the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Reader Opinion day from Climate Skeptic

Posted by Jeff Id on May 28, 2010

I read an article on climate skeptic this morning which was interesting. It’s an interview of Climate Skeptic proprietor Warren Meyer  on his views on climate change.  He did a great job with his answers (really it was good reading) but I would suggest making your own before reading his.   The frustrating thing is that they actually expect stupid answers from skeptics to these questions – because skeptics are nutjobs – because that’s what they read — because um ….that’s what they wrote.

Do you believe that global warming and climate change are a grave problem to the world at the moment ?


IF NO

What gives you reason to believe that global warming and climate change are not really happening?

Is there any scientific evidence to support that global warming and climate change is not really that harmful?

Are most scientists wrong?

What do you think is causing temperature changes on a scale never seen before?

What did you think to the results of Copenhagen?

Why do governments seem so concerned with the issue?

If fossil fuels will run out anyway, surely we should move to find alternatives. Why not now?

Even if it is not guaranteed that manmade emissions are to blame, wouldn’t it be wise to act anyway? It’s a hell of a gamble to our children’s future.

Don’t we have a duty to protect or planet for future generations?(i.e. save it from deforestation, pollution etc)


IF YES

How bad is climate change at the moment?


What did you think to the results of Copenhagen?


Is it increasing at an uncontrollable rate? Or is there still a chance to reduce climate change and alter its predicted course of events?


Do you have any comments on the recent e-mail leak scandal that was publicized?


What do you think about the rising levels of climate change skepticism?


How could and/or will climate change or similarly global warming affect the Middle East region in particular the Arabian peninsula?


What about other vulnerable countries?


What can the average citizen do more or less to help reduce climate change and its impact?


What do you predict will happen to major cities in the world if the problem of global warming is not addressed immediately?


How will an increase in global warming change the earth’s natural weather activities i.e. how will people and animals be affected, ecosystems, the weather….


How can we move forward on this issue?


Are you confident we can find a solution?


What are the chances of a new technology saving us? (for example, carbon capture)


Is carbon trading effectively passing the buck? Does it actually help

Further comments


44 Responses to “Reader Opinion day from Climate Skeptic”

  1. Brian H said

    Gawd, the questions could hardly be more biased!

    I like to screw with these people’s minds. I tell them the Earth is in a CO2 famine, and, were it only possible, we should drive the level back up to the long-term average of 1-2,000 ppm to aid plant growth. Not that it would have any influence on temperatures, unfortunately; warm periods have always been boom times for humanity and Life On Earth.

    As for clean alternatives, the ones endorsed by the Warmists and ecofreaks are so un-economic that they would cause a huge global depression, and starve hundreds of millions of the world’s poorest to death.

    They all love to be teased like that, of course! >;-)

  2. CoRev said

    Jeff, the cognitive disconnect with the first comment:
    Do you believe that global warming and climate change are a grave problem to the world at the moment?
    And then the first questions: What gives you reason to believe that global warming and climate change are not really happening?
    Is what many believers read when we say we are skeptical.

    There is a world of difference between not believing Global Warming being a grave problem and not really happening.

    2) Is there any scientific evidence to support that global warming and climate change is not really that harmful?
    Sure! Many generations of written and spoken history which is backed up with millions of years of prehistory.

    3) Are most scientists wrong?
    Nope! Many of them predicting catastrophic responses are wrong. See answer to 2 above.

    4) What do you think is causing temperature changes on a scale never seen before?
    See answer to 2 above.

    5) What did you think to the results of Copenhagen?
    Reality starting to appear.

    6) Why do governments seem so concerned with the issue?
    Increase revenue via taxation, and increase control over a ?problem?.

    7) If fossil fuels will run out anyway, surely we should move to find alternatives. Why not now?
    We are! But the rationality of economics is still driving the implementation of a best solution. There is no need to risk devastation economies for premature solutions.

    8) Even if it is not guaranteed that manmade emissions are to blame, wouldn’t it be wise to act anyway? It’s a hell of a gamble to our children’s future.
    Wise? Unless there is a true cost/benefits study done to compare actual and projected costs and impacts, we are acting on emotion. Being wise is to act rationally not emotionally.

    9) Don’t we have a duty to protect or planet for future generations?(i.e. save it from deforestation, pollution etc)
    Of course we do. What’s that have to do with Global Warming? We will warm until it stops and reverses leading to the next ice age.

    But then many of us are irrationally ignorant of the REAl issues.

  3. HotRod said

    I couldn’t possibly better his answers.

  4. JAE said

    I agree with most of the comments. However, the greenhouse gas hypothesis is now being challenged with some VERY solid empirical data—data from NASA, of all places. I’ve not seen any empirical data in support of the hypothesis. As I’ve been saying for about 3 years, any “greenhouse effect” is probably nothing more than heat storage.

    http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/Greenhouse_Effect_on_the_Moon.pdf

    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=5783&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ClimaterealistsNewsBlog+%28ClimateRealists+News+Blog%29

  5. timetochooseagain said

    It’s not even worth answering these IMAO.

  6. Steve Fitzpatrick said

    Jeff,

    Not an honest series of questions. They are framed to make anybody who answers them seem a fool. Too much of the classic “Do you still beat your wife?” stuff. Just crap. I would not answer these questions.

  7. TGSG said

    I see this same cognitive dissonance every day on the evening news. Slanted questions that look at the “other” side of an arguement coming from so far out in left field that all I can do is shake my head and grin. They really have no idea how someone on that other side thinks so they have no way to frame the “other” questions.

  8. Bruce of Newcastle said

    I can’t get past the first question since I think global warming is not a problem but climate change could well be(at least for me since I hate cold weather). So do I answer no or yes?

  9. TA said

    “Is there any scientific evidence to support that global warming and climate change is not really that harmful?”

    I have come across this, but it is not appearing yet on any of my trusted sites. I am curious whether there’s anything to it. Here’s my understanding of what they are saying:

    Greenhouse gas theory begins with the premise that without greenhouse gasses, the earth would be a perfect blackbody. The difference in temps between this hypothetical blackbody and actual temps is credited to greenhouse gasses. However, the moon has no atmosphere and it does not act like a perfect blackbody. It averages 40 degrees warmer than a hypothetical blackbody, with no greenhouse gasses. Therefore, if this is correct, the baseline for calculating the effect of greenhouse gasses on earth is way, way off.

    http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/Greenhouse_Effect_on_the_Moon.pdf

    Can we all go home now?

  10. Dagfinn said

    My answer to “Is there any scientific evidence to support that global warming and climate change is not really that harmful?”

    “That harmful” implies a comparison with some unspecified amount of harm. If by “that harmful” you mean the end of civilization and the radical decimation of the human race, I would just say read the IPCC AR4. If you mean something less than that, you need to specify how much less.

  11. Konrad said

    I found Warren’s responses to those atrocious questions quite reasonable and considered. There is one of the questions that I felt should have an additional response.

    “Even if it is not guaranteed that manmade emissions are to blame, wouldn’t it be wise to act anyway? It’s a hell of a gamble to our children’s future.”

    This question highlights one of the most dangerous parts of many AGW supporters thinking. This is the idea that the ends justify the means. I suspect that many AGW believers have never stopped to consider the serious damage to our society from using means such as fraudulent post normal science to achieve their ends. Children have been brain washed, science has been devalued, real environmental issues ignored and considerable economic damage has occurred.

    I see in some of the recent desperate attempts to stem the growing tide of skepticism that some on the alarmist side are beginning to see just how much is at risk for the fellow travelers in this scam. What disturbs me is that they are more concerned with saving their own hides than showing contrition for the damage they have wrought on society. While the collapse of the AGW scam may cause a backlash against renewable energy and environmental concern there is some good news. Never before have so many fellow travelers been hiding behind the one stalking horse. What we are seeing after Climategate is a frantic attempt to flog the festering corpse of the AGW horse back to life. When the bloody putrescent mist settles, the fellow travelers will be exposed on the plain of truth. We live in the Internet age and Little Brother is watching and recording. One of the joys of the collapse of the AGW hoax is how may trouble makers are permanently linked to the scam. Just think of all the politicians, activists and journalists we won’t be hearing from for a couple of decades :)

  12. Carrick said

    Is there any scientific evidence to support that global warming and climate change is not really that harmful?

    The question is poorly worded of course. An ice age would not be a beneficial “climate change”. I would say the baseline science suggests that climate change since 1850 has been very beneficial to humans.

    What do you think is causing temperature changes on a scale never seen before?

    He should check with the IPCC. They say all of the change up to 1980 was naturally induced. They also say that the last interglacial period had 5°C warmer temperatures and 10-m higher sea levels.

    “On a scale never seen before” must refer to the scale of the hype.

  13. JAE said

    TA: You need to read it again :)

  14. JAE said

    TA: What the article is saying, and supporting with irrefutable empirical evidence, is that we don’t need no stinkin’ “greenhouse effect” to explain why the Earth is 33 C warmer than it is “supposed” to be, using (flawed) physical calculations. Ergo, the “greenhouse effect” is not there.

  15. JB in VA said

    My frustration with the whole issue is that the first assumption seems to be it is the only issue. And everything else gets spun according to the requirements of the one issue. For example, deforestation and pollution – it isn’t the same problem. Lumping pollution in with the global warming agenda is validation that the warmists don’t feel it is a problem worthy of its own analysis. There are far more effective ways to reverse the accumulation of plastic trash in the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre that attempting to outlaw oil.

    My issue isn’t with whether global warming exists or doesn’t exist. My issue is that in context, relative to other issues, it does not warrant the level of economic commitment and human suffering that the proposed solutions will entail. The purveyors of the issue wail that if we don’t have an earth to live on, then everything else doesn’t matter. That is a hysterical argument. If one is willing to accept a qualify of life accorded to the population of say, Afghanistan, then sure, the price can be paid. Energy has consequences, good and bad. Eliminating energy or satisfying ourselves with what can be produced through wind, solar and hydroelectric are unlikely outcomes. Since we simply are not going to find enough members of the global population to willingly go there, taking the argument to its emotional extremes is a waste of time.

    In the scheme of things, where does this problem fall on the list of priorities including:

    Pollution, environmental destruction, amelioration and reversal of the current state;
    Disease and health care, and better delivery systems to populations lacking basic care and prevention;
    Food, clean water, population health and nutrition (which is related to disease prevention, and axis of health care);
    Human rights – everything from genocide to female excoriation;
    Affordable and available energy, since it is the foundation of productivity (without means of economic productivity, how will populations ever achieve self determination)?

    I toss these out as examples, not as a comprehensive list. The bottom line is, there are many problems.

    Really global warming is only one of many quality-of-life issues, and given the relative return on investment, a pretty poor expenditure of resources in my opinion. Of course, these other issues are not so well packaged into a scientific formula, holy computer models with 4 color charts, or movies and books with emotionally compelling titles. Which is perhaps why this group continues to be so short-sighted. We find the packaging of global warming/cooling/climate change to be attractive so we buy that to the exclusion of other, more beneficial products. It’s the American way.

  16. DeWitt Payne said

    Re: TA (May 29 00:02),

    The analysis you linked is badly flawed, as lucia pointed out at The Blackboard. It completely ignores the effect of heat capacity and thermal conductivity. The surface of the moon has relatively low conductivity and capacity. But it still has sufficient heat capacity that the surface temperature during lunar night doesn’t get anywhere close to the CMB temperature of 2.7 K. It’s closer to 150 K. The 255 K calculation for the Earth, OTOH, assumes both very high heat capacity and very high (effectively infinite) thermal conductivity. The Earth is not a superconductor, but the conductivity and heat capacity are high enough that the value for a superconducting body is a good approximation. It’s not a good approximation for the Moon.

  17. TA said

    DeWitt Payne,

    Thanks!

  18. [...] Reader Opinion day from Climate Skeptic « the Air Vent [...]

  19. [...] Reader Opinion day from Climate Skeptic « the Air Vent [...]

  20. Barry Woods said

    Do you think Steve Mcintyre will appreciate both of these quotes from the BBC?!

    Roger Harrabin – BBC

    “…And some of the top performers in the blogosphere are critics of the establishment.

    Steve McIntyre, for instance, is a mining engineer who started examining climate statistics as a hobby. He has taken on the scientific establishment on some key issues and won.

    He arguably knows more about CRU science than anyone outside the unit – but none of the CRU inquiries has contacted him for input. ”

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/science_and_environment/10178454.stm

    BBC

    “…I remember Lord May leaning over and assuring me: “I am the President of the Royal Society, and I am telling you the debate on climate change is over.”

    Lord May’s formidable intellect and the power of his personality may have made it hard for others to find a corner from which to dissent. “The debate is over” was a phrase used in order to persuade Tony Blair that policies were needed to tackle the rise in CO2.

    It was widely acknowledged that climate sceptics wanted to continue the debate in order to delay action to curb emissions.

    But what did the phrase mean? Did it mean the IPCC is unquestionably right? Or that cutting emissions 80% is the only way to save the planet? Or simply that it is basic physics that CO2 is a warming gas?

    Even at the Heartland Institute climate sceptics’ conference in Chicago last week most scientists seemed to agree that CO2 had probably warmed the planet at the end of the 20th century, over and above natural fluctuations.

    But they did not agree that the warming will be dangerous – and they object to being branded fools or hirelings for saying so………. “

  21. michel said

    IF NO

    What gives you reason to believe that global warming and climate change are not really happening?

    I think they are really happening, just not in any very remarkable or alarming way. Sometimes it warms, sometimes it cools. Right now, it seems to be cooling, but it warmed in the thirties and cooled in the forties and fifties.

    Is there any scientific evidence to support that global warming and climate change is not really that harmful?

    Dunno. They may or may not be harmful. Cooling undoubtedly hurts some groups, warming hurts some groups. Climate is a dangerous beast. The issue is how we deal with what it visits on us.

    Are most scientists wrong?

    Hard to say. About what? Do we really know the detail of what ‘most scientists’ think on this?

    What do you think is causing temperature changes on a scale never seen before?

    I do not think there are any such changes. I think we saw temperature changes on this scale in the RWP, the MWP, the Little Ice Age, the twenties, thirties, forties and fifties.

    What did you think to the results of Copenhagen?

    I was enormously encouraged by it. I thought it was science and public policy working in a democratic way. People were unwilling to sign up for idiotic policies that will make no difference to warming, and quite right too. When it came down to it, the case had not been made, and the politicians knew they did not have something they could sell back home.

    Why do governments seem so concerned with the issue?

    Probably because their electorates have been whipped up into a frenzy about it. But you notice how their concerns faded rather rapidly when they discovered what it was they were being asked to do.

    If fossil fuels will run out anyway, surely we should move to find alternatives. Why not now?

    Yes, we should do it right now. This is a very important issue, and we are likely to face serious disruptions if we just wait for sudden market moves in response to shortages. The problem is not that we should not find alternatives, the problem is that we need to stop pretending about what is an alternative. Tidal power is interesting, undeveloped, predictable, potentially huge. Windmills are as useful as the Easter Island statues.

    Even if it is not guaranteed that manmade emissions are to blame, wouldn’t it be wise to act anyway? It’s a hell of a gamble to our children’s future.

    Well, we gamble every day with their immortal souls when we do not have them brought up as (check one) Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Episcopalians, Baptists, Zorastrians. Even if it not guaranteed that bringing them up in one of these ways will take them to eternal salvation, would it not be wise to do it anyway? It is (literally) a hell of a gamble to our children’s future. Its nearly as bad as bringing them up on a high maybe a low carbohydrate diet, in case one of these will contribute to longevity.

    To be serious, the way to safeguard the future of humanity is to take rational action on the basis of evidence. That is, do things which will have an effect on what the problem seems, on the best evidence we have, to be. This is the whole problem with AGW. There is no evidence that there is a warming problem. Even if there were, there is no reason to think limiting CO2 emissions would fix it. And even if there were, there is no reason to think building windmills would lower emissions.

    Don’t we have a duty to protect or planet for future generations?(i.e. save it from deforestation, pollution etc)

    Yes, we do. We should safeguard the environment, lower pollution, try to preserve species. We should do these things because they are right, and because they make the world a nicer and safer place to live in. We should do them all, including if doing them raises rather than lowers CO2 emissions.

  22. JAE said

    TA, 17: Be cautious. DeWitt may be feeding you some of his garbage here. I don’t think heat capacity and conductivity are even considered in the simplistic calculation of what the Earth’s temperature “should be” without greenhouse gases. It’s just a simple (and stupid) calculation of the amount of radiation that reaches a “disk” the size of the Earth (and it ain’t just a disk, as explained in the article in question).

    Please ask Mr. Payne to explain where on The Blackboard Lucia has supposedly “pointed out” something. (I would ask DeWitt, but evidently he(?) will not “talk” to me on the blogs. I’ll leave it to you todiscern why).

  23. Russ said

    Hew DeWitt, are you still a chemist like you say you are?

  24. Russ said

    DeWitt Payne! Remember *plonk* back at you.

  25. stan said

    E J Dionne (Wash Post columnist and tv political pundit) became friendly with Paul Gigot when they were both on the same weekly show for a while. Dionne once explained that while Gigot really was a conservative (it wasn’t an act!), he wasn’t a “hater”.

    Dionne’s comment is one of those remarkable stupidities that tends to grow as one contemplates the full extent of the idiocy that must exist for someone to utter it. The more you think about it, the more overwhelming his combination of ignorance and stupidity gets.

    These questions to Warren at Climate Skeptic have that same kind of quality to them. Of course, they’re stupid questions. But as you try to wrap your brain around the ignorance required for someone to formulate them and realize that they are the product of someone who has been paid to research the subject and write about it, you almost tremble from the fright induced by what is revealed.

    Generations hence historians will compile a list of the most stupid ideas of our generation. Half of the worst ideas will be about economics and the other half will be about global warming (which means “green jobs” will rank #1 as the all-time most stupid). When stupidity and ignorance are combined with a religious fervor, bad things happen. [Combine stupid and ignorant to a fever pitch with a strong dose of messianic complex and you get Algore.]

  26. Larry Sheldon said

    I stopped reading at the question.

    I have what is apparently an incomprehensible opinion.

    I believe firmly that global warming are real.

    And not entirely connected.

    The globe is (or was) certainly warming. It started at the bottom of the most recent ice age and continued (will continue) until the next cooling began (begins). I don’t know what what causes that cycling–it appears that there is no correlation with anything inhabitants (animal or vegetable) do or did.

    It seems clear that local climate change can in fact be people caused, viz. Kilimanjaro, or the American Great Plains, or California’s Central Valleys.

  27. What gives you reason to believe that global warming and climate change are not really happening?
    Ans: The evidence of my physical senses gives me the reason.

    Is there any scientific evidence to support that global warming and climate change is not really that harmful?
    Ans: That evidence can be gathered after the globe has warmed up enough

    Are most scientists wrong?
    Ans: Yes. Isn’t that their job? To think of new things and therefore be wrong on occasion? I hope scientists are wrong.

    What do you think is causing temperature changes on a scale never seen before?
    Ans: Let us first account for the missing heat, shall we?

    What did you think to the results of Copenhagen?
    Ans: Exciting. Humanity still has hope. The slow-motion train-wreck that was Copenhagen was nail-biting and fun, even with Svensmark collapsing and Monckton getting beat by a cop. Watching Stephen Schneider run out of questions about Climategate was fun too.

    Why do governments seem so concerned with the issue?
    Ans: The UK leads, with the developing countries being led by the nose. It is the UK/Germany axis of resurgence, it is all Chalmers-style blowback for Bush (of course!).

    If fossil fuels will run out anyway, surely we should move to find alternatives. Why not now?
    Ans: We already have an alternative for fossil fuels. You guys watch a TV series called Stargate Universe?

    Even if it is not guaranteed that manmade emissions are to blame, wouldn’t it be wise to act anyway? It’s a hell of a gamble to our children’s future.
    Ans: Mind your own effin’ business. Do not poke your bloody nose into your children’s affairs. Or you must be Knights Templar or the Illuminati.

    Don’t we have a duty to protect or planet for future generations?(i.e. save it from deforestation, pollution etc)
    Ans: No. As said above – mind your own business. Do you want to live in a polluted ‘deforested’ world?

  28. That should have been: Stephen Schneider run out on questions about Copenhagen…

  29. Steven Mosher said

    JAE,

    The earth is not a blackbody. Nobody believes it is a blackbody. there are NO BLACKBODIES IN NATURE. At certain wavelengths the earth may operate very close to the idealization. But its not a blackbody. Sorry.

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

    “Black-body radiation is light in thermal equilibrium with a black body, light radiation with a given temperature. It is the reference thermodynamic equilibrium state of light. Experimentally, it is established as the steady state equilibrium radiation in a rigid-walled cavity that contains a black body. There are no strictly exact black bodies in nature, but graphite is a good approximation, and a closed box with graphite walls at a steady state gives a good approximation to ideal black body radiation”

    take your strawman arguments and burn them. Get some better arguments.

  30. KevinUK said

    Mosh,

    Why are you of all people using Wikipedia as a reference for information on black body radiation?

    Now please tell me how you know that “there are NO BLACKBODIES IN NATURE” but before that please define what you mean by “NATURE”

  31. Larry Sheldon said

    Back up a ways, somebody said the absence of warming was proof there is no warming.

    Which fails only at “there is no”.

    We do not have wide spread glaciation.

    The glaciers are all receding over the long haul. I under stand that some are not–that might indicate that we have reached the end4 or even passed the end of the warming.

    I don’t think a sane person can deny that the globe has been warming more or less steadily since the end of the last ice age.

    And only an idiot can cargue that the warming was cause by SUV’s in the last few years of the period.

  32. DeWitt Payne said

    Re: KevinUK (May 31 15:20),

    There are no perfect anythings in nature. There is no such thing as a perfect reflector or a perfectly transparent body or a perfect absorber. You can’t get a physical body to absolute zero or the speed of light. Even in intergalactic space there are a few atoms per cubic meter so there is no perfect vacuum. Etc., etc.

  33. DeWitt Payne said

    Re: DeWitt Payne (May 31 18:17),

    Nature meaning the real world as opposed to a thought experiment.

  34. Jeff Id said

    #30, There is no perfect blackbody, sometimes when looking up a reference you already know about wiki is an easy grab.

  35. Jeff Id said

    #32 That’s so true. I’m not taking sides in any argument between fellow bloggers but the comment DeWitt makes is far more poignant than people who haven’t done metrology realize. Even the best, most accurate instruments are fraught with noise.

    Proof of Satan’s existence,
    and therefore god’s in my opinion. :D

  36. JAE said

    Mosher, 29 says:

    “JAE,

    The earth is not a blackbody. Nobody believes it is a blackbody. there are NO BLACKBODIES IN NATURE. At certain wavelengths the earth may operate very close to the idealization. But its not a blackbody. Sorry.”

    Why, yes! Isn’t that what the paper I linked to says? What is your point? Did you even bother to look at the damn pictures in the article???

  37. Carrick said

    Jeff ID:

    Even the best, most accurate instruments are fraught with noise

    Yep. And it’s kind of interesting how that works.

    A pressure sensor for example also senses vibration, temperature change, temperature gradients and so forth.

    A photovoltaic cell picks up low frequency E&M just fine. If you wanted to use a traditional photovoltaic to receive low-frequency amplitude modulated light (e.g., photoplethysmometry…using IR to detect blood flow in a finger nail via the IR), it would be very noisy because of the E&M interference (people use photo diodes or photo resistor bridges instead (see e.g. the OPT121).

  38. Carrick said

    JAE, I don’t think anybody has a clue what you are on about. You should excuse DeWitt for trying to take you seriously.

  39. Jeff Id said

    As with many here, I’ve had the opportunity to use some ridiculously good instruments. Stuff which gives Nasa it’s name, but it’s always the same thing. The same exact battle. The instrument so often barely meets the experiment (in my experience) that it’s hard to claim any data is perfect. — sounds like a blog post.

    When you build the near perfect thermometer/photometer/hygrometer, a lot of questions are settled, but the first thing that us jerk science types will do is to take it right to its limit. We’ll bash and beat that thing until it surrenders and we’ll all be back right where we were measuring something right at the edge of our ability.

  40. TV Gossip said

    Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change.

    Sent from my iPad 4G

  41. JAE said

    Carrick: ?? You must be commenting about Steve Mosher, who seems not to know what I’m talking about, evidently because he hasn’t bothered to look at the article I referenced. That is the ultimate in arm-waving.

  42. DeWitt Payne said

    Re: Carrick (May 31 21:08),

    The killfile addon to Greasemonkey works very well here. As a result, there are some individuals whose comments I don’t see and so ignore.

  43. JAE said

    Gotta get me the killfile addon for my 4-year old grand daughter. She’s really into “not talking” to some folks and “hiding” from them. LOL.

  44. Larry Sheldon said

    Is warming bad?

    No.

    Through out history and prehistory as best we can tell, warm has always been associated with wealth and prosperity, cold with poverty, famine, and sickness.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 140 other followers

%d bloggers like this: