Looks like the fat lady has sung on AGW

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

No serious scientist has been saying that, within 25 years, oceans would "inundate the coasts."

You're right. It was 50 years.http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=aKxdAAAAIBAJ&sjid=bl0NAAAAIBAJ&pg=2794,1289946&dq=james-hansen+flood&hl=en

And five and a half years ago, he expects sea levels to rise 82 feet.

Quote

How far can it go? The last time the world was three degrees warmer than today - which is what we expect later this century - sea levels were 25m higher. So that is what we can look forward to if we don't act soon. None of the current climate and ice models predict this. But I prefer the evidence from the Earth's history and my own eyes. I think sea-level rise is going to be the big issue soon, more even than warming itself.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-on-the-edge-466818.html

2006-2099 = 93 years. 82/93=.88 feet per year. So if the trend is linear, the sea level rose 4 feet, 10 inches in five years.

And in 1988, Hanson predicted that in 40 years, the West Side Highway in Manhattan will be inundated. He'll need another 10 feet in the next 17 years. Seeing as how we've had about 2.5 inches in the intervening 23, I have a problem with averaging 7-8 inches of sea level rise per year.

I am merely using Hansen as one example. He's generally considered to be a serious scientist.

Bill - so I somewhat overstated it. But Hansen stands by his statement of 40 year inundation. Meaning he still predicts that in 17 years, a ten foot rise in sea level will occur. Meaning I somewhat understated it while I was at it.

And actually, no serious scientist in 25 years has said coast will be inundated?

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110126_SingingInTheRain.pdf Footnote 1.

And snow a thing of the past? Dr. David Viner of CRU Anglia WAS a serious scientist and he said just that in 2000. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html

Edited: Mike beat me to it. I went into more detail. And I gave you the benefit of th edoubt, bill.

I mean, 10 feet in 40 years we'd expect to see some inundation now....

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

No serious scientist has been saying that, ...

lawrocket and mnealtx,
By billvon's definition, those aren't serious scientists.
billvon knows this stuff when he sees it.

How folks like Al Gore and the EPA can tell this..., well that's probably more of a practical concern for our country than the increasing atmospheric levels of CO2....

billvon,
You still haven't answered my question to you:
Do you really think the AGW models' predictions merit the current EPA's push to shut down 8% of our electrical grid, especially considering that might make the whole system unstable?

We are all engines of karma

[skiskyrock 0]

Quote

Quote

No serious scientist has been saying that, within 25 years, oceans would "inundate the coasts."

You're right. It was 50 years.http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=aKxdAAAAIBAJ&sjid=bl0NAAAAIBAJ&pg=2794,1289946&dq=james-hansen+flood&hl=en

And five and a half years ago, he expects sea levels to rise 82 feet.

Quote

How far can it go? The last time the world was three degrees warmer than today - which is what we expect later this century - sea levels were 25m higher. So that is what we can look forward to if we don't act soon. None of the current climate and ice models predict this. But I prefer the evidence from the Earth's history and my own eyes. I think sea-level rise is going to be the big issue soon, more even than warming itself.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-on-the-edge-466818.html

2006-2099 = 93 years. 82/93=.88 feet per year. So if the trend is linear, the sea level rose 4 feet, 10 inches in five years.

And in 1988, Hanson predicted that in 40 years, the West Side Highway in Manhattan will be inundated. He'll need another 10 feet in the next 17 years. Seeing as how we've had about 2.5 inches in the intervening 23, I have a problem with averaging 7-8 inches of sea level rise per year.

I am merely using Hansen as one example. He's generally considered to be a serious scientist.

Bill - so I somewhat overstated it. But Hansen stands by his statement of 40 year inundation. Meaning he still predicts that in 17 years, a ten foot rise in sea level will occur. Meaning I somewhat understated it while I was at it.

And actually, no serious scientist in 25 years has said coast will be inundated?

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110126_SingingInTheRain.pdf Footnote 1.

And snow a thing of the past? Dr. David Viner of CRU Anglia WAS a serious scientist and he said just that in 2000. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html

Edited: Mike beat me to it. I went into more detail. And I gave you the benefit of th edoubt, bill.

I mean, 10 feet in 40 years we'd expect to see some inundation now....

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Examining-Hansens-prediction-about-the-West-Side-Highway.html

Hansen was speaking of a hypothetical doubling of CO2 in 1988 and what would happen 40 years later, not a prediction of what will happen in 40 years under the current emission scenarios.

[lawrocket 3]

Exactly. And the hypothetical 25 meter sea level rise is what we "expect."

Why the fuck are serious scientists putting this shit out there? Tell me why serious scientists continue to say this stuff. There HAS to be a reason.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Hansen was speaking of a hypothetical doubling of CO2 in 1988 and what would happen 40 years later, not a prediction of what will happen in 40 years under the current emission scenarios.

Maybe Hansen should get out there and make that clear to the Al Gore's of the world?

We are all engines of karma

[skiskyrock 0]

Quote

Quote

so it is a mystery to me why it keeps geetting repeating without at least mentioning that there might be some wee problem with the original paper

Because have you EVER heard of an editor publishing a paper and then, instead of the normal exchange of letters, e-mails and phone calls to improve a paper as is the normal case, publicly resigns with a manifesto against a paper?

In cases where the editor of a minor journal was punk'd by the author and reviewers, yes

Quote

The paper had problems. As does almost every paper. The science gets improved and papers get improved again and again over days, months and years. That's the process, isn't it? And yet an editor decided to TRUMP that process publically.

Perhaps he felt that the paper was intellectually dishonest and only intended to generate headlines. My first read of the paper raised four red flags, and I'm not even a climate scientist.

Quote

It is indeed unfortunate that it transpired this way because at least one of the CRU hack e-mails suggested that they would seek to get rid of editors who published unfriendly papers. And note the criticisms of the paper are mainly ad hominem.

Actualy, the CRU emails discuss boycotting a journal after the editor published a paper by Soon and Baliunas despite receiving four "reject" recommendations from the reviewer. Half the editorial board also resigned to protest this incident.

With respect to the Remote Sensing paper, the editor invited, and the journal has published, a detailed refutation of the original work.

Quote

I like middle ground. I think the paper was overly hyped by the skpetics and I found that the behavior of the alarmists was fucking disgusting and juvenile. Take a look at this piece of tripe from generally respectable scientists.

http://wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2011/09/spencer-faulty-science

The piece you site seems measured and thoughtful to me. The authors have backed up their opinions else where with detailed discussions, and as I stated previously, they have published a paper in remote sensing refuting the original paper. If this meets your definition of "fucking disgusting", well you are entitled to that opinion. but you may find the internet a bit rough on your sensibilities.

Quote

So tell me where the criticisms are of the science of the paper. That's right - there ARE no criticisms. This is MY problem.

Published in Remote Sensing. See link in my original reply.

Also here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/

[lawrocket 3]

Well, considering your history of dishonesty you cannot be believed?

There are plenty of scientists who found the article disgusting. Count among them judith Curry, who considered the piece a "hatchet job."
She knows what it's like being on the receiving end of it, having gone from respected in the AGW community to being victimized by what she called the "Rapid Response Team." The opinion pice contained no criticisms of the science - just ad hominems on the authors. I was not talking about the responses to Remote Sensing - which I said there were valid criticisms of the paper.

The opinion piece by "respected scientists" was childish. Fucking ridiculous.

Curry said that science is not bad. Science that disagrees with other science is science that works itself out over time via review and comment and repllication. That's what journals are for - to communicate new ideas. And they are often proved wrong.

In the last month we had scientissts who suggested neutrinos move faster than the speed of light. Was it an outrage? Did these scientists get lambasted? Were they subjected to personal attacks? No. Scientists took a look at it and think that they found the answer. That's it. An interesting problem solved.

Show me examples over the last two years where a scientist who published something was given the PR ad hominem approach? This is EXACTLY the sort of thing that the East Anglia investigation criticized - the groupthink clique of climate scientists who have their own jealous subculture.

Tell a member of the Westboro church that she's an asshole and she'll believe that her response is measured and justified. Take a look at the public opinion on climate scientists. It's fallen significantly - in no small part due to this behavior.

Note: it IS nice to see realclimate returning to its stated mission of discussing science and not politics or economics. For too long it had become light on science and heavy on the politics.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[winsor 236]

Quote

Well, considering your history of dishonesty you cannot be believed?

There are plenty of scientists who found the article disgusting. Count among them judith Curry, who considered the piece a "hatchet job."
She knows what it's like being on the receiving end of it, having gone from respected in the AGW community to being victimized by what she called the "Rapid Response Team." The opinion pice contained no criticisms of the science - just ad hominems on the authors. I was not talking about the responses to Remote Sensing - which I said there were valid criticisms of the paper.

The opinion piece by "respected scientists" was childish. Fucking ridiculous.

Curry said that science is not bad. Science that disagrees with other science is science that works itself out over time via review and comment and repllication. That's what journals are for - to communicate new ideas. And they are often proved wrong.

In the last month we had scientissts who suggested neutrinos move faster than the speed of light. Was it an outrage? Did these scientists get lambasted? Were they subjected to personal attacks? No. Scientists took a look at it and think that they found the answer. That's it. An interesting problem solved.

Show me examples over the last two years where a scientist who published something was given the PR ad hominem approach? This is EXACTLY the sort of thing that the East Anglia investigation criticized - the groupthink clique of climate scientists who have their own jealous subculture.

Tell a member of the Westboro church that she's an asshole and she'll believe that her response is measured and justified. Take a look at the public opinion on climate scientists. It's fallen significantly - in no small part due to this behavior.

Note: it IS nice to see realclimate returning to its stated mission of discussing science and not politics or economics. For too long it had become light on science and heavy on the politics.

Your discussion of Scientific Orthodoxy in unflattering terms is ill advised.

You may think your standpoint is well considered and justified, but you are uncomfortably close to Blasphemy/Heresy.

Just a heads-up.

[lawrocket 3]

The warning is appreciated. It's simply ironic that the climate debate has descended to "Borking" of opposition.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[StreetScooby 5]

For those of you interested, here is one of Hansen's papers from 2005 discussing his concern about global warming.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/308/5727/1431.full

You may need to join AAAS, but it's free.

Quote

Abstract

Our climate model, driven mainly by increasing human-made greenhouse gases and aerosols, among other forcings, calculates that Earth is now absorbing 0.85 ± 0.15 watts per square meter more energy from the Sun than it is emitting to space. This imbalance is confirmed by precise measurements of increasing ocean heat content over the past 10 years. Implications include (i) the expectation of additional global warming of about 0.6°C without further change of atmospheric composition; (ii) the confirmation of the climate system's lag in responding to forcings, implying the need for anticipatory actions to avoid any specified level of climate change; and (iii) the likelihood of acceleration of ice sheet disintegration and sea level rise.

Introductory paragraph targets an audience of "policy makers"

Quote

Earth's climate system has considerable thermal inertia. This point is of critical importance to policy- and decision-makers who seek to mitigate the effects of undesirable anthropogenic climate change. The effect of the inertia is to delay Earth's response to climate forcings, i.e., changes of the planet's energy balance that tend to alter global temperature. This delay provides an opportunity to reduce the magnitude of anthropogenic climate change before it is fully realized, if appropriate action is taken. On the other hand, if we wait for more overwhelming empirical evidence of climate change, the inertia implies that still greater climate change will be in store, which may be difficult or impossible to avoid.

Good gracious, what a starting point...

We are all engines of karma

[StreetScooby 5]

Just finished a rough first pass over the paper. A lot of information to digest, with lots of references to papers written by.... Hansen himself (not that there is anything wrong with that).

There's alot of caveats in the paper, not unexpectedly.

One thing that is noticeable:

Quote

The lag in the climate response to a forcing is a sensitive function of equilibrium climate sensitivity, varying approximately as the square of the sensitivity (1), and it depends on the rate of heat exchange between the ocean's surface mixed layer and the deeper ocean (2–4). The lag could be as short as a decade, if climate sensitivity is as small as 0.25°C per W/m2 of forcing, but it is a century or longer if climate sensitivity is 1°C per W/m2 or larger (1, 3). Evidence from Earth's history (3–6) and climate models (7) suggests that climate sensitivity is 0.75° ± 0.25°C per W/m2, implying that 25 to 50 years are needed for Earth's surface temperature to reach 60% of its equilibrium response (1).

Basically, he's saying the ocean is going to warm up and stay warm, and that once it gets that way, it'll be a long time for it to change. Even if the ocean gets "rolling" in that direction, that's a bad thing.

His estimate of the equilibrium climate sensitivity (a number they're using to reflect the impact of green house gases, basically) is 0.75 (units of measure excluded here), and at that value it'll take 25-50 years for the ocean to really get "rolling" in that direction. For the purposes of discussion, let's say that's the time we'll "really start noticing it".

Let me bring your attention to this:

Quote

The lag could be as short as a decade, if climate sensitivity is as small as 0.25°C per W/m2 of forcing, but it is a century or longer if climate sensitivity is 1°C per W/m2 or larger (1, 3).

As the climate sensitivity increases, it takes longer for the ocean to get "rolling" in the direction of "forever increased retained heat." At a value of 1.0 (units of measure excluded), it'll take 100 years (instead of 25-50 years) for the ocean to reach 60% of it's equilibrium response. Or, so to speak, for us to "really start noticing it".

From here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity

Quote

The equilibrium climate sensitivity refers to the equilibrium change in global mean near-surface air temperature that would result from a sustained doubling of the atmospheric (equivalent) CO2 concentration (ΔTx2). This value is estimated, by the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) as likely to be in the range 2 to 4.5 °C with a best estimate of about 3 °C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5 °C. Values substantially higher than 4.5 °C cannot be excluded, but agreement of models with observations is not as good for those values.[1]

So, the IPCC's best estimate seems to indicate that it's going to be well over 100 years before "we really start to notice it", i.e., not in our lifetimes nor in our children's lifetimes.

Granted, from what I've quoted here, we don't know what the actual magnitude of the equilibrium response will be. The only estimate I've seen so far is what's quoted in the abstract:

Quote

Implications include (i) the expectation of additional global warming of about 0.6°C without further change of atmospheric composition;

The author doesn't know what the actual magnitude of the change is, either.

Still lots of stuff to look over. But, right now it seems to me we're going to be waiting a long time before "we really start to notice" global warming. And, based upon the author's 0.6degC estimate, we'll be noticing all of 60% of that, or about 0.36degC difference in avg temp. I think I'm still going to keep my coat handy for winters.

I'll keep ya'll posted as I continue down my learning path. Feel free to point out things worth pointing out, preferably in a positive manner so we can all learn something here. That's really my interest here.

We are all engines of karma

[mnealtx 0]

Does he mention the Medieval Warm Period?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Does he mention the Medieval Warm Period?

Not that I saw. There are 38 papers referenced in Hansen's paper alone. The other paper that skiskyrock quoted this morning also has a slew of references, and it seems to have more meat in it that this particular Hansen paper. The skiskyrock reference also appears to be quite objective is saying there's still alot of work to be done to understand climate dynamics.

Click on the link, and check out Hansen's paper. Take your time and read over it. He is rigorous with his vocabulary, and there's no ambiguity that I saw. After a couple of pass throughs, you'll start seeing what he's saying. Granted, I'm relying on my experience as a chemical engineer here, but the paper is digestable.

We are all engines of karma

[skiskyrock 0]

Quote

Quote

Curry said that science is not bad. Science that disagrees with other science is science that works itself out over time via review and comment and repllication. That's what journals are for - to communicate new ideas. And they are often proved wrong.

This wasn't a serious journal article. The authors knew there were holes in their approach, they had to. They sent it to a low impact journal without the resources to do a thorough review. It wasn't going to survive long after publication. But that wasn't the point. They had the press release ready to go. Everybody sees the Fox news and Forbes headlines, nobody reads the refutations.

Quote

Show me examples over the last two years where a scientist who published something was given the PR ad hominem approach? This is EXACTLY the sort of thing that the East Anglia investigation criticized - the groupthink clique of climate scientists who have their own jealous subculture.

Seriously? Would you like the examples chronologically or alphabetically? How about this from Lubos Motl, reacting to Michael Mann being cleared of any wrongdoing by Penn State:
"The complete lack of elementary morality of these people is just stunning. Those people may feel comfortable in their ivory towers but let me tell them that they're human trash and organized criminals and we will eventually give them what they deserve. No Tora Bora will be safe enough for them.

That's my message to Ms Ass-mann, Mr Castleman, Ms Irwin, Ms Jablonski, and Mr Vondracek. I have met people at Harvard who would behave in the same way and let me tell you that I am proud of my stomach that throughout those long years, I have never vomited.
"

compare that to this harsh rhetoric for Trenberth commenting on Spencer's paper in Remote sensing:

"Spencer, a University of Alabama, Huntsville, climatologist, and his colleagues have a history of making serious technical errors in their effort to cast doubt on the seriousness of climate change. Their errors date to the mid-1990s, when their satellite temperature record reportedly showed the lower atmosphere was cooling. As obvious and serious errors in that analysis were made public, Spencer and Christy were forced to revise their work several times and, not surprisingly, their findings agree better with those of other scientists around the world: the atmosphere is warming. "

BTW, I'm not sure that I'd consider pointing out that a person has been wrong on a subject in the past would constitute and ad hom attack.

Your comments about groupthink imply that there is a serious alternative to AGW being proposed by those in oposition. In fact there isn't. It's volcanoes. It's the sun. It's cosmic rays. It isn't happening. It is happening but it's a natural cycle. It's fraud (except when the data supports our point). All the small minority of scientists that oppose the current theories AGW are doing is throwing shit at the wall and hoping some sticks for a few days.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Does he mention the Medieval Warm Period?

Not that I saw. There are 38 papers referenced in Hansen's paper alone. The other paper that skiskyrock quoted this morning also has a slew of references, and it seems to have more meat in it that this particular Hansen paper. The skiskyrock reference also appears to be quite objective is saying there's still alot of work to be done to understand climate dynamics.

Click on the link, and check out Hansen's paper. Take your time and read over it. He is rigorous with his vocabulary, and there's no ambiguity that I saw. After a couple of pass throughs, you'll start seeing what he's saying. Granted, I'm relying on my experience as a chemical engineer here, but the paper is digestable.

SO

Question??

What will our world be like when its changed beyond our species ability to adapt.... will conservatives still be denying there is anything wrong?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

What will our world be like when its changed beyond our species ability to adapt.... will conservatives still be denying there is anything wrong?

depends on the pace to arrive at the point of no return - by definition the conservatives are least capable of adaptation, no?, so they'd be the first to go.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Does he mention the Medieval Warm Period?

Not that I saw. There are 38 papers referenced in Hansen's paper alone. The other paper that skiskyrock quoted this morning also has a slew of references, and it seems to have more meat in it that this particular Hansen paper. The skiskyrock reference also appears to be quite objective is saying there's still alot of work to be done to understand climate dynamics.

Click on the link, and check out Hansen's paper. Take your time and read over it. He is rigorous with his vocabulary, and there's no ambiguity that I saw. After a couple of pass throughs, you'll start seeing what he's saying. Granted, I'm relying on my experience as a chemical engineer here, but the paper is digestable.

SO

Question??

What will our world be like when its changed beyond our species ability to adapt.... will conservatives still be denying there is anything wrong?

Get back to us when the temps reach the level that they were in the MWP and we'll discuss further then.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

What will our world be like when its changed beyond our species ability to adapt.... will conservatives still be denying there is anything wrong?

depends on the pace to arrive at the point of no return - by definition the conservatives are least capable of adaptation, no?, so they'd be the first to go.

I would have thought that conservatives would wish to actually conserve something..

So what we are left with is the spate of conservatards... poluting the planet's air land and water for fun and profit.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

This wasn't a serious journal article. The authors knew there were holes in their approach, they had to. They sent it to a low impact journal without the resources to do a thorough review. It wasn't going to survive long after publication. But that wasn't the point. They had the press release ready to go. Everybody sees the Fox news and Forbes headlines, nobody reads the refutations.

Based upon the quality and tenor of the papers I've looked up today from your reference, I'd have to agree that Spencer didn't come anywhere close to the professional presentation that's being used elsewhere. That doesn't necessarily refute what he might be saying, but he sure isn't trying to make his point in any standard sort of way compared to what the rest of the industry is doing.

We are all engines of karma

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

If this is the case, then why has there been a 22% of CO2 gain in the past 50 years?

The next point I spent some time considering is the rate of increase of CO2....

I spent a decade as a chemical engineer modelling dynamic processes, so I'm pretty comfortable dealing with dynamic systems.

Let's take a look at the IPCC statement quoted earlier:

Quote

The equilibrium climate sensitivity refers to the equilibrium change in global mean near-surface air temperature that would result from a sustained doubling of the atmospheric (equivalent) CO2 concentration (ΔTx2).

In order for the CO2 driving force to fully express itself in the units of measure being discussed here, the CO2 needs to double it's value. Right now, measurements are showing that CO2 has gone from 0.032% to 0.04% in the last 50 years.

So, CO2 needs to reach a level of 0.064% in order to fully drive the new equilibrium value of the earth's temperature 0.6 degC higher, based upon the implications quoted by Hansen. That's predicated on an initial starting point of 0.032% CO2 for their measurements.

Let's see... It's taken 50 years for CO2 to increase by 0.008%. If this rate of increase stays constant, we're looking at another 150 years before the CO2 driving force is really at the magnitude needed to produce the change being predicted here. Granted, one can debate whether that rate of change will increase or not, but the point here is it's going to be over 100 years before the driving force fully expresses itself in their model (assuming the starting point for their measurements is indeed 0.032%).

Let's go back and look at the equilibrium climate sensitivity being 3. Keep in mind that number is being used to estimate how long the system will take to respond, i.e. when will the system reach 60% of it's final change once the driving force has reached the CO2 doubling. Let's look at Hansen's own words: if the equilibrium climate sensitivity is 0.75, it'll take 25-50 years for the system to reach 60% of it's final response; if it's 1.0 it'll take over one hundred years; i.e., a change of roughly 25% in that number doubled the amount of time it takes the system to respond. With the value now being estimated at 3, we're looking at a difference of over 300% in that value. If a 25% change caused a doubling in response time, how much is a 300% change going to cause? It seems reasonable to expect the response time is now going to be on the order of 100s of years, in their own words.

If nothing else changes, it'll be over 100 years before CO2 reaches the level where it can drive the earth's temperature 0.06 degC higher (I would imagine that number has changed since the original estimate). Then, it'll be 100s of years later when the earth reaches 60% of that value.

So, looks like it's going to be 100s of years before "we really start noticing" global warming.

When a system has that kind of lag time, there's lot of time for 2nd-order forces, and maybe even 3rd order forces, to impact the system's response. Right now, reasonable scientists are saying they don't know what those forces are.

Based upon the time frame being discussed here, we'll go through dozens of solar cycles. Entire forests can grow and die, multiple times, in this time frame. These are just the driving forces that immediately come to mind. How many others are out there that are relevant in this context?

Stay tuned, more to come...

We are all engines of karma

[brenthutch 444]

SO

Question??

What will our world be like when its changed beyond our species ability to adapt.... will conservatives still be denying there is anything wrong?

[brenthutch 444]

"Odiferous Hypocriticous"

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

What will our world be like when its changed beyond our species ability to adapt...

With all of your knowledge, maybe you can author a book along the lines of "Living in Trees for Dummies". I promise I'll pre-order it, and read it.

We are all engines of karma

[Amazon 7]

Quote

"Odiferous Hypocriticous"

TSK TSK TSK...


Poor baby... all ya got is PA's

[Amazon 7]

Quote

SO

Question??

What will our world be like when its changed beyond our species ability to adapt.... will conservatives still be denying there is anything wrong?

The World has already changed beyond the ability of YOUR species to adapt!