Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Global Warming?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456>
Author
Darur View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Stare directly into my avatar...

Joined: 03 May 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 9174
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Darur Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 July 2009 at 3:38pm
Originally posted by Peter Parker Peter Parker wrote:

CEI isn't a "think tank" of any kind, but a marketing company currently on the payroll of the oil and coal companies, and as a result CEI has zero credibility on this issue.
 


Annnnd that's where I stopped taking you seriously in this thread.

I know nothing about CEI, and for all I know they are guilty of every accusation you make, but if you're going to dismiss research based on where their funding came from, then every study funded by any enviormental group or fund may be dismissed as well.

Please tell me that that is not what you meant by that statement.
Real Men play Tuba

PH33R TEH 1337 Dwarf!
DONT CLICK ME!!1
Back to Top
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 998
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 July 2009 at 3:44pm
That was indeed not what I meant by that statement.  It is not a standalone conclusory claim - rather this is the conclusion based on my research of CEI, some of which is summarized in my posts.

CEI is not to be dismissed solely because they get their funding from Exxon and pals, but that goes in the hopper as well.  The real problem with CEI is the crap they spout.

But more on funding - the funding IS important in this case, because if you look at the "think tanks" putting out anti-global warming propaganda, a disturbingly large number of them are heavily funded by oil, coal, and cars.  One or two is a coincidence - when you keep running into oil money every time you check out a liar, then you start wondering, and suddenly the oil money becomes a taint of its own.

And that is my point with the funding - it isn't just CEI, but a whole of bunch of them.

But the main reason you should dismiss CEI, of course, is because they spout lies.

And another important distinction:  CEI doesn't do research.  Scientific research stands on its own, regardless of who pays the bill.  CEI doesn't do science, they do propaganda.  And when evaluating propaganda, funding is very much an issue.

This is particularly true with groups like CEI.  Look at CEI's funding lists and look at the issues they cover.  The overlap is disturbing.  I am not aware of a single issue covered by CEI where they did not receive substantial funding from an industry group that would benefit from CEI's conclusions.


Edited by Peter Parker - 15 July 2009 at 3:48pm

"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".

Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
Back to Top
oldsoldier View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Frequent target of infantile obsessives

Joined: 10 June 2002
Status: Offline
Points: 6548
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldsoldier Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 July 2009 at 4:12pm
Funding of any agenda based research from either side of the issue has credibility issues. From the actual researchers of the science of climate, who have a agenda based belief and then research and then base thier research results to that end, ignoring any counter research results lead to credibilty issues. Since the 70's we have been promised a return to another Ice Age, to Global Warming destroying civilization as we know it, and a following of researchers that ride whichever agenda bandwagon will fund thier research.
The IceCaps can trace climate changes for several millenium, and the heating cooling cycles are present. In the early 40's we nearly burned down 1/3rd of the planet, and not a blip on the "warming" trend, even observations of Mars show the ice caps growing and then receding in cycles. And there is not a SUV or industrial base to be seen on Mars.

All this research and science is all agenda based and the old addage of "follow the money" should give you a clue on the "desired" result.
Back to Top
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 998
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 July 2009 at 7:13pm
Originally posted by oldsoldier oldsoldier wrote:

Funding of any agenda based research from either side of the issue has credibility issues.


Absolutely true, and an extra skeptical read should always be applied when the conclusions align with funders' interests.

But not all interest-funded research is bad - most of it is good.  Scientists as a rule are actually looking for the truth - that's why they became research scientists.

More importantly, we cannot simply lump all claims of science together as "research."  The IPCC reports are scientific research projects.  What the CEI puts out is NOT science of any kind, but pure propaganda.

I will listen to scientists with a contrary view - in fact, I seek them out - regardless of their funding source.  But propaganda is just that.  It is not new knowledge, or even knowledge at all, but intentional spin.

So yes, consider the source of funding, but most of all consider the nature of the information being presented.


Quote From the actual researchers of the science of climate, who have a agenda based belief and then research and then base thier research results to that end, ignoring any counter research results lead to credibilty issues.


This is a rather extraordinary claim that requires rather extraordinary evidence.  Given the number of people involved in climate research, it would take either a conspiracy of 9/11 proportions, or several scientific specialties populated entirely with unscientific idealogues.

You do not get to casually dismiss decades of scientific research by hundreds or thousands of scientists without very good cause.

Quote Since the 70's we have been promised a return to another Ice Age, to Global Warming destroying civilization as we know it, and a following of researchers that ride whichever agenda bandwagon will fund thier research.


And again, this red herring has been presented.  I already addressed it in this thread, as I address it in every climate thread we have, as it has been addressed in countless forums across the world.  THIS IS NOT TRUE.   NOT TRUE.

A couple of scientists making some predictions based on an unproven hypothesis is NOT the same as a consensus-built and well-proven scientific theory.  It matters not that Time put the cooling guys on their cover - Time is not a scientific publication.  Time is not science.

Yes, cooling got a lot of hype in the 70s, but that's what it was - hype.  There was little science behind it.  Global warming/climate change, on the other hand, has a rather significant amount of science behind it.  They are not the same.

And if you are keeping score at home, this type of argument goes by different names, but it is a variant of "Guilt by Association."  It goes like this:  "Some other scientists were wrong about something else once.  Therefore, I will disregard your scientific evidence as unreliable."

It also is not a very persuasive form of argument.

The bottom line is that science is the most powerful force of knowledge we have, and science has shown undeniable results over millenia.  You don't get to just dismiss science you don't like.


Quote The IceCaps can trace climate changes for several millenium, and the heating cooling cycles are present.


Yes, there are cycles and natural changes in the Earth's climate.  And yes, those are accounted for in the calculations.  The current change we are seeing is beyond any cycle or natural change.

 
Quote ...even observations of Mars show the ice caps growing and then receding in cycles. And there is not a SUV or industrial base to be seen on Mars.


Ah, yes - the Mars warming argument.  Another classic.  Should have included this one on my list from earlier.  The first response is of course the Mars is not Earth.  Two entirely different climates, two entirely different atmospheres.  To pick out one isolated climate effect on Mars and reach general conclusions about climate on Earth is a bit of a stretch.  Moreover, this warming claim is based only on three (Martian) years of data.

Now, I am not aware of any serious evidence AGAINST solar-based global warming on Mars (or Pluto), other than terrestrial solar measurements (which are rather significant), and it certainly goes into the hopper for consideration.

But here's the rub:  We have a whole lot - a big whole lot - of evidence supporting anthropogenic global warming on Earth.  We have a little bit of incomplete fresh data about warming on Mars.  That means that we do NOT throw out the current global warming theory.  Instead, that theory REMAINS the leading and best explanation for current climate phenomena, while we continue to learn more about what is going on on Mars.

GOOD science involves looking at the totality of evidence, not latching on to one piece of favorable evidence, however weak.

Quote All this research and science is all agenda based and the old addage of "follow the money" should give you a clue on the "desired" result.


Indeed.  And have you followed the money?  What did you find?


"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".

Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
Back to Top
Darur View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Stare directly into my avatar...

Joined: 03 May 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 9174
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Darur Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 July 2009 at 11:47pm
Originally posted by Peter Parker Peter Parker wrote:

That was indeed not what I meant by that statement.  It is not a standalone conclusory claim - rather this is the conclusion based on my research of CEI, some of which is summarized in my posts.

CEI is not to be dismissed solely because they get their funding from Exxon and pals, but that goes in the hopper as well.  The real problem with CEI is the crap they spout.

But more on funding - the funding IS important in this case, because if you look at the "think tanks" putting out anti-global warming propaganda, a disturbingly large number of them are heavily funded by oil, coal, and cars.  One or two is a coincidence - when you keep running into oil money every time you check out a liar, then you start wondering, and suddenly the oil money becomes a taint of its own.

And that is my point with the funding - it isn't just CEI, but a whole of bunch of them.

But the main reason you should dismiss CEI, of course, is because they spout lies.

And another important distinction:  CEI doesn't do research.  Scientific research stands on its own, regardless of who pays the bill.  CEI doesn't do science, they do propaganda.  And when evaluating propaganda, funding is very much an issue.

This is particularly true with groups like CEI.  Look at CEI's funding lists and look at the issues they cover.  The overlap is disturbing.  I am not aware of a single issue covered by CEI where they did not receive substantial funding from an industry group that would benefit from CEI's conclusions.


Ahhh, fair enough, my bad.

Real Men play Tuba

PH33R TEH 1337 Dwarf!
DONT CLICK ME!!1
Back to Top
StormyKnight View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 28 July 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2982
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote StormyKnight Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 July 2009 at 6:56am
Peter, you should change your name to Alan Shore.
Back to Top
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 998
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 July 2009 at 1:55pm
Originally posted by StormyKnight StormyKnight wrote:

Peter, you should change your name to Alan Shore.


I had to go look that up, but having done so I am curious - is the comparison based on my stunning good looks or my way with the ladies?



"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".

Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
Back to Top
Mack View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
Has no impulse! control

Joined: 13 January 2004
Location: 2nd Circle
Status: Offline
Points: 9821
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 July 2009 at 1:56pm
Originally posted by Peter Parker Peter Parker wrote:

Originally posted by StormyKnight StormyKnight wrote:

Peter, you should change your name to Alan Shore.


I had to go look that up, but having done so I am curious - is the comparison based on my stunning good looks or my way with the ladies?


Neither, Stormy got confused; he meant Pauly Shore.











I kill me. LOL
Back to Top
StormyKnight View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 28 July 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2982
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote StormyKnight Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 July 2009 at 9:35am
Originally posted by Peter Parker Peter Parker wrote:

Originally posted by StormyKnight StormyKnight wrote:

Peter, you should change your name to Alan Shore.


I had to go look that up, but having done so I am curious - is the comparison based on my stunning good looks or my way with the ladies?
Alan Shore is a liberal lawyer.
 
You're a liberal lawyer.
 
Any other comparisons would be purely coincidental.  You'd really have to watch the last season of The Practice or any episodes of Boston Legal to find them. 
Back to Top
StormyKnight View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 28 July 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2982
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote StormyKnight Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 July 2009 at 9:36am
Originally posted by Mack Mack wrote:

Originally posted by Peter Parker Peter Parker wrote:

Originally posted by StormyKnight StormyKnight wrote:

Peter, you should change your name to Alan Shore.


I had to go look that up, but having done so I am curious - is the comparison based on my stunning good looks or my way with the ladies?


Neither, Stormy got confused; he meant Pauly Shore.











I kill me. LOL
HEHEHEHEHEH.... 
Back to Top
Bolt3 View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar
What?

Joined: 01 February 2005
Location: New Jersey
Status: Offline
Points: 4
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bolt3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 July 2009 at 5:16pm
Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

been busy...

 
Watching our business fall apart from all this government "intervention"... My customers (large corporate, all the way down to small business) are afraid to spend any money as they are terrified to what is happening since Obama took over.
 
We had 31 employees in January. Now we have 23... Unemployment in Ohio is now over 10%... I feel sorry for anyone who is getting out of school and looking for a job...
 
We just installed a $800 anti-back siphen into our plumbing (new law). Which we have to pay $45 a year to have inspected... Taxes on cigs have skyrocketed (guess only guys making $250,000 a year smoke... I didn't know). The tax "rebate" we all got is "income" and you have to pay taxes on it next year...
 
They are contemplating taxing every can of pop $.10... more...
 
And that is not even considering what they want to do to health care... And the fact that my property taxes went up 20% this year... While the auditor lowered the heads of the schools in my area taxes... And they all got healthy raises... superintendents income went from $109,000 to $143,000...
 
So, between researching the local corruption, and sending articles to the papers with the proof, (which they have ignored so far) as well as going to meetings and talking to others about our new PAC, I've been swamped...
 
 
 
 
 


Many of your concerns and issues seem to be on a local level.

I could be wrong, but I don't think Obama decided to raise a tax on your RC Cola. Or change your plumbing laws just for the lolz.


Edited by Bolt3 - 20 July 2009 at 5:17pm
<Removed sig for violation of Clause 4 of the New Sig Rules>
Back to Top
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 998
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 July 2009 at 11:48am
Originally posted by StormyKnight StormyKnight wrote:

Alan Shore is a liberal lawyer.
 
You're a liberal lawyer.
 
Ah.  I guess I didn't realize that stopping/delaying the extinction of mankind was a liberal cause.
 
To quote/paraphrase a good man:  "Nature is not a liberal conspiracy."
 
 

"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".

Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
Back to Top
oldsoldier View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Frequent target of infantile obsessives

Joined: 10 June 2002
Status: Offline
Points: 6548
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldsoldier Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 July 2009 at 12:16pm
"The sky is falling, the sky is falling!" is beginning to get old. Global cooling, global warming, climate change....that big heat tab in the sky has more to do with these cycles than man could ever do. And on the day that the sun begins to die and expands to encompass our little world, turning us into a orbiting cinder, a lot of good all this psuedo science will have done "mankind".

Last time I heard from another group of wacks, is armageddon is due 21, Jun 2010 anyway, and thier "scientists" confirm it this time without a doubt.
Back to Top
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 998
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 July 2009 at 12:22pm
What's getting old is you continuing to bring up bad old arguments.
 
"Some other scientist was wrong about some other thing" is not a good argument against a well-supported theory.
 
This is particularly true and ironic when you follow that statement with a completely unsupported claim of your own:  "that big heat tab in the sky has more to do with these cycles than man could ever do"
 
 
 
(Oh, and armageddon is in 2012, not 2010)

"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".

Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
Back to Top
oldsoldier View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Frequent target of infantile obsessives

Joined: 10 June 2002
Status: Offline
Points: 6548
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldsoldier Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 July 2009 at 12:30pm
Sorry 2012 then, and I am amazed that the Sun has nothing to do with "climate change", and any therory that the sun does effect change is unsupported. My old astronomy professor would also be shocked.

Explain Mars then, polar caps gaining and receding in observed cycles, and only 1 SUV ( an electric/solar powered one at that)on the entire planet (mars rover)

Edited by oldsoldier - 21 July 2009 at 12:31pm
Back to Top
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 998
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 July 2009 at 12:51pm
Saying that this is unsupported:

Originally posted by oldsoldier oldsoldier wrote:

that big heat tab in the sky has more to do with these cycles than man could ever do.


is not the same as saying this:

Originally posted by oldsoldier oldsoldier wrote:

...the Sun has nothing to do with "climate change", and any therory that the sun does effect change is unsupported. My old astronomy professor would also be shocked.


Obviously the sun is a major factor in our climate and any changes thereto.

But this, as well as your next point:

Quote Explain Mars then, polar caps gaining and receding in observed cycles, and only 1 SUV ( an electric/solar powered one at that)on the entire planet (mars rover)


Tells me that you haven't read the prior posts in this thread, let alone made any efforts to confirm what you read on the conservablogs.

The various scientists researching climate change aren't idiots.  They are in fact aware of the sun.  As a result, they have actually included the sun and its behavior into their calculations.  And even so, man's influence is statistically significant - and more than a little.

As for Mars, it is a tad more complex, but allow me to suggest that data collected over the course of THREE Martian years is not exactly enough data to discuss caps "gaining and receding in cycles."

Would you like to discuss volcanos next?


"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".

Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
Back to Top
oldsoldier View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Frequent target of infantile obsessives

Joined: 10 June 2002
Status: Offline
Points: 6548
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldsoldier Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 July 2009 at 1:12pm
How about 1939-1945 burning down half the planet and no appreciable blip on the climate change meter for that period?

Mt St Helens was a good example of ash/gases amounts thrown into the sky in volumns way beyond the industrial capabilities of the US.

China and India are not considered in the mix, only cap and trade policies on the US economy, which to say has more emmission standards than China and India. But they are "poor" developing nations, hell China now is worth more in economic growth than Japan, now there is an issue.

I still remmeber the black cloud rains coming west from old eastern block ( see communist run industry)industrial emmissions, and not a blip during that period either. Black rain, pitted cars, and eroded stone, and no demand that they stop from the greeners of the period, strange.

Only the US is evil and to be targeted.
Back to Top
Eville View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - 5/19, Filter-dodge

Joined: 19 September 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 3147
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Eville Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 July 2009 at 1:37pm
Funny, I always considered America as a world leader.  I wasn't aware we had to wait on China and India to act before we do.
Back to Top
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 998
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 July 2009 at 1:37pm
Originally posted by oldsoldier oldsoldier wrote:

How about 1939-1945 burning down half the planet and no appreciable blip on the climate change meter for that period?


Actually, there was an appreciable DOWNWARD dip during the Depression and the War.  I don't have specific data, but this makes sense to me - millions of people walking around shooting at each other instead of working in factories.  It would make an interesting study to see how CO2 emissions from the war compared to emission savings from the war.

But in any event - the point here is that when faced with an apparently contradictory data point, the correct response is NOT to immediately declare "well then, the theory must be wrong."  Instead, the correct response is to look into it further.  In this case, to try to determine how much emitting was actually occurring at that time.

Quote Mt St Helens was a good example of ash/gases amounts thrown into the sky in volumns way beyond the industrial capabilities of the US.


I was actually joking about the volcanos, seeing as how you (and others) keep bringing them up and I keep pointing out how wrong you are.  I am surprised you keep coming back to this.

All it takes is 15 seconds on Google and you will discover that human activity puts out something in the range of 150 times as much greenhouse gas as all global volcanic activity combined.  It's not even close.  Again, further evidence that you just accept the crap you are told without bothering to check.

Volcanic eruptions (including St. Helens) can have significant short-term climate effects (including global COOLING), and can do great harm to the ozone layer, but in terms of greenhouse gases they are not a big deal.  Certainly not compared to the human juggernaut.


Quote China and India are not considered in the mix, only cap and trade policies on the US economy, which to say has more emmission standards than China and India. But they are "poor" developing nations, hell China now is worth more in economic growth than Japan, now there is an issue.

I still remmeber the black cloud rains coming west from old eastern block ( see communist run industry)industrial emmissions, and not a blip during that period either. Black rain, pitted cars, and eroded stone, and no demand that they stop from the greeners of the period, strange.

Only the US is evil and to be targeted.


Another Hannity talking point.  And also false, not to mention silly.

The whole point of Kyoto and similar efforts was specifically to include ALL major emitters, not just the US and Western Europe.  There are countless efforts underway, both private and public, to get China, India, and the rest of the developing world on board with CO2 reduction.  Nobody is ignoring China and India.

This is a giant red herring invented by the haters.

Moreover, it is irrelevant.  Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.  So, we aren't going to control emissions just because China and India aren't?  Well, isn't that mature.  I would like to believe that we could lead by example instead of taking our ball to go home and pout.

And lastly, of course - why the major objections?  This is what I just don't understand.  Honest and simple suggestions that will reduce emissions while SAVING YOU MONEY are mocked and ridiculed by the deniers.

When exactly did waste and excess become "family values?"  You and I both, OS, were told by our parents to be less wasteful, not take more than we needed, and put things back the way we found them.  How did our generation(s) become PROUD of being wasteful?

You are always harping about the good old days of your youth.  How about going back to being as conservative (LITERALLY) as we were back then?  How is that a bad thing?  Why should suggestions of waste reduction not only be disregarded, but actively mocked?


"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".

Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
Back to Top
agentwhale007 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Forum's Vladimir Lenin

Joined: 20 June 2002
Location: GNV FLA
Status: Offline
Points: 11698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote agentwhale007 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 July 2009 at 2:06pm
When I get home and am not posting from a cell phone, I will link one of my columns from a while ago. I wrote about my frustration that the ideas of taking care of the environment has become a political one, and my confusion as to why the conservative base seems to be so anti natural conservation.
"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists.




Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.234 seconds.