancet, June 2004), nine leading malariologists criticized models linking global warming to increased malaria spread as “misleading” and “display[ing] a lack of knowledge” of the subject.

18. Antarctic Ice. There is controversy over whether the Antarctic ice sheet is thinning or thickening. Recent scientific studies have shown a thickening in the interior at the same time as increased melting along the coastlines. Temperatures in the interior are generally decreasing. The Antarctic Peninsula, where the Larsen-B ice shelf broke up (p. 181) is not representative of what is happening in the rest of Antarctica. Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, Professor Emeritus of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology at Stockholm University, acknowledges, “Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems.” According to a forthcoming report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, climate models based on anthropogenic forcing cannot explain the anomalous warming of the Antarctic Peninsula; thus, something natural is at work.

19. Greenland Climate. Greenland was warmer in the 1920s and 1930s than it is now. A recent study by Dr. Peter Chylek of the University of California, Riverside, addressed the question of whether man is directly responsible for recent warming: “An important question is to what extent can the current (1995-2005) temperature increase in Greenland coastal regions be interpreted as evidence of man-induced global warming? Although there has been a considerable temperature increase during the last decade (1995 to 2005) a similar increase and at a faster rate occurred during the early part of the 20th century (1920 to 1930) when carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases could not be a cause. The Greenland warming of 1920 to 1930 demonstrates that a high concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is not a necessary condition for period of warming to arise. The observed 1995-2005 temperature increase seems to be within a natural variability of Greenland climate.” (Petr Chylek et al., Geophysical Research Letters, 13 June 2006.)

20. Sea Level Rise. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change does not forecast sea-level rises of “18 to 20 feet.” Rather, it says, “We project a sea level rise of 0.09 to 0.88 m for 1990 to 2100, with a central value of 0.48 m. The central value gives an average rate of 2.2 to 4.4 times the rate over the 20th century…It is now widely agreed that major loss of grounded ice and accelerated sea level rise are very unlikely during the 21st century.” Al Gore’s suggestions of much more are therefore extremely alarmist.

21. Population. Al Gore worries about population growth; Gore does not suggest a solution. Fertility in the developed world is stable or decreasing. The plain fact is that we are not going to reduce population back down to 2 billion or fewer in the foreseeable future. In the meantime, the population in the developing world requires a significant increase in its standard of living to reduce the threats of premature and infant mortality, disease, and hunger. In The Undercover Economist, Tim Harford writes, “If we are honest, then, the argument that trade leads to economic growth, which leads to climate change, leads us then to a stark conclusion: we should cut our trade links to make sure that the Chinese, Indians and Africans stay poor. The question is whether any environmental catastrophe, even severe climate change, could possibly inflict the same terrible human cost as keeping three or four billion people in poverty. To ask that question is to answer it.”

22. Energy Generation. A specific example of this is Gore’s acknowledgement that 30 percent of global CO2 emissions come from wood fires used for cooking (p. 227). If we introduced affordable, coal-fired power generation into South Asia and Africa we could reduce this considerably and save over 1.6 million lives a year. This is the sort of solution that Gore does not even consider.

23. Carbon-Emissions Trading. The European Carbon Exchange Market, touted as “effective” on p. 252, has crashed.

24. The “Scientific Consensus.” On the supposed “scientific consensus”: Dr. Naomi Oreskes, of the University of California, San Diego, (p. 262) did not examine a “large random sample” of scientific articles. She got her search terms wrong and thought she was looking at all the articles when in fact she was looking at only 928 out of about 12,000 articles on “climate change.” Dr. Benny Peiser, of Liverpool John Moores University in England, was unable to replicate her study. He says, “As I have stressed repeatedly, the whole data set includes only 13 abstracts (~1%) that explicitly endorse what Oreskes has called the ‘consensus view.’ In fact, the vast majority of abstracts does (sic) not mention anthropogenic climate change. Moreover — and despite attempts to deny this fact — a handful of abstracts actually questions the view that human activities are the main driving force of ‘the observed warming over the last 50 years.’” In addition, a recent survey of scientists following the same methodology as one published in 1996 found that about 30 percent of scientists disagreed to some extent or another with the contention that “climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes.” Less than 10 percent “strongly agreed” with the statement. Details of both the survey and the failed attempt to replicate the Oreskes study can be found here.

25. Economic Costs. Even if the study Gore cites is right (p. 280-281), the United States will still emit massive amounts of CO2 after all the measures it outlines have been realized. Getting emissions down to the paltry levels needed to stabilize CO2 in the atmosphere would require, in Gore’s own words, “a wrenching transformation” of our way of life. This cannot be done easily or without significant cost. The Kyoto Protocol, which Gore enthusiastically supports, would avert less than a tenth of a degree of warming in the next fifty years and would cost up to $400 billion a year to the U.S. All of the current proposals in Congress would cost the economy significant amounts, making us all poorer, with all that that entails for human health and welfare, while doing nothing to stop global warming.

Finally, Gore quotes Winston Churchill (p. 100) — but he should read what Churchill said when he was asked what qualities a politician requires: “The ability to foretell what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month and next year. And to have the ability afterwards to explain why it didn’t happen.”

Comment by Caniac — 6/23/2006 @ 5:56 am
Environmentalist Wacko Quotes

Even you, Supac the Magnificent, has to see the humor (and disgust) in some of these statements.

By John Hawkins

Environmentalist wackos are anti-progress, anti-capitalism, anti-American, anti-poor, make spectacularly incorrect predictions about the climate, and quite frankly some of these people have MORE FRIGHTENING beliefs than al-Queda (I haven’t heard any Al-Queda spokesmen talk longingly about a planet without humans on it). You may think I’m exaggerating, but you won’t after you read these quotes…

Attack Of The Socialist-Luddites

The right to have children should be a marketable commodity, bought and traded by individuals but absolutely limited by the state. - Kenneth Boulding, originator of the “Spaceship Earth” concept (as quoted by William Tucker in Progress and Privilege, 1982)

We have wished, we ecofreaks, for a disaster or for a social change to come and bomb us into Stone Age, where we might live like Indians in our valley, with our localism, our appropriate technology, our gardens, our homemade religion — guilt-free at last! — Stewart Brand (writing in the Whole Earth Catalogue

Free Enterprise really means rich people get richer. They have the freedom to exploit and psychologically rape their fellow human beings in the process . . . Capitalism is destroying the earth. — Helen Caldicott, Union of Concerned Scientists

We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects . . . We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of tens of millions of acres of presently settled land. — David Foreman, Earth First!

Everything we have developed over the last 100 years should be destroyed. — Pentti Linkola

If you ask me, it’d be a little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy because of what we would do with it. We ought to be looking for energy sources that are adequate for our needs, but that won’t give us the excesses of concentrated energy with which we could do mischief to the earth or to each other. — Amory Lovins in The Mother Earth - Plowboy Interview, Nov/Dec 1977, p. 22

The only real good technology is no technology at all. Technology is taxation without representation, imposed by our elitist species (man) upon the rest of the natural world — John Shuttleworth

What we’ve got to do in energy conservation is try to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, to have approached global warming as if it is real means energy conservation, so we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy. — Timothy Wirth, former U.S. Senator (D-Colorado)

Kill ‘Em All And Let God Sort ‘Em Out

I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems. — John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs. — John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing….This is not to say that the rise of human civilization is insignificant, but there is no way of showing that it will be much help to the world in the long run. — Economist editorial

We advocate biodiversity for biodiversity’s sake. It may take our extinction to set things straight — David Foreman, Earth First!

Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental. — Dave Forman, Founder of Earth First!

If radical environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human populations back to sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS — Earth First! Newsletter

Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, is not as important as a wild and healthy planets…Some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along. — David Graber, biologist, National Park Service

The collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans. — Dr. Reed F. Noss, The Wildlands Project

If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels. — Prince Phillip, World Wildlife Fund

Cannibalism is a “radical but realistic solution to the problem of overpopulation.” — Lyall Watson, The Financial Times, 15 July 1995

Poverty For ‘Those People’

We, in the green movement, aspire to a cultural model in which killing a forest will be considered more contemptible and more criminal than the sale of 6-year-old children to Asian brothels. — Carl Amery

Every time you turn on an electric light, you are making another brainless baby — Helen Caldicott, Union of Concerned Scientists

To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem — Lamont Cole

If there is going to be electricity, I would like it to be decentralized, small, solar-powered — Gar Smith — editor of the Earth Island Institute’s online magazine The Edge

The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States: We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the U.S. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are. And it is important to the rest of the world to make sure that they don’t suffer economically by virtue of our stopping them. — Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund

Wrong Again

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)

Comment by Caniac — 7/5/2006 @ 10:17 am
REMEMBER GLOBAL COOLING?!?!

The Cooling World (Blast From The Past Archived Newsweek Article Warning About “Global Cooling”
Newsweek
April 28, 1975

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 output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 – years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.

Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. “Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”

Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases – all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.

“The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.” Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

Reprinted from Financial Post - Canada, Jun 21, 2000

Comment by Caniac — 7/5/2006 @ 10:17 am
You asked for it!

Per your request, Herr Supak,

The Petition
http://www.sitewave.net/pproject/
Don’t know if that’ll link, but it is the URL.

The Signers
http://www.sitewave.net/pproject/listbystate.htm

Took me a while. Tough to find info that the media wants to supress.

Talk to you soon.

Comment by Caniac — 7/5/2006 @ 10:24 am
No feedback Robin?

Or haven’t you finished reading all 19,000 signatures?

Can’t you admit that it MAY BE possible that the global warming concerns are potentially as erroneous as the ice age that was rattling the left in the 70’s?

Comment by Caniac — 8/2/2006 @ 10:24 am
So sure of yourself, aren’t you? Well, sir, you should check your facts before you belch them out onto this web site. I hate having to clean up after messy children. Especially those who support a fascist government who are stupid enough to call me “Herr.”

First of all, there’s this:

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=6

“A June 2000 Business Week article referred to physicist Frederick Seitz as “the granddaddy of global-warming skeptics”. Seitz was once a director and shareholder of a company that operated coal-fired power plants.

Dr. Seitz is a former President of the National Academy of Sciences, but the Academy disassociated itself from Seitz in 1998 when Seitz headed up a report designed to look like an NAS journal article saying that carbon dioxide poses no threat to climate. The report, which was supposedly signed by 15,000 scientists, advocated the abandonment of the Kyoto Protocol. The NAS went to unusual lengths to publically distance itself from Seitz’ article. Seitz signed the 1995 Leipzig Declaration.”

The Leipzig Declaration is an interesting bit of crap. Read about it here:

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

Here’s an interesting tidbit from that page:

“According to the SEPP website, there were 79 signatures to the 1995 declaration, including Frederick Seitz: the current SEPP chair. The signature list was last updated on July 16, 1996. Of these 79, 33 failed to respond when the SEPP asked them to sign the 1997 declaration. The SEPP calls the signatories “nearly 100 climate experts”.

The signatures to the 1995 declaration were disputed by David Olinger of the St. Petersburg Times. In an article on July 29, 1996, he revealed that many signers, including Chauncey Starr, Robert Balling, and Patrick Michaels, have received funding from the oil industry, while others had no scientific training or could not be identified.

The 1995 declarations begins: “As scientists, we are intensely interested in the possibility that human activities may affect the global climate”. However, those identified as scientists and climate experts include at least ten weather presenters, including Dick Groeber of Dick’s Weather Service in Springfield, Ohio. Groeber, who had not completed a university degree, labelled himself a scientist by virtue of his thirty to forty years of self-study.

In any case, it is difficult to accurately evaluate the list of signatures of the 1995 declaration, as the SEPP website provides no additional details about them except for their university, if they are professors.”

Well, seems there’s a bit of lying and fraud going on with your friend Seitz.

But let’s go a little further, shall we?

“In 1998, Seitz wrote and circulated a letter, asking scientists to sign a petition asking the Government to reject the Kyoto Protocol. Seitz signed the letter and identifed himself as a former president of the National Academy of Sciences. He also directed attention to a report by Dr. Arthur Robinson, which concluded that carbon dioxide posed no threat to climate. The report was not peer-reviewed, but was formatted to look like an NAS journal article. The NAS later issued a statement disassociating itself from the petition and the article. Source: “Science Academy Disputes Attack on Global Warming,” New York Times 4/22/98

But, you know what, you want to take the oil companies’ side on this, go right ahead. Keep driving your Hummer. Keep fighting wars for oil. Keep expiramenting with the only planet we have, and we’ll all see who’s right. Just keep in mind that the crap you’re spewing here will be removed by me, the web master, because it is propoganda from the Bush administration that has absolutely no backing from peer reviewed science. Just check out the Wikipedia page about global warming:

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

and don’t miss this part:

Various alternative hypotheses have been proposed to explain the observed increase in global temperatures, including but not limited to:

* The warming is within the range of natural variation.
* The warming is a consequence of coming out of a prior cool period — the Little Ice Age.
* The warming is primarily a result of variances in solar irradiance.

However, the strong scientific support for man-made global warming implies that such alternative opinions are not widely held. In the journal Science, an essay by Naomi Oreskes considered the abstracts of all 928 scientific articles in the ISI citation database identified with the keyword “global climate change”. Dr. Oreskes concluded that none of these abstracts attempt to refute the position that man-made emissions of greenhouse gases are a substantial contributor to recent warming.

——-

Finally, there’s some really good reading here:

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

about the variety of Scientific opinion on Climate change. I suggest you check it out. But I doubt if you will, because your mind is already made up. You want to believe the Exxon funded people, you go right ahead. But if you’re wrong, heaven forbid, will you have to go to hell for the harm you and your oil company friends have done?

No, or course, not in your mind. In your mind you can kill, maim, torture, starve, impoverish, pollute, and destroy all you want, as long as it’s in the name of your God.

Now crawl back under your rock. Because if you want to keep posting here, you’re going to have to do a hell of a lot better than posting long, bullshit diatribes from Oil Company stooges.

Scott Supak

Comment by supak.com — 8/3/2006 @ 10:50 am
Herr: Used as a courtesy title in a German-speaking area, prefixed to the surname or professional title of a man.

My mistake, is it Frau?

Look, I promise not to quote Dick Cheney sinnce you think he lies (although he does not) if you promise not to quote liberal journalists (who have admitted to fabrication - See: Reuters, NY Times).

Did you consider the global cooling concerns from the seventies? Or is it of no interest that your “non-oil-company-funded scientists” were calling for an ice age just 30 years ago? Talk about changing the subject.

It always amazes me that when confronted with our own imperfect selves, when we are forced to look closely at our misgivings, that we either accept those truths or rebel in anger and hostility.

You are an angry man. Please excuse me for calling you a man again, it just slipped out.

I went the other way. I suck. On my own I am nothing, not even remotely worthy of God’s glance let alone mercy. I came to that conclusion without anger but with tears. Buy I am not an angry man.

Peace with Him and Nothing without Him,
C

Comment by Caniac — 8/9/2006 @ 11:13 am
I know what you were doing with the “Herr.” Are you German? Typical right wing back down: pick a fight and then lie about the name calling. Try to say the other guy started it. Wacko.

Dick “last throes” Cheney doesn’t lie. OK. You’ve had enough. Put the Kool Aide down and back away.

A few reporters admitting to fabrication means the whole paper is lies? Very nice. Again, you must have gone to the Karl Rove school in Orwellville. Taking that position means that only FAUX NEWS tells the truth. Careful, you’re going to make me spew. So, here’s a FACT about Dick Cheney’s truthfulness.

http://www.davidsirota.com/2004/06/cheney-lies-about-lying.html

CLAIM:
BORGER: “Well, let’s get to Mohamed Atta for a minute because you mentioned him, as well. You have said in the past that it was, quote, ‘pretty well confirmed.’” CHENEY: “No, I never said that.”
- CNBC, 6/20/04

FACT:
“It’s been pretty well confirmed that [Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack.”
- Vice President Dick Cheney, 12/9/01

FACT REFUTING CHENEY’S ORIGINAL LIE ABOUT ATTA-IRAQ CONNECTION:
“There is no evidence that the alleged leader of the Sept. 11 hijackers, Mohamed Atta, met in April 2001 with an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague, a finding that eliminates a once-suggested link between the terrorist attacks and the government of President Saddam Hussein, according to a senior administration official.”
- Washington Post, 5/1/02

—

So, Brainiac, I guess we can’t believe anything Dick Cheney says, huh? You said it. Lie once and no one can ever believe you again.

But let’s get on to the meat of the thing. Scientists 30 years ago hadn’t invented the internet, were wrong about dinosaurs (you know, Jesus horses), and many, many other things. That’s the thing about science. It has ways built in to correct itself. Theory and observation. Something religion doesn’t have.

Ironically, however, they were only partly wrong. One scenario theorizes that as the north pole and Greenland melt, lots of fresh water pours into the north Atlantic. That halts the gulf stream, and the northeast and Europe get very cold. But it’s just a scenario. Could be wrong. We should wait and see and not do anything about it.

But, hey, there’s no sense talking to you about this. You will never let anyone convince you that you’re wrong about anything.

Oh, I’m angry. You have no idea. It’s about time we had some angry liberals. Of course, it was you guys who were the real rabid dog angry when Bill Clinton was getting a blow job in the same room where Ronald Reagan took his medicine. Liberals like me are angry about something that really matters.

I have watched George Bush allow this country to be attacked. I have watched an American city drown. I have seen 300 BILLION FUCKING DOLLARS WASTED ON A WAR BASED ON LIES WHILE THE REAL TERRORISTS WHOSE BALLS SHOULD BE HANGING ON THE OVAL OFFICE WALL ARE STILL WANDERING AROUND FREE. I have watched Haliburton get rich, science get ignored, unions get busted, jobs get outsourced, corporations moving to the Caymans, pollution get worse, public lands sold off, Enron, enforcement of immigrarion laws (especially against employers) stopped, the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, health care and fuel get unaffordable, the deficit explode, and people like you keep spewing BULLSHIT paid for by the oil companies who are making record profit.

But it only has a little to do with you personally. It has a lot to do with you in the plural. You and Dick and George. So fucking sure that your God is the right God. That everyone is going to hell. That armageddon is coming and anyone who’s not a Christian will burn in hell.

When GW says God told him to strike Iraq, that’s shoving religion down my throat. We he calls what he’s started a Crusade, that’s inciting future terror attacks. That makes my kids less safe.

Hey, why are we in Iraq anyway? Iraq’s ties to 9-11? WMD? Democratic dominos falling though the middle east? But you said Cheney doesn’t lie. Fighting terrorists there so we don’t have to fight them here? Oh, I see, they have those shock collars on so they can’t come here when they’re ready? The people who started all this with box cutters are too geographically challenged to come over here again? What a sad, pathetic, horrific joke you and your idols are.

Maybe they like it when we come over there and rape and kill innocent children. Saves them the trouble and does their recruiting for them. Then we fire Arabic translators for being gay. Almost 50 of them so far. Nice. That’ll help.

But I digress.

I noticed that you again avoided all the points made on the many links I provided. If your only argument that Global Warming isn’t happening is that they were wrong in the 70’s, well, you need to take another Earth Sciences class. But that would be torture, wouldn’t it? Having to listen to all those unclean facts? All those references to evolution?

I don’t hate all Christians. I hate hypocrites. Republicans are not Christians in your policies or politics. You are befouling an earth you claim God told you to behold. If you don’t believe that GW Bush is an environmental nightmare (even without Global Warming and Climate Change in the arguement), then there is no sense in wasting my time on you anymore.

Comment by supak.com — 8/9/2006 @ 3:16 pm
How about expanding on the “claim” part. I doubt Cheney was saying that he never in his life used the term “pretty well confirmed” about anything.

Sweetheart, y’all need to come in off the ledge.

I just looked (rather briefly) at your blog, and I realized that I can never make any headway with you. You’re union! You demand that we use you when we have our Hollywood events (that so often comes up for me), but I bet you buy foreign made products every day. Talk about hypocrites!! I live in a right to work state (that means our employment does not hinge on union dues (pay-offs) to spread the liberal idealogy.

I would have thought you were one of the castrated professor sect, but close enough. I remember when stage hands we men of honor: tough guys who were proud to be American. Apparently, now you’ve become part of the pussified waste that has been indoctinating our children into the religion of Liberalism for the past 40 years. Tell me why the liberal ideology is OK to teach, but the conservative side is a violation of church and state?

FYI, you hate ALL CHRISTIANS. Calling oneself Christian and then sacrificing the sanctity of God’s holy word does not jive. You can put a kitten in the oven, but that don’t make it a biscuit. You hate real, bible believing Christians. More importantly, you hate.

I don’t hate. I don’t hate you or any of your ilk who seek to deny our rights to freely exercise our faith. As best I can (and I am by no means perfect, God knows) I try to love my neighbor.

C

Comment by Caniac — 8/11/2006 @ 10:59 am
MR. Supak,

1.) I work for a German company (they were all in Vienna during the war) and am accumstomed to calling people Herr. If that term offends you, I am sorry for your thin skin. You must get papercuts every day.

2.) Using another liberal blog to support your claims is at best a weak and lazy effort. Don’t go there again. I won’t respect you for it.

3.) Do I think I’m always right? No, but do I find it difficult to operate under the opposite assumption. Don’t you assume you are right? Can’t go around assuming you’re wriong all the time. That’d be a drag.

4.) Bush was in office for about 8 months on 9/11. To blame hime for the intelligence melt down is just ignorant. To blame him for the stock market crash is the same. Again, I won’t respect or argue these rediculous points.

5.) Don’t blame me for judgement day. That is biblical. We didn’t make it up. We didn’t say these things, God did. Why does it make you so angry for Chritians to believe that, but you coddle muslims rights for killing us in the name of Allah? Your anger goes deeper than this. I will honestly pray that God opens your heart to hear His promise of forgiveness.

6.) I will give you the point that for W to use the word “crusade” was a bad idea. For him to say that God told him to fight Iraq is tough to stomach for you. God lays things on my heart, things that he wants me to do. (For example to tellyou of his word) There is no crack of lighting for me. Perhaps there is for W. Remember that he won the election for a reason. 70% of the american public claims to be Christian.

7.) The muslim zealots want a holy war (jihad). If we ignore them, they will come to us. Did you forget that Saddam Hussein murdered hundreds and thousands of his own people? By the way, they have not been back in almost 5 years. Advantage W.

8.) Gay translators? Take a breath. Digression at least. You are so angry and disjointed that it is difficult to argue with you. Perhaps that is your point. Throw mud at the wall and see what sticks?

9.) Your argument is that your scientists are right even though they were wrong in the 70’s! Have you ever heard of reasonable doubt? Maybe they are just crying wolf, I don’t know. But I am not certain that they know. I am positive that you don’t know.

10.) God did not tell me to behold the earth. Jesus told me to behold my brother.

Beholden
C

Comment by Caniac — 8/11/2006 @ 12:00 pm
You are a hopeless fuck. Probably a big fan of your former Senator Jesse Helms, huh?

I didn’t use a liberal blog to support anything. I quoted Dick Cheney. I just happened to find the quote on the blog that wins the search for that particular quote. Are you denying that Dick Cheney lied about what he said? He said it was “pretty well confirmed” that Atta met with Iraqi agents in Prague. When confronted with this lie, he lied again, saying he’d never lied in the first place.

God said nothing in Revelations. It was written by a Priest trying to scare his congregation into opposing Rome.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/apocalypse/etc/synopsis.html

Stagehands are still proud of their country. It’s people like you we’re ashamed of.

The actions of the Bush administration in the first 8 months regarding terrorism is well documented. From Richard Clark to the numerous CIA and State Dept. people who have come out and said, hey, we tried to tell them they needed to deal with this, but the Bushie position was that if Clinton did it, we won’t. They had a fucking study in their hands that told them what Bin Laden wanted to do, and they ignored it. Called it a “historic document.” You are the ignorant one for not figuring this out.

For a little more on this, see the PNAC’s document about getting the US into the middle east, and needing a Pearl Harbor type event to get us there quicker. Ironic that they got what they wanted. No conspiracy theory here. I’m sure Bin Laden did it (where is he BTW? in Iraq?). The FBI walked into Ashcroft’s office many times with stuff about the terrorists learning to fly planes, etc. And Ashcroft said he didn’t want to hear anymore about it. Many people have testified to that. You really should read the 911 commission’s report. But you won’t. Doesn’t jive with your Jesse Helm’s mentality.

All your other crap isn’t worth commenting on further. This is the same kind of lunatic ravings that come from Pat Robertson (who recently admitted that Global Warming is real, to his credit). You say you don’t hate, and then you tell me I’m pussified waste. Wow. Too ignorant to see the irony there, huh?

Comment by supak.com — 8/11/2006 @ 2:00 pm
So, now you want to use PBS as a source? And overpaid public “servants” who can’t make it in the private sector? Is NPR next? Stop using whiny, liberal sources and talking heads to argue your point, or I will be forced to refer to Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin to support my points. I mean, do you want to fight or debate? I’m here to debate, but it is your blog.

Do you remember that your sweetheart Pres. Bill Clinton had Bin Laden in his hands and did nothing? He had eight years to stop this, and all he could do was blow up an aspirin factory? Your brand of talkin’ ‘n huggin’ worked real well didn’t it. The only thing a bully understands is a fist to the jaw. They started this whole mess, and are fixated on annihilating Israel and then the US with their dying breath. Luckily we have real men and women to fight them so that people like you can rant and rave like spoiled babies.

The Bush aministration less than eight months to put the intelligence system back together after the liberals stripped it down to nothing. They also had an economic slow down that began in 1999, but again, your hero did nothing to stop it.

I do not hate you. If I did, I would not care what you had to say, nor would I continue to try and reach you. I do not, however, apologize for the waste comment. All you energy and all of your passion is being wasted trying to save trees and terrorists. Couldn’t that energy be better focused to help the poor in your community?

The inability to speak without cursing is a clear sign of a lack of intellect. Your inability to type without swearing is an overwhelming signal of some deep seeded rage. You have admitted that you are extremely angry. It is not good for you. Your seriously should address that before you get sick.

You live in So Cal, work in Hollywood at a job you love, and have a wife and children who love you. Isn’t that awesome? Isn’t that a sign that there is a powerful living God in heaven who loves you intensely? You only need to turn to Him, as He is always there for you.

Best
C

Question: (And this is partially serious) Many in the environmentalist movement do not want any more trees to be cut down. I have even heard that trees can feel pain. Do you believe that to be true?

Comment by Caniac — 8/14/2006 @ 5:42 am
Scott - Saw this today.

Summer Heat Waves — Global Warming Or Just Hot Air?

WASHINGTON — “More Frequent Heat Waves Linked to Global Warming” declared the Aug. 4 Washington Post headline of a story predicting that record-breaking killer heat waves might soon become the norm in the United States and Europe.
Because of the Earth’s warming climate, this story warned, the lethal heat that scorched Europe in 2003, killing thousands, would by 2040 return every other summer. The United States, too, would suffer frequent hellish summers, presumably in punishment for our environmental sins of greenhouse pollution.
With 100-plus degree heat index temperatures baking America’s Northeast from Boston to Washington, D.C., some Post readers doubtless rushed into air-conditioned theaters to immerse themselves in former Vice President Al Gore’s doomsayer documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth,” a science fiction worst-case scenario of catastrophic global warming.
But are such heat waves, however extreme, really evidence of a fast-warming global climate as Gore and the mainstream media would have us believe? Even Post reporter Juliet Eilperin conceded that “it is impossible to attribute any one weather event to climate change.”
“Virtually all climate experts agree that it is impossible to attribute any single weather event – a heat wave, drought or hurricane – to global warming,” wrote the New York Times near the bottom of an Aug. 1 editorial, “given the myriad factors that influence weather.”
“A heat wave is a heat wave,” is the more blunt assessment of Jim St. John, a meteorological scientist at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta. “We’ve always had them in the summer months, and they don’t necessarily tell us anything about climate change.”
Atmospheric scientists have good reasons to be skeptical about purported weather-climate connections. Weather involves short-term phenomena such as rainstorms, heat waves and dry spells that happen on time scales from minutes to at most a few years. Weather changes constantly and often goes to extremes of hot and cold, wet and dry.
Climate, by contrast, describes a place’s average patterns of weather over 30 years or more – and therefore reflects the continuing influence of temperature, wind, precipitation and many other factors. A place’s – or a planet’s – climate cannot be redefined by a few days, or even a few years, of unusual weather.
Environmental radicals claimed that this summer’s heat wave shattered all previous high-temperature records, and they implied that this heat came at least in part from human-caused global warming. Such claims are incorrect or unproven, according to Virginia Polytechnic Institute climatologist Patrick Michaels.
“From June 1 to Aug. 31, 1930,” Michaels told Cybercast News Service, “21 days had high temperatures that were 100 degrees or above” in metropolitan Washington, D.C. Many heat records were set that year, especially from July 19 to Aug. 9. “That summer has never been approached,” said Michaels, “and it’s not going to be approached this year.”
The blazing summer of 1930 began the longest American drought of the 20th century. “In 1934, dry regions stretched from New York and Pennsylvania across the Great Plains to California,” wrote CNS reporter Randy Hall. “A ‘Dust Bowl’ covered about 50 million acres in the south-central plains during the winter of 1935-36,” and drove many thousands of busted Oklahoma and Arkansas farm families — Okies and Arkies — westward to California.
Then as now, a few scientists became media darlings by warning of an impending climatic disaster from global warming. A handful of those scientists identified carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels as a climate-warming greenhouse gas, but human cars and factories were too few to have caused the Dust Bowl.
But a sudden chill began around 1940, the start of nearly four decades of climatic cooling in the Northern Hemisphere. By the late 1970s the Mississippi River was clogging with winter ice. Water pipes five feet underground were freezing and bursting in Chicago. Buffalo, N.Y., was buried beneath record blizzard snowfall. Snow even fell briefly on the beaches of Miami, Florida. The same weekly news magazines that today tout Gore’s extreme claims about global warming were only three decades ago warning of a fast-approaching new ice age.
Weather runs to extremes over the United States and Europe because our skies are a battleground where churning warm air moving north from the equator collides with cold air pushing south from the Arctic. This gives the United States the most varied, turbulent weather anywhere on Earth, from desert “witches winds” in the West to Tornado Alley and blizzards in our heartland to hurricanes along our Gulf and East Coasts. A heat wave typically happens when warm air pushes farther north than usual. But at the same time, chances are that somewhere else around the planet cold Arctic air is bulging farther south than usual as Earth’s “weather machine” redistributes energy in the atmosphere.
The mainstream media trumpets hot spells as evidence of the global warming on its political agenda. Here’s some of the opposite-but-equal unusual cold it scarcely reported:
• In December 2005 devastating cold chilled the Rocky Mountain West. Last Dec. 7 at West Yellowstone, Mont., the temperature fell to 45 below zero, fully six degrees colder than the previous record set in 1927, according to the National Weather Service. In Fort Collins, Colo., the mercury plunged to 37 below zero, and even in Lubbock in the Texas panhandle it dipped to only six degrees above zero.
• Across the Pacific Ocean, February 2006 temperatures along Russia’s Siberian coastline plummeted to 69 degrees below zero, shattering all previous cold records by six degrees. Unusual cold and snow blasted other regions of the former Soviet Union, from Moscow to Georgia along the southern beaches of the Black Sea.
• Winter snowfall has been breaking records in the United States and Eurasia since March 1993’s “Storm of the Century” dumped snow up to four feet deep from New York to Alabama, as TechCentralStation reported June 2. On Feb. 17-18, 2003, Boston set a new all-time storm record with 27.5 inches of snow. On Feb. 17-18, 2006, a blizzard dumped 26.9 inches of snow on New York City’s Central Park, a record unequalled since the blizzard of 1888.
The climate is now measurably cooling in Eastern Europe. Even Gore in his global warming book, An Inconvenient Truth, shouts that “temperature increases are taking place all over the world” (p. 78) but in the back of the book’s fine print admits that “some parts of the globe – such as northern Europe – might actually become colder” (p. 321).
We now know that the 2003 European heat wave was caused by rare events in Earth’s upper atmosphere, not by global warming. Recent record snowfall, as well as 2005’s brief burst of hurricanes, has been driven by known cycles in such weather phenomena, not necessarily by global warming.
Bottom line: As research scientist Dr. Nigella Hillgarth of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography near San Diego says, “One heat wave does not make global warming.”
Lowell Ponte’s years of work as Roving Science & Technology Editor for Reader’s Digest Magazine helped establish him as “the world’s most widely read investigative science reporter.” He has worked as a think-tank futurist on classified research, a reporter in Washington, D.C., and a foreign correspondent in 32 countries. He wrote The Cooling (Prentice-Hall), a study of Earth’s changing climate.

Comment by Caniac — 8/16/2006 @ 8:49 am
Yep

The dark ages were caused by the Y1K problem.

Trackback by Samantha — 11/23/2006 @ 7:09 pm