Slashdot Mirror
Siberian Permafrost Melting
TeknoHog writes "New
Scientist Reports on a remarkable runaway process of global warming
that has been going on in Siberia for the past few years. 'Western Siberia has warmed faster than almost anywhere else on the planet, with an increase in average temperatures of some 3C in the last 40 years.' As a result, a million
square kilometers (the area of France and Germany) of frozen peat bog have
been found to be melting, according to Russian and international
scientists. This releases methane, a potent greenhouse gas, which
contributes to further global warming."
Again, from all the science it seems like global warming will be a catastrophe, but it would be nice to find a few more bog people.
And yes, I have a degree in anthropology.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
Yes, as a representative of Standard Oil Co....ehm...I mean, Exxon, Mobil, and other oil companies, I would like to assure all of the slashdot readers that there is no such things as global warming. These are lies spread by liberal commie scientists with an agenda. We, on the other hand, are completely impartial and unbiased.
American Left scientist: This is bald proof that Global Warming is occuring and causing climatic changes in our lifetime. The rise in greenhouse gasses since the advent of the Industrial Revolution matches the rise in global temperatures, giving further proof that humans are a key component in the climatic puzzle. By drastically reducing our fossil fuel emissions and other man-made greenhouse gasses, it should be possible to manage the expected warming trend. Acting now is absolutely necessary to keeping pristine environments like the Siberian taiga in their pristine state.
American Right scientist: This is interesting data. However a few degrees change over a short span of only 40 years is not indicative of any long-term trend towards either a cooling cycle or a heating cycle. Nevertheless, as the historical temperature has fluctuated greatly in the past and it seems that we are actually coming out of a trough, it seems reasonable to assume that a warming trend would be on the horizon. At the least, it should indicate that we need more study of the phenomenon.
European scientists: Ziss is clearly ze work of ze fat, stinking Americans and zer fat, stinking wives and cars.
Siberian citizens: Ya, I am sinkink dat I like za balmy weather.
David Bellamy said, "We criticise people from the third world countries for not conserving their rainforests, but when it comes to our peat bogs which are actually a rarer habitat than the tropical rainforest, we are doing a much worse job". (The Times, Saturday November 25, 2000).
Exploitation by afforestation, conversion to agriculture and commercial peat extraction has destroyed much of our peat lands. In the last century we lost 75% of our blanket bogs and 94% of our raised bogs. Gardeners and horticulture used a staggering 2.55 million cubic metres of peat each year. In the UK there is less than 9,500 acres of near natural raised bog left.
Not only that, but the waste products would be water and carbon dioxide. CO2 is of course a greenhouse gas, but one far less potent than methane. IIRC, it's a factor of about 100 to 1, which means that if one molecule of methane produces one molecule of CO2 when burned, you're solving 99% of the problem.
It is debatable whether 99% remediation is sufficient, but surely it's a good start. At the very least, it would be nice to use some of the energy produced in combustion to sequester the CO2 rather than dump it into the atmosphere.
Mal-2
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
So I guess the remaining question is how fast this 70 billion tonnes of methane is actually entering the atmosphere (adjust properly for acceleration effects)...
Come play Moral Decay!
And the polar ice cap is melting fast too... Most of us may live to see it all but disappear. Think of it as the mother of all ice cubes, and imagine what the melting is going to do --- dilute the 'drink' (which will change water density which will change ocean water flow, which will seriously mess with weather patterns) and once it finishes melting, it's function as a thermal buffer disappears and global warming will really start to hurt us.
I'm thinking that people are underestimating that last point.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
The last 100 years has been just one big huge orgy of mass consumption and it still continues, spreading to developing countries like China. But anyone who thinks we can just continue to rape the globe forever with no consquences is delusional.
Question is, are we going to be stupid enough to continue down this wreckless path? Does humanity secretly have an unfulfilled death wish? Was World War II just a fluke or was it a flash of the selfish inhumanity really lies within each of us?
Listen I'm willing to admit I'm part of the problem. I recognize things have to change. Each of needs to wake up, find a way to snap out of these unsustainable lifestyles we all lead and avoid the terrible consequences that surely await us if we don't.
Let's quit being fucking idiots. What do we need to do?
---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.
Before you mod me down, remember, good scientists ask lots of questions, annoying questions.
Good scientists ask a lot of questions, but then they do research to try to find answers. The problem with this topic is that every jackass on both sides thinks he's an environmental scientist because he noticed Earth used to be hot or that it's really big or that we burn a lot of crap. Or, more likely, he heard someone on the radio who heard from "a scientist" that everything is going to either be okay or explode, depending on which station you listen to.
I wish everyone who didn't at least have a very strong chemistry background would just shut up about it. Which might be quite a few people on Slashdot, but every time my boss mentions it, he deserves to be punched in the mouth.
I don't know. I'm not one of those chemistry guys. I don't have the kind of equipment you'd need to measure this stuff. My stance on the issue is entirely based on the fact that I don't think it's a good idea to be pumping billions of tons of anything into the atmosphere, and that should get slowed down a little.
..this submission is a good example of why your statistics aren't representative of the real picture of climate change. When you say, "Hey, it's not even 1 degree warmer! Bok bok bok!", you're talking about average temperatures.
Meanwhile, some places -- like Siberia -- are heating up, while others -- like warm ocean currents that heat air -- are cooling down. So it's not surprising that some areas are getting hotter and some are getting cooler. The point is that we can see evidence that a climactic equilibrium that has existed for hundreds of years is now becoming much more dynamic and unpredictable. And we're probably to blame for at least some of it, and maybe most of it.
Anyway, the short version of this speech is: Averages are often terribly misleading statistics.
GOOFUS has a PhD.
GALLANT has a PhD in a field unrelated to his research.
GOOFUS gets little respect as a scientist outside the scientific community.
GALLANT gets little respect as a scientist inside the scientific community.
GOOFUS drives a beat-up old car.
GALLANT drives a BMW unless his chauffeur is driving.
GOOFUS wears street clothes to work, maybe a lab suit on occasion.
GALLANT wears three piece suits at all times.
GOOFUS is employed by a "university", a "hospital", or a "laboratory".
GALLANT is employed by a "Coalition", an "Institute", an "Association", a "Foundation", a "Council", or a "White House".
GOOFUS earns $30000 per year unless they cut his funding.
GALLANT earns $200000 per year but makes his real money from speaking fees.
GOOFUS lives anywhere in the country.
GALLANT lives in a wealthy area near Washington DC, but may have additional homes elsewhere.
GOOFUS may sometimes be filmed standing in front of big melting icebergs.
GALLANT may be filmed sitting in front of a bookcase or standing behind a podium at a $2000 per plate fundraiser, although there may be ice melting in his drink.
GOOFUS is a dues-paying member of several scientific grassroots organizations.
GALLANT is on the payroll of several scientific astroturf organizations.
GOOFUS gets summoned for jury duty but is never picked as a juror.
GALLANT claims "the jury is still out" on evolution or global warming, since he considers himself to be on the jury.
GOOFUS maintains the world is five billion years old.
GALLANT isn't really saying, but creationists distribute his pamphlets all the time.
GOOFUS claims the world is warming as a direct result of human activity.
GALLANT either claims that climate change doesn't exist, or if it does, that humans have nothing to do with it.
GOOFUS and his graduate students do the dirty work of collecting raw data and looking for conclusions to be drawn from it.
GALLANT does the dirty work of discrediting GOOFUS by manipulating his data in Excel with statistically invalid techniques.
GOOFUS writes scientific papers and grant proposals.
GALLANT writes the nation's environmental legislation and a column for the Wall Street Journal's editorial page.
GOOFUS draws scientific conclusions from the data he collects that usually come out in agreement with the scientific consensus.
GALLANT paints the scientific consensus as being entirely political in nature and enjoys comparing himself to Galileo.
GOOFUS is heavily trained to be a skeptic and to treat information from all sources with a skeptical mind.
GALLANT is heavily marketed as a skeptic but reserves his skepticism for GOOFUS.
GOOFUS isn't paid much attention by the press since his opinions are commonplace among scientists.
GALLANT holds maverick opinions for a scientist which keeps him busy running from one balanced talk show to the next.
GOOFUS has no PR skills.
GALLANT leverages his PR experience all the time, although he has access to paid PR staff.
GOOFUS claims the sky is falling and we have to take painful steps to reduce CO2 emissions now.
GALLANT claims the free market will take care of it and recommends solving the problem by conning Zimbabwe out of their pollution credits.
GOOFUS advises his kids not to go into science.
GALLANT advises the president.
"The problem is that these phases normally last millions of years, and the transitions between them are often extremely slow"
Antarctic ice cores from the last 300,000 years show something different from what you claim.
http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/ historical02.jsp
The data that I have seen shows that the ice-age cycles last 100,000 years, not millions, and that the transitions can be abrupt. (data from 300,000 years of ice cores from Vostok, Antarctica)
Climate can exhibit abrupt shifts over large regions of the world. As the last glacial period was giving way to the current warm interglacial period, average temperatures in Greenland returned to glacial levels for more than 1,000 years. This unusual period, which is called the Younger Dryas, ended abruptly about 12,000 years ago. Evidence from an ice core drilled in Greenland indicates that temperatures there rose approximately 15F (8C) in less than a decade.
http://www.weathernotebook.org/transcripts/1999/10 /20.html
"Scientists used to think that climate took hundreds, even thousands of years to change. Now we know better. Hi, I'm Dave Thurlow from the Mount Washington Observatory and this is The Weather Notebook.
An example of an extremely quick climate change came during a period of time known as the Younger Dryas, which happened right after the last ice age ended, about 12,000 years ago. The Younger Dryas itself lasted about 1,000 years. What we didn't know until recently was just how quickly the Younger Dryas started and stopped. In a period of less than 50 years, the climate from the eastern US and Canada to much of Europe went from climate conditions much like today's, to frigid readings more like the Ice Age, at least a ten degree Farenheit change. That's how it stayed for a thousand years - and then the climate flipped back to normal in as little as 20 years."
Are you just making up your claims?
Do you have data to back them up?
but has anyone taken into consideration that the earth has been warming up steadily for the past several thousand years?...the Earth fluctuates quite frequently (geologic time) in temperature... We very well may be causing this, which would be bad, but what if we are not?
Yes, the earth has been warming. The issue that is being raised here, however, is not the general warming trend, but the rate of warming. The claim (and there is an slowly increasing amount of data to back it up) is that the rate of warming has undergone a very dramatic increase in the last 100 years that is unprecendented in recent history (last 1000 years or so). The sudden rise correlates well with dramatic increases in atmospheric CO2 from the industrial revolution onward, and there are studies on the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere that lend creedence to a causal rather than just correlated relationship.
Yes the planet goes through natural cycles of cooling and warming, and over time it can indeed fluctuate over huge temperatures. The risk is that we are disturbing the natural fluctuation and pushing the system out of its rough equilibrium. Systems often have tipping (bifurcation) points that can radically alter the behaviour of the system. A pendulum naturally swings back and forth steadily, but give it a hard enough push and it just starts spinning round and round. In essence we are giving the pendulum of warming and cooling a very strong push. Whether the pendulum will simply swing a little higher then settle back, or go over the top and start spinning in just one direction is certainly up for debate. Possibilities for feedback systems and induced dampening given the manner of warming are almost innumerable, and we are still working to understand the most obvious candidates well. There isn't reason to panic yet, but there is most certainly reason for concern.
Jedidiah.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
It's a mistake to think of this as a linear trend. It is accelerating; also it takes some decades to warm up to a given forcing. What we see now is the warming we already committed to in 1980. What's more, policies themselves take time to develop and implement, so really what we see now was pretty much the inevitable warming that we had in place by 1960 or so.
In effect, we are already committed to fifty years of more warming. If we don't get a grip on it, there is no reason to expect it won't accelerate, and go on for a very long time. If we do nothing as far as policy is concerned, the science tells us pretty clearly that things will keep getting more out of whack and faster.
The question is, when do we decide to do something about it? Until the coal runs out or we get it into our heads that it is time to act, whatever we see at any given moment will be a small fraction of what we are already committed to.
When I first started studying this matter in 1991, I believed that the world would start taking action by about now, so I did not believe people who saw this as the biggest problem around.
I was wrong.
At this point we are in big trouble and still lots of folks are coming up with irrational arguments for ignoring it.
mt
We NeoCons don't deny that the climate is changing; we deny that it's the fault of mankind. We maintain that climate change is a natural part of the planet's life cycle. The planet experienced dramatic global warming following the last ice age -- my car's not that old, is yours?
I am not left-handed, either!
More than a little. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74 http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=76
mt
> I am listening to Michael Crichton's STATE OF FEAR book, and I'll admit I have my doubts now about global warming claims. Or at least I'm more skeptical now about claims from either side. Suffice it to say, Crichton is normally a very astute researcher for his books, even though he obviously bends the truth to make his fiction more interesting.
Why the hell anyone would rely on a fiction writer to inform them about the state of the world is beyond me.
Or if you do, you should at least be a dedicated geek and get your spin on reality from Star Wars or The Matrix.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Of course the earth was warmer before. The earth was molten at one time, perhaps even in a gaseous state much like the sun. Are you saying we shouldn't worry about global warming until we reach 6,000C? It's not the earth we are worried about, it's us.
> There is not a *single* scientific report that can prove Global Warming, even as a theory. It's only the nut-job-leftists that tout their unprovable theories as fact
FYI, "global warming" is a measurable phenomenon. A theory would be something that explains it.
And AFAICT, the only scientists disputing the anthropogenic theory are those who have sold their souls to the oil companies.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Why does your political leaning have anything to do with whether you believe humankind is causing global warming? If you're that far gone, you're not judging the issue on the evidence; you're believing whatever fits most comfortably with your pre-established worldview.
I should buy some cement.
> We NeoCons don't deny that the climate is changing; we deny that it's the fault of mankind. We maintain that climate change is a natural part of the planet's life cycle.
Since it's going to screw up your golden age regardless of what's causing it, why aren't you interested in doing whatever is possible to reverse it?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
> All real science I've ever seen shows global warming to be total bullshit.
Could you cite some of that "real science" for us?
Or does "real" just mean "that I agree with"?
And speaking of "bullshit", did you know that bovine flatulence is a major soure of atmoshperic methane?
> Also, we know from history that the planet goes through cycles of hot and cold (remember the fact that there was an Ice Age anyone?)
We also know that the current cycle isn't behaving like the previous ones, as you'd know if you'd actually been reading any "real science".
> so there's no proof that any changes in temperatures are from human causes.
We aren't looking for "proof", we're looking for an explanation. We see abberations in the pattern of global temperatures, we have physics that explains the interactions of gasses and heat, we put 2+2 together and get 4.
Your ignorance doesn't do much to undercut that line of reasoning.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
High latitude methane may nevertheless work out to be a big deal. Softening the blow a bit is the fact that methane is shorter-lived in the atmosphere than CO2.
Some researchers believe that tundral methane releases play a big role in the termination of the recent glaciations.
mt
What!? Dude. Every single country in the UN signed the Kyoto protocol, including Russia. Two, the US and Australia, have since changed their minds and won't ratify it. There are only four other countries that haven't yet ratified it: Croatia, Kazakhstan, Monaco, and Zambia.
The Kyoto Protocol isn't some little thing. It's a pact between 141 countries to tackle global warming, even though the planet's #1 greenhouse gas polluter refuses to help.
I should buy some cement.
" What on Earth makes you think we can change it? " An American relative gave me a "Say you can and you will" poster (never seen anything comparable in any other country). World community except 1 is trying to prevent too drastic change.
"What on Earth makes you think we should change it?!?!"
Um.. disappearing glaciers? Insurance companies panicking ?
"Are you so arrogant as to think we have a say in it?"
Dutch researchers calculated China and India can reduce emissions even when the use of electricity will double. Key word: efficiency. Absent word: nuclear power.
Why not put more r&d money into alternative fuels and get the gas guzzlers off the roads once and for all? What's it going to take? $100 barrels of oil? $200? Will there even be oil left after 50 years? Dubya doesn't realize it, but he can't run his war machines on empty tanks and his so-called faith in God. So much for defending the nation in the future when we'll really need it.
Nevertheless, my apologies to everyone for flying off the handle, but let's face it. I'm growing incresingly impatient and hostile with people that bitch about the high price of gas, yet would rather fill up the tanks in their gas guzzling SUVs and pickups instead of trading them in for a more sensible vehicle. Meanwhile, I have to tighten my belt, make sacrifices, and pay the high price for their selfish gluttony? F*** them! They deserve the blame, too.
"We'd have to wear gas masks when we went outside, because of air pollution."
0 5cavallo
You can thank American Government pollution laws for that not happening. Go to a major city in China; there, you'll DEFINITELY need gas masks to deal with pollution, especially near those "free enterprize" zones where pollution is not regulated. China has 7 of the world's most polluted cities. Proof: http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/nts40287.htm
Oh and recently, Exxon-Mobil Corporation announced that peak oil will happen in 5 years. Proof: http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=mj
Also, for a good miniature end-of-the-world scenario that happened, go read up on Rapa Nui, aka Easter Island.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
Well, let's see... The amount of energy coming from the sun and from the radioactive decay in the earth is pretty much the same as it is today, for say 100 Million years. All during that time quite a bit of that energy has been stored by plants and microscopic critters and was deposited in the ocean floor..
We've been using that stored energy, releasing all of that carbon which is superbly good at reflecting infrared energy--which impacts the primary means for the cooling of the planet--radiation. It's proven by ice core samples that CO2 levels were fairly level for a long long time up until the 1800's, where concentration has grown almost exponentially. Even the oil giants will admit it in their studies!
We're using up gobs of energy that was stored up a long long time ago, which necessarily produces heat (except for energy derived from natural events which we have no control over, such as hydro, wind, geothermal, etc.--but most of our power comes from coal, oil and gas). Yearly consumption, by the way, is on the order of ~500 exajoules today. That's a buttload of energy, and if the earth can't get rid of it by radiating, it's just not gonna happen. If radiating ability is significantly impaired, we lose. Once it gets hot enough, water vapor will start to have much the same impact as the CO2. The cycle could literally run away and blow up in our faces, for all we know. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. I can't say, but many scientists have a pretty good idea of what will happen, but it's possible that they know what will happen about as well as anyone else... So, why stack all your chips and throw the ball into the roulette wheel without giving it a real good thought?
So, it's a two forked problem, we're pumping out tons of energy such that the planet has never experienced before, and we ARE impairing it's ability to radiate, as far as we can tell. History can't account for today, and for mankind--and we must tread cautiously because of that. It's true that there are climatic changes over the course of thousands of years, no argument there. But there were no humans driving their H2's around back then. A few degrees over the course of a couple hundred years are particularly worrying in the grand scheme of things, and sticking your head in the ground is the worst kind of solution!
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
it's simple. the ice melts in summer, exposing the previous years layer of dead moss. on top of that, a new layer grows. in the winter, that moss dies, and becomes the dead layer the next years layer grows on, and so on. this has been happening for thousands of years straight. sometimes much much longer.
the bottom layers of moss (pete, decomposed moss) haven't defrosted in millenia, and they now are. and staying that way. I think that's the news.
I haven't read the article, mind you, and this explanation is from memory of biology 10. so I may be waaaaay off. someone, feel free to confirm or deny this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peat
hey, guess what. I didn't read the wikipedia article either, but I glanced at it, and I think it agrees. w00t!
There are leaders who could do something about it (or at least said they would), like Al Gore; blame the voters for sneering at his nerdiness and voting for people who tell them they can have it all and not pay for it. Don't give up on the system, participate and make it work, it's the only hope we have.
Radiochemistry. For example,
While the original list was plain silly, I have to laugh at this.
Because the US is the single greatest defender of democracy in the history of the world.
Given the history of the US in backing non-democratic governments that overthrow democratic but socialist governments, (nd remember that doesn't mean communist or want to become communist, lots of countries elect socialist governments from time to time, much of Europe for example.
Look at the brutal un-democratic regimes the US still backs. If someone from Saudi Arabia or Uzbekistan hates the US its unlikely to be because they hate it for its freedom and democracy but more likely because it backs a deeply unpopular regime (of course that is just one reason, there may be others rational and irrational).
We are all grateful for what the US did in WWII, but remember was against a democratic election there since the result would probably have been something it didn't want.
The US is no worse than most countries in the way it acts in its own interest, but it isn't really much better either. If you look at its history it isn't some great bastion of worldwide democracy and freedom, just self interested like everyone else.
To come vaguely back on topic, when the rest of the world sees a US reluctance to do anything about climate change, a lot of people see that same self-interest, although very short term, again. It seems to largely be US scientist (and a minority of them) who don't think humans are having an effect. Many of which work for US companies that give large donations to US politicians. This makes people pretty sceptical.
Anyone have photos of this? any aerial ones I can overlay on google earth?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/picture_galI used to be a sceptic. These days, I'm not so certain.
10 men are sailing in a whaler on a whale hunt. The boat, being an older boat made of wood, it leaks a little. But after sailing about for a few hours, many men begin to notice that the amount of water in the boat seems to have increased quite significantly, much more than what is usual or expected. What should the men do?
a) Take more measurements and get conclusive evidence that their boat is actually going to sink before they can make it back to shore.
OR
b) Start bailing.
---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.
Because the US is the single greatest defender of democracy in the history of the world.
... It caused Clinton to tuck tail and leave Somalia to the warlords.
I hope this is meant as irony, because otherwise it's kind of sad.
Although the US is indeed one of the biggest countries that occasionally comes to the defense of democracy, it's also one of the biggest countries to overthrow democratically elected governments and replace them with a pro-US dictator whenever that fits better into their goals.
Iran, for example, had a democratically elected government before the US replaced it with the Shah in 1954. You may also have heard of Pinochet in Chili, and of all the mess the US was involved in Central America.
And because in the preceding years, they saw terrorism work like a charm.
I don't think that was because of terrorism, but rather because the US forces were unable to deal with guerilla's. I can't remember any terrorist strike against a US civilian target that had anything to do with Somalia.
And about those WMDs, it was the US that claimed to have proof, not the other way around. So far, that proof seems to have been a complete and utter fabrication.
mcv.
I think this is really worth a look....I find that the truth about global warming has become harder to discern because of the various agendas out there - to quote Micheal Crichton from 'State Of Fear' - 'But as Alston Chase put it, "when the search for truth is confused with political advocacy, the pursuit of knowledge is reduced to the quest for power." That is the danger we now face. And this is why the intermixing of science and politics is a bad combination, with a bad history. We must remember the history, and be certain that what we present to the world as knowledge is disinterested and honest.' Further interesting reading - http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches _quote04.html
To quote Micheal Crichton - " But it is impossible to ignore how closely the history of global warming fits on the previous template for nuclear winter. Just as the earliest studies of nuclear winter stated that the uncertainties were so great that probabilites could never be known, so, too the first pronouncements on global warming argued strong limits on what could be determined with certainty about climate change. The 1995 IPCC draft report said, "Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced." It also said, "No study to date has positively attributed all or part of observed climate changes to anthropogenic causes." Those statements were removed, and in their place appeared: "The balance of evidence suggests a discernable human influence on climate."
What is clear, however, is that on this issue, science and policy have become inextricably mixed to the point where it will be difficult, if not impossible, to separate them out. It is possible for an outside observer to ask serious questions about the conduct of investigations into global warming, such as whether we are taking appropriate steps to improve the quality of our observational data records, whether we are systematically obtaining the information that will clarify existing uncertainties, whether we have any organized disinterested mechanism to direct research in this contentious area."
Those in turn existed because some people (e.g., Galileo) dared question the existing model...
As the OP said, GALLANT paints the scientific consensus as being entirely political in nature and enjoys comparing himself to Galileo.
They laughed at Galileo, they laughed at Einstein... but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. To compare fake science bought and paid for by folks with a huge monetary stake in the results to the work of Galileo or Einstein is an insult to every scientist who ever honestly questioned dogma.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
... on a screenplay by a guy who has "agenda" written on his forehead.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
The Soviet Communists produced more oil during the Cold War than anyone else. The Chinese Communists are consuming more oil than ever before, becoming a net importer in the 1990s, rather than exporter: this is one reason oil prices are higher than ever before. And it's just going to get worse. Meanwhile, your Capitalist heroes in the White House have you and I spending our tax dollars on their war in Iraq, which is a total disaster, for no reason other than to spend our tax dollars in Iraq (OK, and to keep us scared and dependent on their Daddy State).
So you, sick fool, are laughing. Making posts with no content, just some inane partisan crack. While talking about "communists", as if the real ones weren't part of the problem, in collusion with your oil corporate government heroes. When are you going to shut up and let the adults talk about how to salvage the wreck your boys have made? Or at least enlist and go to Iraq as a soldier to "support the troops", instead of just slapping a magnetic sticker (made of oil, in China) on the back of your suburban 12MPG SUV?
--
make install -not war
No. There are at this point exactly three possible reasons that somebody could vote Republican:
Me? I am sick of entitlements.
And so you vote for the party *most* commited to them?!?
That puts you squarely in category 2.
If anybody else doubts this, let's hear your reasons. It's really pretty simple to put them in one or more of those categories.