Well written and great perspective.

I would think children might be more frightened by the thought that Anna Nicole Smith could come back from the dead and eat them.

Good article.

Regarding the survey:

It's possible that the kids, having their teachers drilling the GW menace into their pointy little heads on a daily basis, connivingly (as kids are wont to be) figured out what answers they were expected to give.

Secondly, the real key to the results of the survey lie, I think, in the final sentence of the linked article:

The study marked Somerfield's drive to reduce the eight billion plastic bags wasted by UK households every year.

I've noticed that here in the US, grocery stores are enthusiastically jumping on the GW bandwagon and instituting "bring your own bag" policies.

I would love to see how much the average grocery store chain spends annually on bags...

Sensitive, thoughtful article

I'm a Britsh teenager, and I think the situation over here may be worse than any foreigners could expect! Entire Chemsistry lessons (and probbaly Geography lessons) are spent talking about global warming. Us young Britons are made to be really worried about it and with all the scaremongering, I'm not surprised that British children lose sleep over Global Warming. Then again, Britain could apparently enter a big freeze, which'd be fun, for a while, but would screw up the world economy big time, considering that Britain would be New Eskimo Land, and we're still pretty big players in this world of ours. No wonder everybody wants Britain to be scared, it probably boils down to selfish capitalism-"make those British kids lose sleep over it, ya hear me?" as the Gulf Stream would cease to function, and where most countries would be much hotter, we'd be much, much colder, and we'd cease to function as a developed country!
Will.
P.S: Check my posts in the Zelda:Twilight Princess review in the gaming section.

Gosh, that comment I made was actually very, very relavent to the article, and expand upon it quite well, especially the second paragraph, although it completely contradicts that paragraph! I hadn't actually read that tuff about England's soon to be sunnier weather, and the stuff about the economy, when I wrote my stuff about how cold it'll be over here and my stuff about the economy. How wonderfully relavent. Also, in said Chemistry lesson, we watched Al Gore talk on Youtube. Do I have a psychic connnection to the author or something?
Also, what's wrong with Britain's weather, that stuff the Romans said about it when they first cam is poppycock! Better a bit of rain than stupidly hot sun like in the USA!

Will,
Check out my posts on the Zelda Twilight Princess review under the gaming section.

When I said the seond paragraph in the above post, I meant the last paragraph.

Will.

We have raised a world of pussies and girlee men. Drop the hat and our little weak kneeded ritalin fead kids are taken by a soccer mom for counseling. Third world countries wouldn't know counseling from a frecking Aardvark. Ladies, men hero's are a thing of the past unless you teach your little so called he-man or he girl to hunt polor bears. What a society of frecking whimps. Keep your cheeks closed tight unless a terrorist desires to penetrate. Now thats a bad dream for the little pricks. Fuck the polor bears. How would life be different if these white man killers were gong? Like who gives a rats ass.

Just throwing this out there:

Let's say the "Global Warming" theory is 100% accurate, and temperatures are indeed going to rise a couple degrees over the next century due to human activity. Did you know that this would actually be BENEFICIAL in some regards?

For instance, a huge portion of the Earth's landmass is in the higher latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere (think Canada and Siberia). Currently, it's really f**king cold there most of the year. Because of that, the growing season is very short, and relatively few crops can be grown there. Also, these areas are very sparsely populated, due to the unpleasantly cold climate and high costs of home/business heating during the seemingly-endless "winter" months (like, from September to April).

So, if the Earth's temperature goes up a few degrees, these massive regions will become much more productive for both agriculture and industry. And actually living there would become possible for people who aren't Inuit or part-caribou.

And, of course, even "worst-case" scenarios don't predict this (gasp!) two degree temperature rise to come about tomorrow. Nope, it'll take many decades before it happens. So no need to worry about the insta-flooding of our coastal cities. There's plenty of time to follow the Dutch lead and build dikes, or just move inland a few hundred meters.

And remember this: The latest UN "Global Warming" report said that there is NOTHING WE CAN DO TO STOP IT anyway, and even is the USA ratified the Kyoto Treaty, and actually met its goals (which the EU has failed to do), the temperature would STILL increase over the next 100 years, only a little less so. Of course, these predictions are all based on computer models that were designed by human beings with incomplete data...oftentimes the same human beings who were scare-mongering about "Global Cooling" just a few decades ago.

So, sleep tight British children. There's probably nothing to worry about, but even if there is, there isn't a damn thing you can do about it, and worrying about things you cannot change isn't exactly a healthy pastime.

Another thought:

The "Global Warming" mania has become an excuse for people to attack the US and it's successful capitalistic economy. But when was the last time you heard about Brazil's overtly anti-environmental policies? (Probably never, because Brazil is an authoritarian, corrupt, socialist third-world shit-hole, and so they are not to be criticized...)

Brazil is encouraging its rapidly-growing population to move away from the coast and into the Amazonian jungle. They are encouraging people to cut down the Amazon rainforest, and plant f**king soybeans in its place. Brazil is also one of the main cattle-raising countries in the world, and the UN report cites cow farts (I am not making this up) as a major contributor to greenhouse gases.

So, fewer trees, more methane-laden cow farts, and a population explosion. Why doesn't Brazil get criticized? Maybe because they have a leftist President who dislikes President Bush? Maybe because they are a "developing" country and are therefore somehow exempt from criticism (just like India and Red China are exempt from Kyoto)?

you are such a fool. what, exactly, would be the harm in realizing that we DO have an impact on the earth's climate, and if we DON'T try to do something about it, it will affect the way we live?

we could do nothing, go on the way we live, and nothing would happen. fine. it's possible it's all paranoia.

or, we could reduce our dependence on foreign oil and have less war, get better mileage on the cars we do drive and save a little money, reduce traffic by taking public transportation and have a nicer morning, save money on our electricity bills and spend it on music, make less trash by recycling and not step on broken bottles, reduce the amount of smoke and chemicals we pump into the air and get some nice blue sky days, have more trees and take a nice walk in the city, etc, etc, etc.

there is NO bad side to trying to do what is right. none. even if our current way of living doesn't make earth unlivable, making this a greener planet makes it a better place anyway.

it's really stupid to say that we have no impact on the earth. obviously, we do. the people on either side of this issue are pretty passionate about it, and therefore, neither side is to be believed with absolute faith. but one side (environmentalists) say we should do what we can, and in doing so we either make this place better, or we save it from destruction. on your side of the fence, we have laziness that doesn't kill us, or laziness that does.

and, economically, shouldn't we put some time and money into new technologies? what's the harm in that? even if old technologies still flourish, and we keep burning coal and diverting rivers and all that, doesn't a whole new business sector mean more money, more jobs and more wealth? technology fuels our economy. so when some new need opens up, shouldn't we exploit it?

(and london may warm up, which would be nice, but amsterdam will disappear, so where will all your little london children go to get fucked up and laid as college students? hmm? ever think about that?)

zing sez,

we could reduce our dependence on foreign oil and have less war, get better mileage on the cars we do drive and save a little money, reduce traffic by taking public transportation and have a nicer morning, save money on our electricity bills and spend it on music, make less trash by recycling and not step on broken bottles, reduce the amount of smoke and chemicals we pump into the air and get some nice blue sky days, have more trees and take a nice walk in the city, etc, etc, etc.

And best of all, we would fuck Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, and the Saud family!

and, economically, shouldn't we put some time and money into new technologies? what's the harm in that? even if old technologies still flourish, and we keep burning coal and diverting rivers and all that, doesn't a whole new business sector mean more money, more jobs and more wealth? technology fuels our economy. so when some new need opens up, shouldn't we exploit it?

Absolutely true. And, if we go at it like we did the man on the moon project, we can do it fairly quickly. The whole world (except the above-mentioned oil producers) will benefit.

What could be cooler? Heh.

zingzing,

Those are all nice ideals, if a bit naive. But my point isn't that we should be more environmentally-friendly; my point is that we don't need to be lied to and scare-mongered (by our own governments!) into believing that a "Climate Armageddon" is right around the corner, and that it's all American/Western capitalism's fault.

"But my point isn't that we should be more environmentally-friendly"

should be:

"But my point isn't that we shouldn't be more environmentally-friendly"

I actually consider myself an environmentalist. For example, I support massive increases in taxpayer-funded R&D on alternative energy sources.

But I'm not going to buy into all the "Global Climate Change" paranoia and hyperbole (and double standards).

it's no use being insulted. we do more than our share of polluting, so i guess we are to blame for whatever it is that may come. who gives a fuck about being insulted anyway?

the facts look grim, and even if they are just scare-mongering, (and who benefits from this scare-mongering, i mean really,) i say let's err on the side of non-extinction.

plus, i hate heat. it sucks. makes you sweat and stink and be lazy.

and ideals, by their very nature, are naive. ideals don't exist, usually.

i'm just suggesting a direction to go in. if we move towards a greener planet, we will benefit in so many other ways. i can't see why anyone would have any problem with it.

"if we move towards a greener planet, we will benefit in so many other ways. i can't see why anyone would have any problem with it."

We are moving towards a greener planet. Have been for decades now, at least in the West. The countries that are still pumping out the truly nasty pollutants are Red China, India, and the other developing countries. And those countries are EXEMPT from Kyoto...

Anyway, I came to the conclusion that we need to protect our environment based on facts, not on hyperbole, scare-mongering, and/or outright lies. I oppose lying and distortions, even if it's supposedly done "for a good cause." I especially oppose lying and distortions when it comes from a bunch of hypocritical political types (like Al Gore) who seem to have a beef with the free market.

cut the political bullshit. we need to move much faster. we aren't doing shit but playing lip service. stop blaming other countries for now. we should just do our own part as a country, as we can't control other countries. we should take care of ourselves before we start ordering other countries about.

they're exempt? what about us? do we follow those kyoto? until we do something, how can we expect them to?

how do you know they are lying or distorting? how can you say "we need to protect our environment" if you believe what's being said is a lie? what facts do you have? these are serious questions, not accusations.

and how do balance the "free market" and protecting the environment? what makes you think they are opposed?

"we need to move much faster."

Says who? Al Gore?

"we aren't doing shit but playing lip service."

Not true. The US is moving rapidly towards more environmentally-friendly energy usage. There are tax deductions for hybrid cars and solar power panels for homes, more investment in clean coal, and a push towards more nuclear power (which has zero "greenhouse gas" emissions). Bush was in Brazil just a couple days ago trying to make ethanol usage more available and mainstream in the US. So the idea that we are merely "paying lip service" is just plain ignorant.

"stop blaming other countries for now."

Uh-huh. Red China, Brazil, and India can destroy the environment however they want, and we shouldn't dare criticize them, right? Fuck that! If this is truly a GLOBAL PROBLEM, it would be moronic to place ALL the blame at the feet of the US, when other countries are not doing their part to SOLVE the problem!

""stop blaming other countries for now."

Uh-huh. Red China, Brazil, and India can destroy the environment however they want, [...] it would be moronic to place ALL the blame at the feet of the US, when other countries are not doing their part to SOLVE the problem!"

where is this red china? is it near regular china? people's republic of?

they obviously are doing the world no good. but as long as we don't sign kyoto, or make REAL efforts, like getting gas-guzzlers off the road, stopping the use of coal as energy, stopping companies from trading those credit thingies... LIFE-CHANGING efforts, not tax breaks... we have no legs to stand on. we need to take care of our business before telling others what to do. that's not putting the blame completely on us, it's doing what we need to do, and being a good example.

once we are on the path to real change, then, and only then, should we be concerned with what others are doing.

i am certainly not putting all the blame on the us. it is a global problem. but shouldn't we do what is necessary?

augh. i'm having a hard time expressing myself correctly. we aren't totally to blame. we share the blame with the rest of the world, even if we are a pretty big source of pollution. we should lead by example, not bullying and hypocrisy.

and i say that we are merely paying lip-service at this point. we are taking small, tentative steps forwards, but a lot of our energy policies and our continuing and growing use of oil and coal mean that we are really marching in place.

zingzing,

Red China (you know, the part with over a billion people that's communist) is explicitly EXEMPT from Kyoto. And as a dictatorial regime, they have absolutely NO INTEREST in making their "carbon footprint" smaller...in fact, they want the exact opposite!

"stopping the use of coal as energy"

Heh. Let's say the US stopped using coal for energy tomorrow. There are some important questions that need to be answered. Like, where would we get the energy to make up for it?

Nuclear? Good luck convincing the environmental crowd to accept dozens of new nuclear power plants. And even if you did, there's always the NIMBY crowd to stifle development...

Solar? Doesn't produce energy at night. Or on cloudy days. Takes up a lot of space. Can't easily be stored.

Ethanol? Isn't Bush doing that, like, RIGHT NOW???

Wind? Go ask the Kennedys...

So...you can see that we have no easy replacement for coal powered plants. Maybe, then, we should just go without? And let diabetics die because we can't afford to keep their insulin cool? Let the elderly freeze to death in the Northern states during the winter, because they lack home heating? Let the elderly die of heat stroke in the Southern states during the summer, because they lack air conditioning? Hey, that sort of thing happens in "green" Europe every year...so let's export the misery to the US!

Oh, and if the US stopped using coal, the price of this commodity would fall greatly, meaning the Red Chinese could afford to buy (and burn) even more of it! You could prevent this, of course, by limiting supply. But in doing so, you would have to reduce US production of this energy source. So you would be creating a vast number of unemployed people in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and some Western states. But, hey, the environment is worth it, right???

No, the US is not going to kill its own economy and its own people just to give the Red Chinese a comparative advantage. Welcome to the real world.

There is a dreadful recurring nightmare being experienced by many Australian children at the moment: a bizarre apparition of US President George W.Bush in cowboy hat, boots and a sheriff's badge comes to them in the middle of the night, promising them all the good things they've ever wanted - if they'll only stick with him and do exactly as he asks.

While George is doing his pea-and-thimble tricks, and enlightening them about America's close, 150-year alliance with Japan, Australian PM John Howard arrives and begins to chomp away at their ankles, removing tasty little tidbits like workplace rights that had taken a century to put in place through the courts.

He tells them that his new American-style industrial relations policy, "WorkChoices", means that when they grow up and go to work, they'll have more choice. But somewhere in their tiny heads, even children know that employers are only interested in paying as little as they have to to young people and that WorkChoices = NoChoices.

A bit later, Tony Blair turns up mumbling about Weapons of Mass Destruction, but not really doing very much at all, and asking: "Where the bloody hell am I."

Then the kids wake up, and are really frightened.

Nah, just kidding ....

"... as a dictatorial regime [china] have absolutely NO INTEREST in making their "carbon footprint" smaller...in fact, they want the exact opposite!"

what for? why do you say that? why... don't get it. not sure where you're going with that one. the chinese want the world to end... yes... that will really work out for them. "we rule over nothing! nothing!!! hahahaha." yeah, next.

"Like, where would we get the energy to make up for [the lack of coal-powered energy]?"

that's what i mean by "stopping." i don't mean tomorrow. i mean find another way.

"Ethanol? Isn't Bush doing that, like, RIGHT NOW???"

oh, ha...

"So...you can see that we have no easy replacement for coal powered plants."

nope. we're not going to be left with any easy choices.

"And let diabetics die because we can't afford to keep their insulin cool?"

huh? random...

"Let the elderly freeze to death in the Northern states during the winter, because they lack home heating?"

let them eat cake.

"Let the elderly die of heat stroke in the Southern states during the summer, because they lack air conditioning?"

CAKE! (just thought i'd answer how you think i oughta.)

"Hey, that sort of thing happens in "green" Europe every year...so let's export the misery to the US!"

hrm. yeah, it don't happen here... no... wake up.

"...this commodity would fall greatly, meaning the Red Chinese could..."

what's your problem with china? why do you HAVE TO refer to it as "red" china? what's up with that? "china" is quicker. less letters. what are you doing, admiring colors?

"So you would be creating a vast number of unemployed people in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and some Western states. But, hey, the environment is worth it, right???"

well, eventually, yes. right now, it might suck, but i'm not advocating ease. am i, now?

"No, the US is not going to kill its own economy and its own people just to give the Red Chinese a comparative advantage. Welcome to the real world."

yep. and the real world is going to burn trying to keep up with the economy. i'm trying to say we should create a new economy, one that doesn't consist of burning fossil fuels. technology. it's the new wave! ride the new wave... let it wash up on the shore, dude... wow... woah... look at it sparkle...

"red chinese" ...really, what's up with that? you got something against chinese people? do you know any? are you sure they are what you think they are? they ain't red, i'll tell you that. (kind of bigoted, don't you think, white boy?)

why do you think china is our enemy?

why do you think us doing our part to protect the environment gives china an advantage over us?

why, even if that were true, would that really matter?

do you think china created global warming in order to get some sort of economic advantage over us?

really?

woo, boy. goldmine:

(from r.j.'s website, which should stick to sports... even though he sucks at that too...)

"The opponents of such an action have many complaints. They say such a hostile move would fracture the world-wide coalition against terror,"

point-us

"especially with regards to the Arab and Muslim worlds, Russia, and Europe."

point-us


"They say Saddam has been defanged by a decade of sanctions and is no longer a threat."

half point. (you can have it--it really won't matter.)

"They say the potential for massive civilian casualties is too high."

point-us

"They say Saddam would let loose weapons of mass
destruction, including chemical and biological weapons, and possibly a radioactive "dirty bomb", against US-led coalition forces and neighboring
countries."

hrm. half point, although we'll hold off judgment on that one, eh? let's see who drops the first bomb.

"They say eliminating Saddam would either lead to someone even worse taking over, or create a "power vacuum", leading to chaos and turmoil, and possibly strengthening Iraq's neighbor Iran, which like Iraq is a charter member of President Bush's "axis of exil"."

bam! nailed it, didn't you?!

"However, on each and every point they are in error."

hrm. 4 our of 6 definitely "their" (us) way, the others... a little up for grabs. on a bad day, "they" were right on "each and every" point... on a good day, you're only 2/3rds wrong.

"If we made it policy to wait for their full support before taking action, we'd still be haggling over what measures to take against the Taliban, and the people of Afghanistan would be living under totalitarianism to this day."

and back they go into warfare... so much better, eh? what do these people want, huh?

"If and when the US decides to strike against Saddam, America's allies will make their usual
objections, but in the end will follow our lead."

yep, and like little sheep, they will leave us to our own dirty business when we prove we're fucking stupid.

"Second, the idea that Saddam is no longer a threat to the US or his neighbors is ludicrous."

nice cop-out. i like the "or his neighbors" part of the u.s. "self-defense" argument. it's the smartest part.

"He also has a long history of attempting to build weapons of mass destruction."

"attempting to" is another nice little phrase. wow. and he gave them all away to syria. how convenient.

"in defiance of international law"

oh, good god, don't say that. what are you going to do, bomb the white house over breaking international law?

"In those four years, who knows what hellish weapons his scientists have managed to build?"

the hell of the road-side! and iraq had to get them from another, "more advanced" country, right? oh, god, it goes on...

"A nuclear weapon might not be too far off."

mmhmm. where have we heard this before, i mean after... oh god, here we go again!

"While such deaths are a tragedy, they are largely avoidable by the use of "smart bombs"."

yeah. okay. what are we talking about here? (20-20, bitch.)

"Besides, as horrible as even limited "collateral damage" is, it is certainly preferable to the wholesale slaughter of millions of American civilians that would take place if Saddam gets his hands on a nuclear weapon."

which he didn't, and was no where close to... unlike his neighbor, but his neighbor didn't escaped daddy bush, now did he?

"And those innocent Iraqis who die will have given their lives so that their fellow countrymen and women could live free from oppression."

great people, eh? one-of-a-kind, i say. giving up their lives to our bullets for their countrymen and their dead children... oh, their future is looking bright today! look at them go! go, corpse, go! take off that towel! look into the sun, you dead heathen! look at the bright new day we have laid out before you and smile, YOU FUCKING EXPENDABLE SLIME, SMILE, I FUCKING TELL YOU--SMILE AND ROT YOU FUCKING BAG OF BONES!

"Will Saddam use all his hideous weapons of mass destruction on US troops and/or neighboring countries if it becomes obvious he is about to lose power? The answer to that might very well be yes, but this is a lose-lose situation."

nope. hole in the ground. he never had wmds. drr.

"US military forces will already have been equiped [sic] properly to deal with such threats."

oh, ha. they don't even have the armor to protect from a regular old bomb, much less a gas attack or a dirty bomb or a nuclear bomb or a... oh i'm sure you thought he had something worse.

"Quite frankly, it is unimaginable that someone worse than Saddam could be found to take power."

ahh, yeah, that sectarian violence... forgot about that one, didn't we? uncontrolled sect-on-sect warfare... so much better. it's like a warm bath. very sectsy.

"By removing Saddam from power, we can nudge the new leader, whoever he or she is, towards democracy. Not only is that good for Iraqis, but it would serve as an example of how other nations in the Arab and Muslim worlds can be governed by the people, not an elite few."

ahh, the dream. brilliant, isn't it? unfortunately, instead of any "nudging," we used GUNS. and bombs and helicopters and occupation and martial law and really, really bad planning and FUCKED IT ALL UP.

"The coalition against terror will survive."

yep. american republicans, fighting a war on an idea. good job, boys. keep it up. maybe you'll kill your own self doubt one day. there ya go...

"Civilian casualties will be minimal in any military campaign."

hrm. what do you call minimal? do minimal casualties turn up by the dozens? do they lie in the streets for weeks?

"Saddam's regime is getting closer to acquiring a nuclear device every day."

i'm getting closer to blowing up the sun every day. isn't going to happen anytime soon. take me out, fuckers.

"Democratic reforms can be instituted in Iraq for the benefit of its citizens and as an example to the world."

and what an example we set. look at the middle east, rising up, taking control of their own destiny, no longer paying attention to their warmongering leaders! seeing the bright new day that is peace and wondering, just wondering, at the brilliance of america... oh, look at it... that shining example... that country without strife... that... oh, fuck it.

"The answer to the dilemma facing the nation today is clear : The US should topple Saddam from power, and do it soon."

five years later: YOU ARE WRONG.

(i'd take that particular essay down. i'd also take a good look at your communications class grades. xoxo)

ahem. so, you've been wrong before. and the middle east is fucked, eh? now think of that on a global scale. we should do the RIGHT thing this time, not the WRONG thing.

(like blame some ficticious country like "red china," who is trying to push global warming on us so it can get cheaper coal... oh yeah, that's it...)

They say eliminating Saddam would either lead to someone even worse taking over, or create a "power vacuum", leading to chaos and turmoil, and possibly strengthening Iraq's neighbor Iran, which like Iraq is a charter member of President Bush's "axis of exil".

Oh, my God! RJ, did you really write this in 2002? And then dismiss it as erroneous thinking? Wow. That's...wow.

Zing #25

That demonstrates exactly why politicians are so loathe to admit fault in any matter large or small. It will be taken that if they're wrong on one issue they must be wrong on others when in reality the issues are completely unrelated.

BTW, there's no need for you to lie about Saddam never having WMD's as his use in the 80's is well documented. You don't need to bend the facts to make Iraq look like a mistake.

As for global warming, the alarmism and scare tactics are what I find most appalling, not the .1 to .3 temperature rise in the last 30 years. The dire predictions of destruction are completely overplayed. I assume if the temperature were cooling due to human action we'd be hearing horror stories about starvation and blizzards and extending permafrost destroying foodcrops and water levels lowering.

Since the last ice age 10K years ago the water levels have risen over 300 feet worldwide (for math morons thats about 3 feet per hundred years compared to a few millimeters in the 20th century) without complete environmental destruction, how then does a millimeter or even a worst case scenario 20 or more feet even come close to wiping out humanity or anything else?

"That demonstrates exactly why politicians are so loathe to admit fault in any matter large or small. It will be taken that if they're wrong on one issue they must be wrong on others when in reality the issues are completely unrelated."

true. but so is his seeming assertion that "red china" is somehow behind this global warming idea.

as for saddam/wmds, i think it's pretty obvious that the late-80s is not 2002. and if he had them, where are they? gone? oh, so he doesn't have them. well, there you go.

and as for global warming, i've only been advocating that we do things that are good for us all anyway. restructuring our economy towards technology instead of rapidly diminshing fuel sources, creating less pollution, etc, etc would not hurt in the least.

Global warming ... alarmist? Fu.k me. Try living on a continent that has officially been in drought for six years (and somehow still manages to feed and clothe itself and half the world as well) but was suffering drought conditions prior to that as well.

There are many children here who've never seen rain. Think about that guys, NEVER seen rain, and about the ramifications of that, before you start saying it's alarmist. While we are often in drought, this one is pretty damn serious.

Australian scientists believe the drought is the product of our normal weather patterns, but stress that it has almost certainly been intensified this time by global warming. We are even on water restrictions (for garden hosing, etc) in the cities. Big country towns fare even worse. In places where dam levels were overflowing 10 years ago, today they are just dry, cracked earth. It's just bone dry out in the bush, with lots and lots of fine red dust blowing around. I hope it's not a portent for our collective futures.

We need a rain dance, and it'd be nice if other people on this planet who don't have any understanding of what's it like to live with this stuff year in year out would pay attention to people who are experiencing the effects of global warming first hand and know what's really going on.

It'll only get worse, too, if we don't act soon.

South Florida begins water restrictions tomorrow (for lawn watering, car washing, etc.), but our drought is NOT due to Global Warming; we're a Republican state, and GW is against the law here. :>)

what for? why do you say that? why... don't get it. not sure where you're going with that one. the chinese want the world to end... yes... that will really work out for them. "we rule over nothing! nothing!!! hahahaha." yeah, next.

Um, because the Red Chinese government hasn't bought into the bogus scare-mongering Al Gore propaganda like you and so many other Western dimwits have?

"red chinese" ...really, what's up with that? you got something against chinese people? do you know any? are you sure they are what you think they are? they ain't red, i'll tell you that. (kind of bigoted, don't you think, white boy?)
[Personal attack deleted]

I have nothing against the Chinese people...however, I DO have something against their totalitarian Communist government that enslaves them while raping the planet! Why is that so difficult for you to comprehend???

[Personal attack deleted]

Clav: I know you're just having a gee-up, but can you imagine what it's like for a child never to have seen or felt rain falling on their skin. We had a photo published in the paper a few years back where a drought affected town got a spot of rain and some kids were standing outside a farm looking up at the sky with their arms out to feel the water falling on their skin. It's serious stuff here old boy. We are in deep strife.

My predictions (from five years ago) about what would happen in Iraq were not entirely correct. In fact, I don't know anyone who accurately predicted all the consequences of toppling Saddam's totalitarian, anti-American regime in Iraq.

But I am utterly baffled by what that has to do with Al Gore's "Global Warming" scare-mongering, Red China's blanket exemption from Kyoto, or the fact that "Global Warming" would actually benefit some regions by producing longer growing seasons and fewer deadly blizzards.

"white boy" is an insult now? A fighting-words insult?

Well, okay. I guess whatever you are insulted by, is an insult. I, myself, always considered it a rather accurate descriptor when someone called me "white boy," but to each his own, of course.

no man enjoys being called a "boy", and in many sub-cultures that kind of thing usually ends in an altercation deliberately provoked

oh ..and RJ...all of your predictions for Iraq have proven to be shit for the most part, haven't they?

but credit where it's due...you are at least mensch enough to almost admit it...sort of

"I have nothing against the Chinese people...however, I DO have something against their totalitarian Communist government that enslaves them while raping the planet! Why is that so difficult for you to comprehend???"

well, it's people that are causing global warming, not communism. is that hard to figure out? (white... boy...)

"Oh, and it's rather...safe...to call me "white boy" over the internet. I recommend you stick to typing that insult over the computer while using an anonymous name, rather than saying it to my face. I highly recommend that."

bring it on, cracka! oh, you're too easy. you know nothing of the chinese people if you insist on calling them all "red." (they're yerrow. oh, i'll get myself killed one day.) and if you are only referring to the government, which is somewhat foolish in this case, you can have my apology. but, i stand by my "white boy," white boy. i'm a white boy too. so i can say it. bitch.

"Red China's blanket exemption from Kyoto, or the fact that "Global Warming" would actually benefit some regions by producing longer growing seasons and fewer deadly blizzards."

all the while destroying the world economy and making their exports worthless, making any short term benefits completely useless.

"My predictions (from five years ago) about what would happen in Iraq were not entirely correct. In fact, I don't know anyone who accurately predicted all the consequences of toppling Saddam's totalitarian, anti-American regime in Iraq."

yeah, that would be the "they" in your essay. "they" (us) were right about just about everything, eh? right about everything... oh, basking in the glow... it warms my soul... not that i have soul...


jaz: "no man enjoys being called a "boy", and in many sub-cultures that kind of thing usually ends in an altercation deliberately provoked"

"deliberately" is the word.

mjw: ""white boy" is an insult now?"

white boy!

Jaz: "no man enjoys being called a "boy", and in many sub-cultures that kind of thing usually ends in an altercation deliberately provoked"

Hello there, old boy ....

Stan,

You're right, I know the drought over there is serious.

We really are starting water restrictions here tomorrow, but droughts here are nothing new; they come and go and have done so for decades.

"white boy" is an insult now? A fighting-words insult?

Well, okay. I guess whatever you are insulted by, is an insult. I, myself, always considered it a rather accurate descriptor when someone called me "white boy," but to each his own, of course.

Try calling a Black man a "black boy" sometime, to his face, and see the reaction you get. It will be enlightening, I'm sure...

all of your predictions for Iraq have proven to be shit for the most part, haven't they?

Pretty much.

But please name someone who offered a prediction of a specific outcome (like I did), way back in 2002, that was even close to the reality on the ground...

the "they" did!

More "Global Warming" scare-mongering aimed at frightening people like "zingzing" here:

"Before this century is over, billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic," predicted James Lovelock, a renowned environmental scientist.

Now, does any rational person (I'm intentionally excluding "zingzing" with the qualifier "rational") actually believe this is an even remotely-realistic scenario?

Oh, by the way, the recent UN Climate Report claims that cow farts (yes, COW FARTS) are a larger contributor to "Global Warming" than all human industry and development combined. So, perhaps the "concerned environmentalist" (as "zingzing" surely views himself to be) should be demanding the genocide of the bovine genus instead of the draconian regulation of industry**?

**("industry" as defined as "all economic activity that occurs in the West" which would exempt Red China and India, or one-third of the total human population on Earth, of course...)

I HATE KIDS!!!

These same British children losing sleep over global warming will grow up to be the next generation of fly-tippers. Just watch. Britain is crap at recycling and that likely won't change, especially with only fortnightly rubbish collection services coming into effect. Because it's so much easier to complain about America and Australia not signing the Kyoto Treaty while tossing one's weekly average of six bags of rubbish in a secluded area of the park before going to hospital to give birth to one's tenth child than to actually do something or make allowances for the environment... It makes one seem intellectually "with it" even if it's dead obvious that they're a bigger polluter than a gas-guzzling station wagon ...

About considering global warming a greater threat than the Islamofascists setting up camp here: That reminds me of the special environmental issue of Vanity Fair, the one with Al Gore, Bobby Kennedy Jr. and George Clooney on the cover, which also stipulated that climate change was more a pressing threat than the jihadists. Makes sense, doesn't it? Fret and panic over something that we don't really understand all that well and ignore a threat to our livelihoods that we know is real!

Clavos: "South Florida begins water restrictions tomorrow ..."

You're from S. Fl., Clavos? I was in the Palm Beach-Boca Raton area just two weeks ago, but I wasn't aware of any water restrictions there ...

We actually had quite a drought for a while here in Britain last summer and it was looking serious and there was what we call a "hosepipe ban" in effect too. But we've had a ton of rain over the past six months, so groundwater levels may have returned to normal. They should be, considering some parts of England recently got flooded.

MEM,

Yup, Miami.

Two weeks ago, there weren't any water restrictions. They began day before yesterday; and, as I said to Stan, they're not unusual, but they rarely last more than a few months; although this time they ARE talking about making them permanent.

They may not extend as far north as Palm Beach. Believe it or not, as close as PB is, they tend to get more rain up there than we do; the fronts (especially in winter) coming from the north will often come down to there but not get down this far.

As you may know, rural folk in the Deep South also call a garden hose a "hosepipe." Now I know where they got it from.

Why aren't the kids [and adults] watching the BBC specials exposing the myth of Global Warming ["Gore's Convenient Lies"] exposed in The Great Global Warming Swindle!! Entire Documentary here. and the myth exposed in this Scientist work.

Wake up kids you been had!!

The Sun is getting warmer...should we blame Bush and the USA?

Quote:

Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.

"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," said Richard Willson, a researcher affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University's Earth Institute, New York.

...

"Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation has been increasing since the late 19th century. If a trend, comparable to the one found in this study, persisted throughout the 20th century, it would have provided a significant component of the global warming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports to have occurred over the past 100 years," he said.

"Global Warming" on Mars, Jupiter, Pluto, and Neptune's moon Triton - is the internal combustion engine/capitalism/the USA/Karl Rove to blame?

Absolutely not!

It's cow farts.

Clav: "It's cow farts."

Or Jack Burton's voluminous cloud of hot air ....

Thanks for posting the link to "The Great Global Warming Swindle" on YouTube, Les. I watched it last night, and it was very informative. A lot more honest, and credible, than Al Gore's science fiction film The Day After Tomorrow An Inconvenient Truth...

I watched it tonight. Too bad it's not getting wider exposure; people need to see that film.

Good link, Les!

funny

spam blocker, spam blocker, let my comment come over!