Reef Central Online Community

Home Forum Here you can view your subscribed threads, work with private messages and edit your profile and preferences View New Posts View Today's Posts

Find other members Frequently Asked Questions Search Reefkeeping ...an online magazine for marine aquarists Support our sponsors and mention Reef Central

Go Back   Reef Central Online Community Archives > General Interest Forums > Responsible Reefkeeping

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #26  
Old 12/19/2007, 07:25 AM
samtheman samtheman is offline
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 483
Quote:
Originally posted by Rossini
I agreed the EU has done sod all. But they plan to. whether it will be enough and in time is anyones guess. but the EU need the US to reduce emmisions with us,then china and others will follow.

The US is scuppering all the plans,its disgracefull.
So because your country signed a treaty to reduce C02 emissions, and failed to even reduce your rate of increases, its the fault of the US? Can you explain this a little more. I don’t understand.
  #27  
Old 12/19/2007, 07:31 AM
Rossini Rossini is offline
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 246
have a read of this sam

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming...dtemp2005.html
  #28  
Old 12/19/2007, 07:37 AM
Rossini Rossini is offline
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 246
Quote:
Originally posted by samtheman
So because your country signed a treaty to reduce C02 emissions, and failed to even reduce your rate of increases, its the fault of the US? Can you explain this a little more. I don’t understand.
when did I say that?

I said that the US tried to ruin plans to get all the industrial countrys to cap emmisions. which they did,which is why they were booed at. a disgrace!
  #29  
Old 12/19/2007, 07:41 AM
Rossini Rossini is offline
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 246
Quote:
Originally posted by samtheman
That seems like a personal attack to me. Why can't you just address the question? I don't call you names because of what you believe.


what names?

if you cant stand the heat......

world temperatures have risen 0.7C in the last 150 years,since we began burning fossil fuels and rapidly chopping down forests. thats a stone cold fact. what you are doing is taking some figures from a very short span in that 150 years,and using that put your spin on it. Thats called misinformation.
  #30  
Old 12/19/2007, 07:53 AM
greenbean36191 greenbean36191 is offline
Soul of a Sailor
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Huntsville/ Auburn, AL
Posts: 7,859
Send a message via AIM to greenbean36191
Quote:
Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).
This is a fact because a short time period starting after an exceptionally warm period was chosen. 1998 was one of the hottest years on record (even with the recent corrections) and spiked the 5 year average. Since then it's dropped from that spike back to its "normal" rate of increase. If you look at 1999-2006 you see the average temp is still increasing, not leveling out or decreasing (though at such a small time scale it's not significant). This is a great example of how people can mislead with statistics and why scale becomes important in looking at long-term trends.
__________________
Lanikai, kahakai nani, aloha no au ia 'oe. A hui hou kakou.
  #31  
Old 12/19/2007, 10:42 AM
Buckeye ME Buckeye ME is offline
Always a Buckeye
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Evansville, IN
Posts: 793
Quote:
This is a fact because a short time period starting after an exceptionally warm period was chosen. 1998 was one of the hottest years on record (even with the recent corrections) and spiked the 5 year average. Since then it's dropped from that spike back to its "normal" rate of increase. If you look at 1999-2006 you see the average temp is still increasing, not leveling out or decreasing (though at such a small time scale it's not significant). This is a great example of how people can mislead with statistics and why scale becomes important in looking at long-term trends.
Wrong. They are not talking about rate of increase.

Quote:
for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase
-------------------------------------------------------

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/908

New Peer-Reviewed Study Finds ‘Warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence’
By EPW Blog Monday, December 10, 2007


An inconvenient new peer-reviewed study published in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology.

Climate warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence:
Climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia report that observed patterns of temperature changes (‘fingerprints’) over the last thirty years are not in accord with what greenhouse models predict and can better be explained by natural factors, such as solar variability. Therefore, climate change is ‘unstoppable’ and cannot be affected or modified by controlling the emission of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, as is proposed in current legislation.

These results are in conflict with the conclusions of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and also with some recent research publications based on essentially the same data. However, they are supported by the results of the US-sponsored Climate Change Science Program (CCSP).

The report is published in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society [DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651]. The authors are Prof. David H. Douglass (Univ. of Rochester), Prof. John R. Christy (Univ. of Alabama), Benjamin D. Pearson (graduate student), and Prof. S. Fred Singer (Univ. of Virginia).

The fundamental question is whether the observed warming is natural or anthropogenic (human-caused). Lead author David Douglass said: “The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming.”

Co-author John Christy said: “Satellite data and independent balloon data agree that atmospheric warming trends do not exceed those of the surface. Greenhouse models, on the other hand, demand that atmospheric trend values be 2-3 times greater. We have good reason, therefore, to believe that current climate models greatly overestimate the effects of greenhouse gases. Satellite observations suggest that GH models ignore negative feedbacks, produced by clouds and by water vapor, that diminish the warming effects of carbon dioxide.”

Co-author S. Fred Singer said: “The current warming trend is simply part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that has been seen in ice cores, deep-sea sediments, stalagmites, etc., and published in hundreds of papers in peer-reviewed journals. The mechanism for producing such cyclical climate changes is still under discussion; but they are most likely caused by variations in the solar wind and associated magnetic fields that affect the flux of cosmic rays incident on the earth’s atmosphere. In turn, such cosmic rays are believed to influence cloudiness and thereby control the amount of sunlight reaching the earth’s surface and thus the climate.” Our research demonstrates that the ongoing rise of atmospheric CO2 has only a minor influence on climate change. We must conclude, therefore, that attempts to control CO2 emissions are ineffective and pointless. – but very costly.

Now on the web at http://science-sepp.blogspot.com/200...c-10-2007.html
Contact: Dr S Fred Singer, President, SEPP singer@SEPP.org 703-920-2744

-------------------------------------------------------------------------




EXPLANATION OF THE GRAPH: Scientists of NASA have discovered a positive trend in the intensity of the solar activity since 1980. The factor of variability is about 0.06 flares per year. The latter is similar to the annual variability of the tropospheric temperature on Earth, which has been 0.05 per year. In the graph, the green sharp line represents the number of solar flares per day, the blue line represents the variability in the tropospheric temperature on Earth, the dashed green straight line corresponds to the average of the tendency in the variability of solar irradiance per decade, and the blue dashed straight line denotes the median of the decadal tendency of the variability in the tropospheric temperature of Earth.

I have noticed that the trend in the fluctuations of the solar activity and the trend in the variability of the tropospheric temperature on Earth are almost parallel one to another. Simultaneously, both trends are separated by an equalized interval. I think that the steadiness of the difference between the two trends corresponds to a difference between the Intensity of Solar Irradiance and the Tropospheric Temperature (0.06 - 0.05 = 0.01).

It is evident that the equivalences between the variability of the tropospheric Temperature and the variability of the solar irradiance are directly related with the intensity of the incoming Solar Radiation. The latter includes all forms of radiation emitted by the Sun, for example, Infrared Radiation (Heat), light, UV radiation, X rays, gamma rays, etc. At present, we are experiencing a larger solar cycle (lasting about 100 years) that includes 10 cycles of 11 years each.

In the graphic of the Geological Eras we can observe large fluctuations in the global temperature of Earth through millions of years. I do not know the point that the current tropospheric temperature fluctuations will reach, perhaps the fluctuations will stretch to standards similar or higher than the maximum values of precedent fluctuations, but I am not sure about that.

NASA scientists elaborated a prediction about the next solar cycle of 11 years based on the observation of the past tendencies and on the direct influence that the previous cycles have had on the intensity of the following cycle. The intensity of the solar activity has been progressively increasing on every cycle.

The implementation of the Kyoto’s Protocol will not solve the phenomenon of global warming; in the first place, because it does not depend absolutely of the human activities, but from natural factors. In the second place, because the concentration of Heat-Forcing gases in the atmosphere are not thermodynamically capable of store the density of heat registered in the last century. The variability in the tropospheric temperature on Earth depends on cosmic factors, like the increase in the intensity of Solar Radiation and of Intergalactic Cosmic Rays.

The graph gives also a clear explanation about the global warming observed on other planets like Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn and some satellites of giant planets.

I HAVE BASED MY GRAPH ON ORIGINAL SCIENTIFIC DATA SO FOR THE DRAWING AS FOR ITS INTERPRETATION. I EXTENSIVELY RECOMMEND YOU TO READ THE REPORT AT NASA'S SITE AND THE ARTICLE FROM SCIENCE MAGAZINE THAT I HAVE INCLUDED LIKE REFERENCES AT THE FOOT OF THE DIAGRAM.

Author of this page: Nasif Nahle, biologist

------------------------------------------------------------------


Not so cut and dry once you see facts not presented by the "Union of Concerned Scientists", is it?
__________________
"Nothing cleanses your soul like getting the hell kicked out of you." - Woody Hayes
  #32  
Old 12/19/2007, 12:07 PM
HippieSmell HippieSmell is offline
I hug trees, not Bushes
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota
Posts: 2,613
Quote:
Originally posted by steven_dean17
No, I'm not kidding.
GW is almost purely a political and economic problem (and therefore a military and foreign policy issue), I'm not sure how you can think that it isn't. Careful where you go with this though, greenbean frowns on threads going that direction
__________________
The Sand People are easily startled, but they will soon be back, and in greater numbers.

All statements have been peer reviewed.
  #33  
Old 12/19/2007, 12:22 PM
HippieSmell HippieSmell is offline
I hug trees, not Bushes
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota
Posts: 2,613
Quote:
Originally posted by Buckeye ME
New Peer-Reviewed Study Finds ‘Warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence’
Interesting, I'm trying to get my hands on the full article. I'm sure there will be criticisms over the next few months/years, but I really hope the study is correct and not another endless diversion and excuse for inaction if it's wrong.
__________________
The Sand People are easily startled, but they will soon be back, and in greater numbers.

All statements have been peer reviewed.
  #34  
Old 12/19/2007, 04:35 PM
scottras scottras is offline
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 111
Quote:
Originally posted by HippieSmell
Interesting, I'm trying to get my hands on the full article. I'm sure there will be criticisms over the next few months/years, but I really hope the study is correct and not another endless diversion and excuse for inaction if it's wrong.
Here is your critique. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...sphere-trends/
__________________
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." Mahatma Gandhi
  #35  
Old 12/19/2007, 04:40 PM
HippieSmell HippieSmell is offline
I hug trees, not Bushes
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota
Posts: 2,613
Ahhh, thank you. I checked there, but I must have missed it.
__________________
The Sand People are easily startled, but they will soon be back, and in greater numbers.

All statements have been peer reviewed.
  #36  
Old 12/19/2007, 05:32 PM
greenbean36191 greenbean36191 is offline
Soul of a Sailor
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Huntsville/ Auburn, AL
Posts: 7,859
Send a message via AIM to greenbean36191
Quote:
Wrong. They are not talking about rate of increase.
That is correct. As I pointed out they are talking about a decrease because of how they cherry picked statistics. They picked an extreme value, 1998 (an el nino year and the second hottest year on record), as the starting point. If you throw out the outliers or start with more typical years the decreasing trend goes away and actually turns into an increase. You could use the same trick to argue that there's been a 50% decrease in temp since 1934 (the hottest year on record).

Imagine if you kept track of the local high temperatures for the week and they turn out to be 66, 68, 72, 95, 74, 76, 77. If you look at the trend from Sun. to Wed. it's increasing. The same is true if you look from Thur. to Sat. In fact it's true if you use the whole dataset. However, using the same data you can select Wed (95) as the starting point to show that the recent trend has been one of cooling. That's the same trick used when arguing that there is a recent cooling or stabilizing trend. If you start measuring before or after 1998 (assuming you don't pick another exceptional value) that trend disappears.

Quote:
Interesting, I'm trying to get my hands on the full article. I'm sure there will be criticisms over the next few months/years, but I really hope the study is correct and not another endless diversion and excuse for inaction if it's wrong.
I've read the actual article myself and it's nothing earth shattering at all. About 2 years ago the same authors wrote a similar paper stating that globally the models predicted warming while the data showed a cooling trend. Turns out the error was in the observational data. After it was corrected and a longer time period was used the cooling trend disappeared. This time around they only address tropical temps rather than global and admit that the trend is warming, just not as fast as the models predict. The trouble is that the discrepancy is within the area of uncertainty so there is no way to say that it's even real. There are actually newly corrected versions of the observational data (which wasn't used in this paper) that puts the model and observations even closer together. There are numerous other papers on the subject, most of which conclude that there is a difference but we can't tell if it's real. This one only made big news because all three authors are very vocal skeptics and they sent out a sensational press release. Nothing in the paper shows that "Warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence" or supports the absolute statements made in the article.

As for Nahle, it's hard to dispute because I can't follow the point he's trying to make or how he's getting the numbers. I think he's trying to say that solar variability is closely tied to warming/cooling trends. That's never really been a question though. If that's his point and he concludes there is no anthropogenic impact, he's committing the fallacy of assuming a simple cause to a complex problem. Beyond that he's not an expert in the field so I certainly wouldn't count him as a credible source for original work. He may or may not be able to interpret existing data, but based on the conclusions he draws from the graph he provided I'd go with the latter. Either that or he's using different data.
__________________
Lanikai, kahakai nani, aloha no au ia 'oe. A hui hou kakou.
  #37  
Old 12/19/2007, 07:35 PM
greenbean36191 greenbean36191 is offline
Soul of a Sailor
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Huntsville/ Auburn, AL
Posts: 7,859
Send a message via AIM to greenbean36191
I'd been trying to find this article again but couldn't remember where I read it.
__________________
Lanikai, kahakai nani, aloha no au ia 'oe. A hui hou kakou.
  #38  
Old 12/20/2007, 06:44 AM
Rossini Rossini is offline
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 246
Everytime they get shot down.

But when will they realise and listen?
  #39  
Old 12/20/2007, 06:46 AM
Rossini Rossini is offline
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 246
Just like to say thanks to Greenbean,hippie smell,and scottras for defending the facts and exposing the misinformations that a few people like to use. You do it so well. Wise guys.

Have a great christmas guys!

  #40  
Old 12/20/2007, 01:32 PM
Buckeye ME Buckeye ME is offline
Always a Buckeye
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Evansville, IN
Posts: 793
As I showed, people can pull information and data from hundreds of sources to "prove" what they believe. The information "proving" human caused global warming is no better than the information refuting it.

The Earth has varied in temperature since the beginning of time, and we are naive to believe the current temperature state is ideal.

Get off the soapboxes and understand this: the prophets of doom have been ignored by rational individuals since humans began to speak. More crazy people predicting the end of the world will not change the minds of those who can see past the hype.

The Earth has been and will continue to change. Humans adapt and change their ways. If a city floods, move to higher ground (I'm talking to you N.O.). If a previously frozen area thaws to allow crops and habitation, go there and make it useful. Last of all, stop complaining about things you cannot change.
__________________
"Nothing cleanses your soul like getting the hell kicked out of you." - Woody Hayes
  #41  
Old 12/20/2007, 02:17 PM
HippieSmell HippieSmell is offline
I hug trees, not Bushes
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota
Posts: 2,613
Quote:
Originally posted by Buckeye ME
As I showed, people can pull information and data from hundreds of sources to "prove" what they believe. The information "proving" human caused global warming is no better than the information refuting it.
Actually, that's complete and utter crap. The information is not the same. That's the beauty of science, you can prove or provide a high level of certainty that something is correct. It's true that an argument can be made for either side, but the quality of the argument is ultimately only as strong as the evidence that supports it.
__________________
The Sand People are easily startled, but they will soon be back, and in greater numbers.

All statements have been peer reviewed.
  #42  
Old 12/21/2007, 04:18 AM
Rossini Rossini is offline
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 246
Quote:
Originally posted by Buckeye ME
As I showed, people can pull information and data from hundreds of sources to "prove" what they believe. The information "proving" human caused global warming is no better than the information refuting it.

The Earth has varied in temperature since the beginning of time, and we are naive to believe the current temperature state is ideal.

Get off the soapboxes and understand this: the prophets of doom have been ignored by rational individuals since humans began to speak. More crazy people predicting the end of the world will not change the minds of those who can see past the hype.

The Earth has been and will continue to change. Humans adapt and change their ways. If a city floods, move to higher ground (I'm talking to you N.O.). If a previously frozen area thaws to allow crops and habitation, go there and make it useful. Last of all, stop complaining about things you cannot change.
jesus. I'm lost for words.
  #43  
Old 12/21/2007, 09:59 AM
Buckeye ME Buckeye ME is offline
Always a Buckeye
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Evansville, IN
Posts: 793
Quote:
jesus. I'm lost for words.
That's common when you have nothing.


Gravity - proven
The composition of air - proven
Global warming - completely debatable. People need to stop acting like it is fact. It is not.
__________________
"Nothing cleanses your soul like getting the hell kicked out of you." - Woody Hayes
  #44  
Old 12/21/2007, 12:21 PM
HippieSmell HippieSmell is offline
I hug trees, not Bushes
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota
Posts: 2,613
Quote:
Originally posted by Buckeye ME
Gravity - proven
The composition of air - proven
Global warming - completely debatable. People need to stop acting like it is fact. It is not.
Maybe not proven as fact yet, but you need to realize what side of the issue the evidence is pointing towards, strongly pointing towards.
__________________
The Sand People are easily startled, but they will soon be back, and in greater numbers.

All statements have been peer reviewed.
  #45  
Old 12/21/2007, 12:55 PM
Buckeye ME Buckeye ME is offline
Always a Buckeye
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Evansville, IN
Posts: 793
"Strongly" is very subjective at this point. To me, the evidence "strongly" shows there is very little contribution from CO2, and that this is all part of the natural changes experienced by Earth.

Fear/drama/sensationalism sells. See: global COOLING in the 1970s.

I'm not buying.
__________________
"Nothing cleanses your soul like getting the hell kicked out of you." - Woody Hayes
  #46  
Old 12/21/2007, 04:04 PM
HippieSmell HippieSmell is offline
I hug trees, not Bushes
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota
Posts: 2,613
Quote:
Originally posted by Buckeye ME
"Strongly" is very subjective at this point. To me, the evidence "strongly" shows there is very little contribution from CO2, and that this is all part of the natural changes experienced by Earth.

Fear/drama/sensationalism sells. See: global COOLING in the 1970s.

I'm not buying.
Global cooling had no where near the level of evidence or scientific acceptance that GW has. Also, the latest IPCC report calculated the probability that the current warming is entirely natural to be less than 5%. That is STRONG evidence.
__________________
The Sand People are easily startled, but they will soon be back, and in greater numbers.

All statements have been peer reviewed.
  #47  
Old 12/21/2007, 04:27 PM
AquariaOCD AquariaOCD is offline
Registered Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: TEXAS/ESPAÑA
Posts: 296
Quote:
Originally posted by Buckeye ME
"Strongly" is very subjective at this point. To me, the evidence "strongly" shows there is very little contribution from CO2, and that this is all part of the natural changes experienced by Earth.

Fear/drama/sensationalism sells. See: global COOLING in the 1970s.

I'm not buying.
Well said............the world was "flat" in the eyes of scientist in our not too distant past, as well. One FACT that IS irrefutable is that there have been major heating and cooling cycles from the fossil records......................................that is not conjecture or numbers that can be manipulated by those who want to believe one way or the other.

In my home state, Texas, we have more problems in our southern city from pollution being BLOWN in from Mexico. I can see that with my own eyes when I am in the Big Bend. So how much information is being skewed because of winds from the atmosphere in countries with little or no pollution control?? Why is it our responsibility to do anything for other countries (CHINA cough cough) to do something to clean up THEIR act?? The whole "you first" game is an irresponsible attitude from ALL countries. The whole thing makes me think of a bunch of children arguing.....................................and the US has just become the world's scapegoat. Clean air is a good thing. The politics of it is the REAL polution.
__________________
Ars longa, vita brevis.
  #48  
Old 12/21/2007, 09:35 PM
HippieSmell HippieSmell is offline
I hug trees, not Bushes
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota
Posts: 2,613
Quote:
Originally posted by AquariaOCD
Well said............the world was "flat" in the eyes of scientist in our not too distant past, as well. One FACT that IS irrefutable is that there have been major heating and cooling cycles from the fossil records......................................that is not conjecture or numbers that can be manipulated by those who want to believe one way or the other.
So what? You think that those facts haven't been taken into account? Please.

Quote:
Originally posted by AquariaOCD
So how much information is being skewed because of winds from the atmosphere in countries with little or no pollution control??
None.

Quote:
Originally posted by AquariaOCD
Why is it our responsibility to do anything for other countries (CHINA cough cough) to do something to clean up THEIR act?? The whole "you first" game is an irresponsible attitude from ALL countries. The whole thing makes me think of a bunch of children arguing.....................................and the US has just become the world's scapegoat. Clean air is a good thing. The politics of it is the REAL polution.
Actually, other countries DO want to do something. The biggest roadblock is the US and our continual refusal to commit to anything substantial. China and India are major problems, but like you said, it's like children arguing. I suppose the next step is to man-up and DO something. Don't you agree? The US also deserves its scapegoat status as we are the largest polluter, for the near future anyway. I'm sure you just want to wave your flag and put a sticker on you car bumper, but don't delude yourself as to what this country REALLY is.
__________________
The Sand People are easily startled, but they will soon be back, and in greater numbers.

All statements have been peer reviewed.
  #49  
Old 12/22/2007, 07:45 AM
samtheman samtheman is offline
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 483
This is a joke isn't it?

"Global cooling had no where near the level of evidence or scientific acceptance that GW has. Also, the latest IPCC report calculated the probability that the current warming is entirely natural to be less than 5%. That is STRONG evidence."

You put your faith in a UN political committee? Look how well they handle other activities. Why do you think they are right this time?
  #50  
Old 12/22/2007, 05:59 PM
AquariaOCD AquariaOCD is offline
Registered Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: TEXAS/ESPAÑA
Posts: 296
Quote:
Originally posted by HippieSmell
So what? You think that those facts haven't been taken into account? Please.


None.


Actually, other countries DO want to do something. The biggest roadblock is the US and our continual refusal to commit to anything substantial. China and India are major problems, but like you said, it's like children arguing. I suppose the next step is to man-up and DO something. Don't you agree? The US also deserves its scapegoat status as we are the largest polluter, for the near future anyway. I'm sure you just want to wave your flag and put a sticker on you car bumper, but don't delude yourself as to what this country REALLY is.
Wow, hippie, what's the flag and bumper sticker thing all about??????? I have a residence in the US and the EU. Which flag you talkin about?? I do have a flag bumper sticker on my car - it's the flag of CATALUNA. I am a citizen of the WORLD in action - not just in princpal............................... and last time I checked, China was passing us up in hydrocarbon emissions and have done absolutely nothing to improve them. The US is doing some, how about those new mileage regs for cars. What did the rest of the world do last week??
__________________
Ars longa, vita brevis.
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Use of this web site is subject to the terms and conditions described in the user agreement.
Reef Central™ Reef Central, LLC. Copyright ©1999-2009