Home | Community | Message Board


MRCA Tyroler Gluckspilze
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Amazon Shop for: Portable Greenhouse

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Next >  [ show all ]
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 33,746
Loc: Lost In Space
A look at global warming.
    #2363137 - 02/21/04 11:51 AM (12 years, 9 months ago)

This is an excerpt from part 4, but the entire thing is interesting.


The Emperor?s New Climate: Is Global Warming Real? -- Part Four: Disaster Does Not Loom
Duncan Maxwell Anderson
Wednesday, Feb. 18, 2004
Read Part I - Weird Science - Click here

Read Part II - Are We Warm Yet? Click here

Read Part III The JKyoto Depression - Click here

A funny thing happened as James Hansen was fielding questions from reporters in Washington, D.C., in 1988, terrifying senators with global warming predictions: The forests of eastern North America?no doubt including the Blue Ridge Mountains 60 miles to the west of the capital?were quietly absorbing CO2.

A study by Princeton University, Columbia University, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) conducted between 1988 and 1992 showed that the eastern forests were so efficient a ?sink? or absorber of carbon dioxide that they more than made up for all the emissions from America?s factories, power plants, campfires?even its SUVs.

Published in Science in 1998, it got comparatively little notice, but if the years covered by the study are typical, the implications for the world?s climate could be enormous. It would mean that America, rather than being a force oppressing the rest of the world with its huge economy and its greenhouse emissions, is actually picking up other countries? greenhouse ?trash.? If CO2 is a problem, it?s the rest of the world that?s causing it.

Peter Huber, a fellow of the Manhattan Institute, shares the environmentalists? desire for a cleaner, wilder planet less dominated by man?but he says their solutions are all wrong. Fossil fuels are good, he says, because they take up so little space. Solar cells are bad, because they block out the sun over an area that can?t be a habitat for trees or animals.

He even says that to go a given distance, an SUV is more earth-friendly than a guy on a bicycle, because the extra food consumed by the cyclist to make the journey takes more area to grow than all the space consumed by the SUV, its gasoline, and its share of the road.

America, not the low-tech world, is earth-friendly, because our farms are so efficient that they leave more room for the wilderness that heals the world?s air and serves as wildlife habitat. America?s forests, he points out, have been expanding every year since 1920, as people have left farms to live in cities, while our agricultural production has vastly increased.

Another factor: Feeding the horses and donkeys formerly needed for transportation and farming tied up twice the acreage used today by all our roads and highways, oil pipelines, refineries, and wells. Much of that extra acreage has reverted to trees.


Link to the rest.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblemabus
anguish this!

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 956
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2363440 - 02/21/04 01:19 PM (12 years, 9 months ago)

That article is crap, just look who's funding it.

Quote:

Peter Huber, a fellow of the Manhattan Institute Fossil fuels are good, he says, because they take up so little space. Solar cells are bad, because they block out the sun over an area that can?t be a habitat for trees or animals.





Quote:

THE MANHATTAN INSTITUTE
The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research is an extremely conservative, corporate-funded, New York-based policy group.

The Manhattan Institute was founded by former CIA director William J. Casey in 1978. It was originally called the International Center for Economic Policy Studies, renamed the Manhattan Institute in 1980.

The Manhattan Institute is funded largely by major corporations and conservative foundations. According to the group's 10-year review, published in 1990, "by 1989, total contributions had grown to $2,113,000, 41 percent of which came from conservative and/or corporate foundations. Thirty-three percent came from Fortune 500 corporations, chiefly insurance companies and pharmaceutical and chemical manufacturers including $50,000-plus each from Aetna and State From Insurance and $15,000-plus each from Prudential, Exxon, RJR Nabisco, Philip Morris, Bristol-Myers and Pfizer. Total revenue has grown to about $6 million, according to the 1997 edition of The Right Guide. See, Chesebro, "Galileo's Retort: Peter Huber's Junk Scholarship," 42 Am. U.L.Rev. 1637 (1993).

Some Manhattan Institute research on the civil justice system has been heavily criticized in law journals. In 1993, attorney Kenneth J. Chesebro wrote a lengthy and scathing attack on Manhattan Institute fellow Peter Huber's book, Galelio's Revenge. After meticulous research, Chesebro found Huber's book to rely "almost exclusively on anecdotal information and inflated rhetoric, misrepresent[ing] numerous aspects of its subject matter, and present[ing] no considered, objective or empirically-based measure of the extent of the 'junk science' problem." He called Galelio's Revenge, "perfectly described with Huber's own words as a 'catalog of every conceivable kind of error: data dredging, wishful thinking, truculent, dogmatism and, now and again, outright fraud'.? Galileo would quickly become exasperated at the unsupported thesis of Huber's book, its numerous material misrepresentations and omission, and its manipulative and evasive method of argument." Chesebro, "Galileo's Retort: Peter Huber's Junk Scholarship," 42 Am. U.L.Rev. 1637 (1993). See also, Hager, "Civil Compensation and its Discontents: A Response to Huber," 42 Stan. L. Rev. 539 (1990)




http://www.centerjd.org/private/mythbuster/MB_manhattan.htm


--------------------

http://www.sacredshrooms.org


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 33,746
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: mabus]
    #2363566 - 02/21/04 01:56 PM (12 years, 9 months ago)

Well we will just have to disagree. I think there are many valid points.

Perhaps you'd care to share some of the parts you find most difficult to believe?


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: mabus]
    #2363634 - 02/21/04 02:18 PM (12 years, 9 months ago)

That article is crap, just look who's funding it.

And the NOAA is run by the US Dept of commerce. Sound like a possible conflict of interest?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: mabus]
    #2363717 - 02/21/04 02:36 PM (12 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

mabus said:
That article is crap, just look who's funding it.




Can you rebut the article based on the contents? Merely pointing out where funding comes from does not address any points raised. If you have something substantive to contribute, please do so.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 33,746
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: Xlea321]
    #2363797 - 02/21/04 02:54 PM (12 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Alex123 said:
That article is crap, just look who's funding it.

And the NOAA is run by the US Dept of commerce. Sound like a possible conflict of interest?



My my, Alpo being disengenuous again? What a surprise.

I suppose Princeton and Columbia are part of the government as well?


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblemabus
anguish this!

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 956
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: Evolving]
    #2364066 - 02/21/04 03:55 PM (12 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Can you rebut the article based on the contents?




Yes I can. Take the suv vs. man on a bike.

Quote:

He even says that to go a given distance, an SUV is more earth-friendly than a guy on a bicycle, because the extra food consumed by the cyclist to make the journey takes more area to grow than all the space consumed by the SUV, its gasoline, and its share of the road.





That statement is totally false. Makes no sense whatever. Earth-friendly has been defined as "area used", not "how the area is used". When one adds how area is utilized then the cyclist is earth-friendly. Lets say the area used to feed the cyclist is an apple tree. That apple tree can provide energy for the suv driver and the cyclist for 60+ years.

Quote:

Fossil fuels are good, he says, because they take up so little space. Solar cells are bad, because they block out the sun over an area that can?t be a habitat for trees or animals.





Once again earth-friendly is defined only as "area used". However in this case the area in the atmosphere that the fossil fuels use up when converted into enery is totally ignored. And anyway it's crazy, the solar cell is a renewable source of energy compared to one that is not. He might as well compare the sun to his gallon of gas, ending up with the gallon taking up less area thus earth-friendly.

The whole article is set-up this way. CRAP.


--------------------

http://www.sacredshrooms.org


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 22,840
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 2 months, 4 days
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2364282 - 02/21/04 05:22 PM (12 years, 9 months ago)

I don't really buy into the global warming theory either, but it is a myth that forrests are carbon sinks. the only time a forrest is a carbon sink is when it is growing larger or more dense. A forrest a equallibrium produces as much CO2 from decay and/or fire as it takes in from photosynthesis.

Forrests don't even produce that much net oxygen. Decomposition in the forrest floor consumes just about as much oxygen as the trees produce.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 33,746
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #2364293 - 02/21/04 05:25 PM (12 years, 9 months ago)

Not being a scientist I don't know. Perhaps someone from Princeton or Columbia would be interested in debating this with you.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblemabus
anguish this!

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 956
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2364382 - 02/21/04 05:46 PM (12 years, 9 months ago)

The Science on Global Warming

When President Bush rejected the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gas emissions, he promised the American people that ?my Administration?s climate change policy will be science-based.?[1] In fact, however, the Bush Administration has repeatedly manipulated scientific committees and suppressed science in this area.
Chair of International Science Panel
In early 2002, the State Department successfully opposed the re-appointment of a leading U.S. climatologist to the top position on the preeminent international global warming study panel.[2]

Dr. Robert Watson had been chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) since 1996. An internationally respected scientist and recipient of numerous awards and honors, Dr. Watson had been the Director of the Science Division at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and chief scientist at the World Bank. Under his leadership, the IPCC had produced a report predicting an increase of 2.5 to 10.5 degrees Fahrenheit in average global temperatures by 2100[3] and concluding that ?[t]here is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.?[4] These conclusions were affirmed by the National Academy of Sciences.[5]

After the release of the 2001 report, ExxonMobil lobbied the Bush administration for Dr. Watson?s ouster. A February 6, 2001 memo sent by ExxonMobil to John Howard of the Council on Environmental Quality at the White House criticized Dr. Watson and asked, ?Can Watson be replaced now at the request of the U.S.??[6] ExxonMobil opposes the regulation of carbon dioxide emissions that contribute to global warming and gives over a million dollars a year to groups that question the existence of global warming.[7]
Subsequently, the State Department opposed Dr. Watson?s reelection to head the panel. The Department gave no scientific rationale for this decision. In April 2002, lacking the support of his home country, Dr. Watson lost his position as chair.[8]

One leading researcher, Michael Oppenheimer of Princeton University, commented to Science: ?It is scandalous . . . . This is an invasion of narrow political considerations into a scientific process.?[9]

the rest is here: http://www.house.gov/reform/min/politicsandscience/example_global_warming.htm


--------------------

http://www.sacredshrooms.org


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleEdame
gone

Registered: 01/14/03
Posts: 1,270
Loc: outta here
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2364396 - 02/21/04 05:48 PM (12 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Solar cells are bad, because they block out the sun over an area that can?t be a habitat for trees or animals.




That's got to be one of the most moronic things I've read this week (and I've been reading 'Have your say' on the BBC website). Does the guy not realise that the vast majority of buildings in the world have these things called walls and roofs? He might also be interested to know that sunlight does indeed shine on these structures. Maybe we might use the space we already have before we start paving the countryside and blocking all of it's light.
I'd also be interested to find out how he came to the notion that shaded areas are not habitable to plants and animals (last time I checked, trees also block light from other trees and animals). That sentence is like concentrated stupidity.


--------------------
The above is an extract from my fictional novel, "The random postings of Edame".
:tongue:

In the beginning was the word. And man could not handle the word, and the hearing of the word, and he asked God to take away his ears so that he might live in peace without having to hear words which might upset his equinamity or corrupt the unblemished purity of his conscience.

And God, hearing this desperate plea from His creation, wrinkled His mighty brow for a moment and then leaned down toward man, beckoning that he should come close so as to hear all that was about to be revealed to him.

"Fuck you," He whispered, and frowned upon the pathetic supplicant before retreating to His heavens.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 33,746
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: Edame]
    #2364487 - 02/21/04 06:05 PM (12 years, 9 months ago)

Actually, it's not. At the current efficiency of solar cells there aren't enough walls and roofs.

Perhaps some day there may be. Of course by then perhaps appliances and what-not will be so efficient that it'll all work out.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblemabus
anguish this!

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 956
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: Edame]
    #2364517 - 02/21/04 06:08 PM (12 years, 9 months ago)

:thumbup:


--------------------

http://www.sacredshrooms.org


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblemabus
anguish this!

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 956
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2364537 - 02/21/04 06:13 PM (12 years, 9 months ago)

Your're just grabbing statements out of the air.


--------------------

http://www.sacredshrooms.org


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleEdame
gone

Registered: 01/14/03
Posts: 1,270
Loc: outta here
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2364575 - 02/21/04 06:30 PM (12 years, 9 months ago)

Actually, it's not. At the current efficiency of solar cells there aren't enough walls and roofs.

Aren't enough for what?

His assertion has nothing to do with efficiency anyway. He seems to think that solar panels can only be placed over a surface area that is occupied by nature. Apparently when the panel is placed (presumably any distance above the ground), it creates some kind of hellish 'shadow world' beneath it that is simply uninhabitable by living things. I can't even begin to imagine the kind of damage these things could do to a desert. I'll be sleeping with the light on tonight I think.


--------------------
The above is an extract from my fictional novel, "The random postings of Edame".
:tongue:

In the beginning was the word. And man could not handle the word, and the hearing of the word, and he asked God to take away his ears so that he might live in peace without having to hear words which might upset his equinamity or corrupt the unblemished purity of his conscience.

And God, hearing this desperate plea from His creation, wrinkled His mighty brow for a moment and then leaned down toward man, beckoning that he should come close so as to hear all that was about to be revealed to him.

"Fuck you," He whispered, and frowned upon the pathetic supplicant before retreating to His heavens.


Edited by Edame (02/21/04 07:12 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleblacksabbathrulz
 User Gallery
Registered: 05/22/02
Posts: 2,511
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2364768 - 02/21/04 07:31 PM (12 years, 9 months ago)

Yeah, Global warming is a scam.


--------------------
.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: A look at global warming. [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2364899 - 02/21/04 07:56 PM (12 years, 9 months ago)

it hasn't gotten above freezing around here in about 3 months. global warming sounds like  a great idea to me.  :wink:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: Edame]
    #2366881 - 02/22/04 05:06 AM (12 years, 9 months ago)

Edame asks (re solar cells):

Aren't enough for what?

Aren't enough (at their current efficiency) to replace the need for other forms of electricity generation.

I live in the Dominican Republic, where the government-owned and operated electrical generation grid is a national joke. Here, the combined capacity of the privately-owned generators (from tiny Honda generators a child could lift to 500 kilowatt stationary generators used by hotels) exceeds the entire capacity of the government grid. As a result of maintenance costs, hassles with Dominican Customs and Excise when importing replacement parts, the ever-rising cost of fuel, etc. there is intense interest in both solar and wind (trade winds here are pretty steady most of the year) generation methods.

However, even with the exceptionally high total hours of sunshine annually we enjoy, solar panels are rare. Not because of expense, but because of inefficiency. The number of square feet of panel required to run a modest single-family house (with maybe a dozen lightbulbs, a refrigerator, a TV and a stereo -- no air conditioning) is larger than you would think. And that's a single-family house. A standard three story apartment building with maybe twelve units doesn't have the square footage on its roof to support the number of solar panels required to supply electricity to all twelve units. And that's just a three story building with no elevator. The situation gets worse with highrise buildings. Remember too that here we have no need to heat our buildings.

Perhaps one day solar panels with greater efficiency will be developed and they will then become practical for electrical generation in areas other than niche applications (i.e. sailboats). That day isn't here yet.

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleEdame
gone

Registered: 01/14/03
Posts: 1,270
Loc: outta here
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: Phred]
    #2367333 - 02/22/04 11:31 AM (12 years, 9 months ago)

Aren't enough (at their current efficiency) to replace the need for other forms of electricity generation.

I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that solar panels will replace the need for other forms of electricity generation. What they are currently good for (and in my opinion, can only get better as technology progresses) is supplementing other forms of power. The UK has a huge interest in renewable energy at the moment, and there are already government subsidies available for people who use solar panels or small wind generators (small roof-mounted turbines will be available soon) on their homes. While it might not be enough to be able to fully supply an average house's needs, it can be stored in batteries to supplement power usage during the day or late at night when it is typically lower. Water heaters, appliances on standby, lights, these kind of things can be kept running using the stored energy, and any excess generated can be sold back to the main grid.

Regardless of this, my point was that it has nothing to do with the assertion in the article, which simply states that solar panels are bad because they take up space and block light from plants and animals. This is simply absurd.
If this is the kind of advice that the US government is taking, then the recent claim (by the 20 Nobel laureates + other scientists) that the US government deliberately distorts and misrepresents science to further it's own goals, holds even more validity in my eyes.


--------------------
The above is an extract from my fictional novel, "The random postings of Edame".
:tongue:

In the beginning was the word. And man could not handle the word, and the hearing of the word, and he asked God to take away his ears so that he might live in peace without having to hear words which might upset his equinamity or corrupt the unblemished purity of his conscience.

And God, hearing this desperate plea from His creation, wrinkled His mighty brow for a moment and then leaned down toward man, beckoning that he should come close so as to hear all that was about to be revealed to him.

"Fuck you," He whispered, and frowned upon the pathetic supplicant before retreating to His heavens.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineEchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 8 years, 2 months
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2367442 - 02/22/04 12:31 PM (12 years, 9 months ago)

He even says that to go a given distance, an SUV is more earth-friendly than a guy on a bicycle, because the extra food consumed by the cyclist to make the journey takes more area to grow than all the space consumed by the SUV, its gasoline, and its share of the road.

:lol:

How convenient to ignore the space consumed by the oil wells, refineries, automobile factories, auto dealerships, etc.

You call the report by the UCS "crap" and then you post this approvingly as an example of sound reasoning.

Pathetic.  Too pathetic for words, in fact.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Next >  [ show all ]

Amazon Shop for: Portable Greenhouse

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Last gasp of the global warming deniers
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )
Alex213 8,858 136 02/09/07 02:34 PM
by gluke bastid
* Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!
( 1 2 3 4 ... 29 30 )
luvdemshrooms 30,305 589 05/03/08 02:51 PM
by geokills
* RIP: Man-Made Global Warming Fears 1988-2008
( 1 2 all )
Luddite 3,249 35 07/25/08 05:24 PM
by Phred
* Good article on global warming.
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
luvdemshrooms 3,060 86 06/10/03 06:56 AM
by Innvertigo
* The last word on global warming
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
Luddite 8,099 83 12/18/09 05:01 PM
by GI_Luvmoney
* Global Warming, Facts Challenge Hysteria
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Evolving 3,091 75 05/04/03 10:07 PM
by luvdemshrooms
* Global Warming?
( 1 2 all )
luvdemshrooms 1,549 37 07/18/03 08:49 PM
by Innvertigo
* Britain bakes as global warming kicks in
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Alex213 4,097 73 07/26/06 10:20 AM
by Seuss

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Prisoner#1, Enlil
9,950 topic views. 1 members, 0 guests and 10 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Mycohaus
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2016 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.108 seconds spending 0.005 seconds on 16 queries.