SI
SI
discoversearch

 Politics | Politics of Energy


Previous 10 | Next 10 
To: Brumar89 who wrote (31066)4/29/2012 4:53:09 PM
From: Bilow
3 Recommendations   of 58403
 
Hi Brumar89; Re Lovelock's quote: "Before this century is over, billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic."

LOL!

-- Carl

P.S. This is the kind of silly rant that is hilarious when stated by individuals but becomes quite serious in the hands of authorities. It's like he's channeling Hitler, i.e. similar anguished paranoia and fear, the fact that it's written in bad imitation of science, the treatment of humans as "breeding pairs" and the worldwide call to action. What's left is the implicit justification for any action, no matter how immoral, because of the overriding morality of the New Order.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


To: Hawkmoon who wrote (31071)4/29/2012 6:31:01 PM
From: average joe
   of 58403
 
"Pumping sulphur into the upper atmosphere is a plausible, and inexpensive, solution to global warming.. However, halting a sudden drop in temperatures would seem to be more difficult to achieve."

I don't think anyone has a great track record of success in managing mother nature. The Indians managed buffalo by stampeding them off cliffs.

" Let us remember where we live, Kenner was saying. We live on the third planet from a medium-sized sun. Our planet is five billion years old, and it has been changing constantly all during that time. The Earth is now on its third atmosphere... Our atmosphere is as violent as the land beneath it. At any moment there are one thousand five hundred electrical storms across the planet. Eleven lightning bolts strike the earth each second. A tornado tears across the surface every six hours. And every four days, a giant cyclonic storm, hundreds of miles in diameter, spins over the ocean and wreaks havoc on the land. The nasty little apes that call themselves human beings can do nothing except run and hide. For these same apes to imagine they can stabilize this atmosphere is arrogant....." Michael Crichton - State of Fear

Yellowstone National Parkby Michael Crichton

Long recognized as a setting of great natural beauty, in 1872 Ulysses Grant set aside Yellowstone as the first formal nature preserve in the world. More than 2 million acres, larger than Delaware and Rhode Island combined. John Muir was pleased when he visited in 1885, noting that under the care of the Department of the Interior, Yellowstone was protected from "the blind, ruthless destruction that is going on in adjoining regions."

Theodore Roosevelt was also pleased in 1903 when as President he went to Yellowstone National Park for a dedication ceremony.

It was his third visit. Roosevelt saw a thousand antelope, plentiful cougar, mountain sheep, deer, coyote, and many thousands of elk. He wrote, "Our people should see to it that this rich heritage is preserved for their children and their children's children forever, with its majestic beauty all unmarred."

But Yellowstone was not preserved. On the contrary, it was altered beyond repair in a matter of years. By 1934, the park service acknowledged that "white-tailed deer, cougar, lynx, wolf, and possibly wolverine and fisher are gone from the Yellowstone."

What they didn't say was that the park service was solely responsible for the disappearances. Park rangers had been shooting animals for decades, even though that was illegal under the Lacey Act of 1894. But they thought they knew better. They thought their environmental concerns trumped any mere law.

What actually happened at Yellowstone is a cascade of ego and error. But to understand it, we have to go back to the 1890s. Back then it was believed that elk were becoming extinct, and so these animals were fed and encouraged. Over the next few years the numbers of elk in the park exploded. Roosevelt had seen a few thousand animals, and noted they were more numerous than on his last visit.

By 1912, there were 30,000. By 1914, 35,000. Things were going very well. Rainbow trout had also been introduced, and though they crowded out the native cutthroats, nobody really worried. Fishing was great. And bears were increasing in numbers, and moose, and bison.

By 1915, Roosevelt realized the elk had become a problem, and urged "scientific management." His advice was ignored. Instead, the park service did everything it could to increase their numbers.

The results were predictable.

Antelope and deer began to decline, overgrazing changed the flora, aspen and willows were being eaten heavily and did not regenerate. In an effort to stem the loss of animals, the park rangers began to kill predators, which they did without public knowledge.

They eliminated the wolf and cougar and were well on their way to getting rid of the coyote. Then a national scandal broke out; studies showed that it wasn’t predators that were killing the other animals. It was overgrazing from too many elk. The management policy of killing predators had only made things worse.

Meanwhile the environment continued to change. Aspen trees, once plentiful in the park, where virtually destroyed by the enormous herds of hungry elk.

With the aspen gone, the beaver had no trees to make dams, so they disappeared. Beaver were essential to the water management of the park; without dams, the meadows dried hard in summer, and still more animals vanished. Situation worsened. It became increasingly inconvenient that all the predators had been killed off by 1930. So in the 1960s, there was a sigh of relief when new sightings by rangers suggested that wolves were returning.

There were also persistent rumors that rangers were trucking them in; but in any case, the wolves vanished soon after; they needed a diet of beaver and other small rodents, and the beaver had gone.

Pretty soon the park service initiated a PR campaign to prove that excessive numbers of elk were not responsible for the park’s problems, even though they were. This campaign went on for a decade, during which time the bighorn sheep virtually disappeared.

Now we come to the 1970s, when bears are starting to be recognized as a growing problem. They used to be considered fun-loving creatures, and their close association with human beings was encouraged within the park:

Bear feedings were a spectacle in the 1930s. Postcards treated it humorously:

But now it seemed there were more bears and many more lawyers, and thus more threat of litigation. So the rangers moved the grizzlies away to remote regions of the park. The grizzlies promptly became endangered; their formerly growing numbers shrank. The park service refused to let scientists study them. But once the animals were declared endangered, the scientists could go in.

And by now we are about ready to reap the rewards of our forty-year policy of fire suppression, Smokey the Bear, all that. The Indians used to burn forest regularly, and lightning causes natural fires every summer. But when these fires are suppressed, the branches that drop to cover the ground make conditions for a very hot, low fire that sterilizes the soil. And in 1988, Yellowstone burned. All in all, 1.2 million acres were scorched, and 800,000 acres, one third of the park, burned.

Then, having killed the wolves, and having tried to sneak them back in, the park service officially brought the wolves back, and the local ranchers screamed. And on, and on.

As the story unfolds, it becomes impossible to overlook the cold truth that when it comes to managing 2.2 million acres of wilderness, nobody since the Indians has had the faintest idea how to do it. And nobody asked the Indians, because the Indians managed the land very intrusively. The Indians started fires, burned trees and grasses, hunted the large animals, elk and moose, to the edge of extinction. White men refused to follow that practice, and made things worse.

To solve that embarrassment, everybody pretended that the Indians had never altered the landscape. These “pioneer ecologists,” as Steward Udall called them, did not do anything to manipulate the land. But now academic opinion is shifting again, and the wisdom of the Indian land management practices is being discovered anew. Whether we will follow their practices remains to be seen.

Now, if we are to do better in this new century, what must we do differently? In a word, we must embrace complexity theory. We must understand complex systems.

We live in a world of complex systems. The environment is a complex system. The government is a complex system. Financial markets are complex systems. The human mind is a complex system---most minds, at least.

By a complex system I mean one in which the elements of the system interact among themselves, such that any modification we make to the system will produce results that we cannot predict in advance.

Furthermore, a complex system demonstrates sensitivity to initial conditions. You can get one result on one day, but the identical interaction the next day may yield a different result. We cannot know with certainty how the system will respond.

Third, when we interact with a complex system, we may provoke downstream consequences that emerge weeks or even years later. We must always be watchful for delayed and untoward consequences.

The science that underlies our understanding of complex systems is now thirty years old. A third of a century should be plenty of time for this knowledge and to filter down to everyday consciousness, but except for slogans—like the butterfly flapping its wings and causing a hurricane halfway around the world—not much has penetrated ordinary human thinking.

On the other hand, complexity theory has raced through the financial world. It has been briskly incorporated into medicine. But organizations that care about the environment do not seem to notice that their ministrations are deleterious in many cases. Lawmakers do not seem to notice when their laws have unexpected consequences, or make things worse. Governors and mayors and managers may manage their complex systems well or badly, but if they manage well, it is usually because they have an instinctive understanding of how to deal with complex systems. Most managers fail.

Why? Our human predisposition treat all systems as linear when they are not. A linear system is a rocket flying to Mars. Or a cannonball fired from a cannon. Its behavior is quite easily described mathematically. A complex system is water gurgling over rocks, or air flowing over a bird’s wing. Here the mathematics are complicated, and in fact no understanding of these systems was possible until the widespread availability of computers.

One complex system that most people have dealt with is a child. If so, you've probably experienced that when you give the child an instruction, you can never be certain what response you will get. Especially if the child is a teenager. And similarly, you can’t be certain that an identical interaction on another day won’t lead to spectacularly different results.

If you have a teenager, or if you invest in the stock market, you know very well that a complex system cannot be controlled, it can only be managed. Because responses cannot be predicted, the system can only be observed and responded to. The system may resist attempts to change its state. It may show resiliency. Or fragility. Or both.

An important feature of complex systems is that we don’t know how they work. We don’t understand them except in a general way; we simply interact with them. Whenever we think we understand them, we learn we don’t. Sometimes spectacularly.

What, then, happened in Yellowstone? I would argue, people thought they understood the system. They thought they understood how nature worked. And they were wrong.

Let’s look back to the 1970s, the Club of Rome, Limits of Growth. They produced this chart to explain what regulates fertility.

Pretty simple, isn’t it? Unfortunately, within 20 years, scientists were saying nobody could predict population in any respect. They were starting to understand how diverse were the influences that impinged on population. They varied from time to time, from country to country. All theories failed.

Here’s another from the Limits of Growth, showing the relationship of capital to population. Isn’t it great they could fit it all on one page?

The point is, this is highly simplified thinking. But it continues to this day. Here’s a modern chart, from a sustainability website. It shows the relationships of pretty much everything: lithosphere, biosphere, market, community, customers. Who makes a chart like this? Who thinks the world operates this way?

Because look. It does not explain the world.

In fact, the chart on the right, showing everything, is absurdly simple. Nothing in nature is so simple. Here, for example, is a far more complex diagram. It represents the nerves in the stomach of the lobster.

The simplistic schematic diagrams I showed you earlier don’t even explain human complex systems, although they are much simpler than natural ones. Here is a financial market and you know—we all know—that if you were to make any single change, say, increase the price of crude oil, or charge a White House aide with a felony, you can not be sure how the financial system will react. Nobody knows.

People make their businesses out of trying to predict financial markets. But nobody can, except insider traders.

Here’s an article from the NY Times that says, we can’t even know the most fundamental features of our financial system. Is the nation’s productivity going up or down? Nobody knows.

If we can’t even understand the basic aspects of our own systems, what makes anybody think we can understand natural phenomena, that are thousands of times more complicated?

Because they are. Let’s take a little tour of some natural complexity.

Here is a sequence of chemical changes, the ATP cascade, that produces energy within the cell. As you see, one chemical chain reaction is more complex than the original diagram showing the whole world.

And here is where the energy is generated, the intracellular body known as the mitochondrion.

It has a complicated three-dimensional structure:

and here you see the mitochondria packed in heart muscle, where they generate energy needed for our hearts.

The heart pumps blood and inside the red cells there is a molecule called hemoglobin which, as you see, is far more complicated than the original drawing of everything. A single molecule in a single cell is vastly more complicated than that drawing of the whole world.

The heart that pumps these red cells is driven by an electrical potential that spreads across the muscle in a very complex way—a way that is now understood with the help of complexity theory. Here is a conventional image

and here is a video image of the cardiac conduction, from the department of biomedical engineering at Duke University.

The conception of natural processes that is demonstrated in this video is precisely what has been missing from environmental thinking. Thirty years later, it’s time for environmentalists to catch up. Stop worrying about decarbonization, which is taking care of itself, and start worrying about Yellowstone, which isn’t.

So, in conclusion: What happened at Yellowstone? I would say, somebody really believed the world operated like this schematic diagram. And they acted on that belief.

Because the diagram implies that things are simple: Kill the wolves, and save the elk. Move the grizzlies, and avoid the lawyers. And on, and on. It’s this simplistic, cause-and-effect thinking that must go.

And for that matter, who believes that the complex system of our atmosphere behaves in such a simple and predictable way that if we reduce one component, carbon dioxide, we will therefore reliably reduce temperature? CO2 is not like an accelerator on a car. It’s not linear (and by the way, neither is a car accelerator.) And furthermore, who believes that the climate can be stabilized when it has never been stable throughout the earth’s history? We can only entertain such an idea if we don’t really understand what a complex system is. We’re like the blonde who returned the scarf because it was too tight. We don’t get it.

Fortunately, studies show that we can learn to manage complex systems. There are people who have investigated complex systems management, and know how to do it. But it demands humility.

And I would add, along with humility, managing complex systems also demands the ability to admit we are wrong, and to change course. If you manage a complex system you will frequently, if not always, be wrong. You have to backtrack. You have to acknowledge error. You’ve probably learned that with your children. Or, if you don’t have children, with your bosses.

And one other thing. If we want to manage complexity, we must eliminate fear. Fear may draw a television audience. It may generate cash for an advocacy group. It may support the legal profession. But fear paralyzes us. It freezes us. And we need to be flexible in our responses, as we move into a new era of managing complexity. So we have to stop responding to fear:

Is this really the end of the world? Earthquakes, hurricanes, floods?

No, we simply live on an active planet. Earthquakes are continuous, a million and a half of them every year, or three every minute. A Richter 5 quake every six hours, a major quake every 3 weeks. A quake as destructive as the one in Pakistan every 8 months. It’s nothing new, it’s right on schedule.

At any moment there are 1,500 electrical storms on the planet. A tornado touches down every six hours. We have ninety hurricanes a year, or one every four days. Again, right on schedule. Violent, disruptive, chaotic activity is a constant feature of our globe.

Is this the end of the world? No: this is the world.

It’s time we knew it.

Thank you very much.”

crichton-official.com

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


From: average joe4/29/2012 6:59:55 PM
   of 58403
 
Blood And Gore -- The Nickname For Al Gore's Carbon Trading Firm That Is Poised To Make Billions Of Dollars From Carbon Credits. Google it and learn. I made this video to help stop the carbon tax that's coming if we don't wake up to this scam. Al Gore was wrong about NAFTA, So why would we buy what he selling us On Global Warming... This is just another way for The Illuminati to Tax The People Of The Earth and control them.

youtube.com

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: Hawkmoon who wrote (31071)4/29/2012 7:29:53 PM
From: Maurice Winn
3 Recommendations   of 58403
 
How to fix Global Warming. 25 years ago I came up with a product I called "Jetozone" [cute pun on jettison]. I was thinking about the ozone layer at the time and wondered if jet fuel could include catalysts to enhance ozone production by sunlight.

Putting sulphur oxides into the air at airline altitudes would be doable by making jet fuel a high sulphur product.

Pure sulphur works perfectly in large fertilizer factory turbines which generate electricity and produce sulphur oxides as feedstock for sulphuric acid production. So I suppose high sulphur fuel would be fine for airliners too though that would need some investigation to make sure it would not be too heavy or otherwise problematic for safe and efficient flight.

In 1984, in discussion with my BP Oil boss at the time, when considering CO2, I said it wouldn't be much of a problem because taxation could be shifted from incomes and everything else onto carbon consumption. Then people would come up with all sorts of ways of avoiding burning carbon. He said "Shhhhh. We don't want that idea taking hold". But it would solve the problem.

So stopping Global Warming should be doable. Filling the oceans with iron and other micronutrients would work a treat to absorb CO2 too, while enhancing fish stocks.

To stop reglaciation is more problematic. Painting everything black might help. Spreading carbon all over deserts and snow would reduce reflection and melt the snow. In Belgium, they were doing that inadvertently 25 years ago when we lived there, with millions of heating oil furnaces and diesel vehicles which in those days were very sooty. My little yellow Lada had a coating of carbon, which when dew formed would wash off in little rivulets as the drops coalesced. But carbon all over cities is annoying. It gets in eyes, nose, clothes and lungs. Over deserts and snow it wouldn't be so bad. China is doing a good job of spreading soot. The air is full of it.

Moving to Australia, Africa and Death Valley might be easier.

When people adopt the Churchill style it's pretty clear it isn't really knowledge and understanding they are looking for: <But it was a quintessential "Churchill moment" as they "stumbled over the truth, but quickly picked themselves up hurry off as if nothing ever happened." >


Mqurice

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


To: average joe who wrote (31073)4/29/2012 7:39:23 PM
From: Maurice Winn
3 Recommendations   of 58403
 
On the contrary, we are doing very well: < I don't think anyone has a great track record of success in managing mother nature. > Cities are almost totally unnatural. The sky is about the only natural thing visible and we have to leave the comfort of houses, offices and malls to see that. Even trees are often genetically selected and not in their natural environment, and certainly crops bear little relationship to their ancestors.

We dam rivers for electricity and water. We build huge canals and flood banks. We are warm and comfy in -40 degrees Celsius in large cities. Taming nature and turning the four forces of the apocalypse to our advantage is what we do. Nature is out to get us and turn us into dinner. Naked in a forest, we are almost perfect food. No horns, teeth, hide, scales, spikes, poisons, camouflage, speedy escape, burrowing, or other self-defence mechanisms. Just perfect food sitting there waiting for anything from mosquitoes to lions to have a feast.

6000 million of us can do pretty well anything we like.

Mqurice

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)


To: Maurice Winn who wrote (31076)4/29/2012 9:22:20 PM
From: average joe
1 Recommendation   of 58403
 
You're quite right on all points but attempting to engineer the environment that has stood us in good stead for 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years might best be saved for other planets.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: Land Shark who wrote (31058)4/29/2012 9:31:32 PM
From: average joe
1 Recommendation   of 58403
 
Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

Kate Ravilious

for National Geographic News

Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory. Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

"Global Warming Fast Facts"



  • Climate Change Predictions Not Exaggerated, Analysis Says (February 1, 2007)
  • New Mars Pictures Show Signs of Watery "Aquifers" (February 16, 2007)
  • Photo Gallery: Global Warming

  • Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.

    In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

    Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.

    "The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.

    Solar Cycles
    Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets.

    Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories.

    "Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said.

    By studying fluctuations in the warmth of the sun, Abdussamatov believes he can see a pattern that fits with the ups and downs in climate we see on Earth and Mars.

    Abdussamatov's work, however, has not been well received by other climate scientists.

    "His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University.

    "And they contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report."

    "Global Warming 'Very Likely' Caused by Humans, World Climate Experts Say"



    Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations."

    Planets' Wobbles


    The conventional theory is that climate changes on Mars can be explained primarily by small alterations in the planet's orbit and tilt, not by changes in the sun.

    "Wobbles in the orbit of Mars are the main cause of its climate change in the current era," Oxford's Wilson explained.

    "Don't Blame Sun for Global Warming, Study Says"

    All planets experience a few wobbles as they make their journey around the sun.

    Earth's wobbles are known as Milankovitch cycles and occur on time scales of between 20,000 and 100,000 years.

    These fluctuations change the tilt of Earth's axis and its distance from the sun and are thought to be responsible for the waxing and waning of ice ages on Earth.

    Mars and Earth wobble in different ways, and most scientists think it is pure coincidence that both planets are between ice ages right now.

    "Mars has no [large] moon, which makes its wobbles much larger, and hence the swings in climate are greater too," Wilson said.

    No Greenhouse


    Perhaps the biggest stumbling block in Abdussamatov's theory is his dismissal of the greenhouse effect, in which atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide help keep heat trapped near the planet's surface.

    He claims that carbon dioxide has only a small influence on Earth's climate and virtually no influence on Mars.

    But "without the greenhouse effect there would be very little, if any, life on Earth, since our planet would pretty much be a big ball of ice," said Evan, of the University of Wisconsin.

    Most scientists now fear that the massive amount of carbon dioxide humans are pumping into the air will lead to a catastrophic rise in Earth's temperatures, dramatically raising sea levels as glaciers melt and leading to extreme weather worldwide.

    Abdussamatov remains contrarian, however, suggesting that the sun holds something quite different in store.

    "The solar irradiance began to drop in the 1990s, and a minimum will be reached by approximately 2040," Abdussamatov said.

    "It will cause a steep cooling of the climate on Earth in 15 to 20 years."

    news.nationalgeographic.com

    Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


    To: Maurice Winn who wrote (31076)4/29/2012 9:39:59 PM
    From: Bilow
    2 Recommendations   of 58403
     
    Hi Maurice Winn; Re:"Naked in a forest, we are almost perfect food. No horns, teeth, hide, scales, spikes, poisons, camouflage, speedy escape, burrowing, or other self-defence mechanisms."

    Even nekkid, humans are the most vicious predator in the forest. Even juvenile humans are good at throwing rocks. Since a predator cannot afford to lose an eye in return for a meal, they wisely leave humans alone.

    When you get up close to them, humans will grab stuff and use it to beat the crap out of you. In addition to rocks humans will use sticks. They seem unnaturally crafty in their selection of these sticks. It seems like they know what they're going to have to do with it and they pick up sticks that are light enough to use quickly but heavy enough to break bones. If they have time, they will sharpen their sticks and stones.

    If this weren't enough, when you find one human, a lot of the time you can expect to find a bunch more. The only thing worse than being pelted with rocks by a juvenile human is having a whole troop of them competing to see who is the most accurate. Really, you don't want to go there.

    And humans have an unnatural tendency to organize their violence. Say you find a human by itself and you get lucky and sneak up on it and get a meal. Well you'd better head for the hills cause the next thing there will be a whole pack of them after you. And there's lots of other stuff to watch out for. For instance, humans keep animal slaves. They can use these to follow your trail by smell or to carry them at high speed.

    And humans are designed to travel long distances more efficiently than any other predator. Even if they can't catch you in a sprint they can just keep tracking you until you fall over with exhaustion. It's really unfair; when you finally wear out one human, you find that its position is taken over by another. Even a 61-year-old humans are amazingly good at eating up the miles. [See Cliff Young who famously won a 544 mile ultra-marathon (Sydney / Melbourne), in the process trimming 2 days off the best time for it:] en.wikipedia.org

    No, humans are the most dangerous predator of all. (They're also amazingly graceful at times.)

    -- Carl

    P.S. Other than that, I agree with you completely on your post.

    Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


    To: average joe who wrote (31078)4/29/2012 9:54:14 PM
    From: Hawkmoon
    1 Recommendation   of 58403
     
    Yeah.. the discussion of the melting Ice caps of Mars has been long reported as evidence that solar activity is the primary influence governing planetary climate. But this obvious fact has been generally ignored by the "consenseless"..

    But also ignored is that the atmosphere of Mars is primarily CO2 (95%), which means that the entire planet should be a huge greenhouse in comparison the trace presence (parts per MILLION) CO2 exhibits in Earth's atmosphere.

    Hawk

    Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


    To: average joe who wrote (31074)4/29/2012 10:54:29 PM
    From: Hawkmoon
       of 58403
     
    Is that you giving the lecture on planetary warming throughout the solar system?

    And is there a Pt 2? Couldn't find it..

    Hawk

    Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read
    Previous 10 | Next 10 

    Copyright © 1995-2014 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.Stock quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes - See Terms of Use.