Perspective on Global Warming - TravelPUNK Backpacker College Student Budget Travel Message Boards!



Go Back   TravelPUNK Backpacker College Student Budget Travel Message Boards! > Members Lounge > Budget Travel Community > General Discussions

General Discussions ANYTHING GOES HERE, BABY! Woot! Woot! Need I say more?!

BOOYAHKASHAA!

Raileurope.com: See Europe by train
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-17-2007, 06:04 AM   #1
TPunk Emeritus
 
LiveFreeorDie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Newly relocated to C-bus - USA
Posts: 2,858
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Perspective on Global Warming

I thought this editorial on the possible impact of global warming to be interesting, particularly with its discussion of the use of exageration by parts of the scientific community.

Global Warming Delusions

By DANIEL B. BOTKIN
October 17, 2007; Page A19
Global warming doesn't matter except to the extent that it will affect life -- ours and that of all living things on Earth. And contrary to the latest news, the evidence that global warming will have serious effects on life is thin. Most evidence suggests the contrary.
Case in point: This year's United Nations report on climate change and other documents say that 20%-30% of plant and animal species will be threatened with extinction in this century due to global warming -- a truly terrifying thought. Yet, during the past 2.5 million years, a period that scientists now know experienced climatic changes as rapid and as warm as modern climatological models suggest will happen to us, almost none of the millions of species on Earth went extinct. The exceptions were about 20 species of large mammals (the famous megafauna of the last ice age -- saber-tooth tigers, hairy mammoths and the like), which went extinct about 10,000 to 5,000 years ago at the end of the last ice age, and many dominant trees and shrubs of northwestern Europe. But elsewhere, including North America, few plant species went extinct, and few mammals.
We're also warned that tropical diseases are going to spread, and that we can expect malaria and encephalitis epidemics. But scientific papers by Prof. Sarah Randolph of Oxford University show that temperature changes do not correlate well with changes in the distribution or frequency of these diseases; warming has not broadened their distribution and is highly unlikely to do so in the future, global warming or not.
The key point here is that living things respond to many factors in addition to temperature and rainfall. In most cases, however, climate-modeling-based forecasts look primarily at temperature alone, or temperature and precipitation only. You might ask, "Isn't this enough to forecast changes in the distribution of species?" Ask a mockingbird. The New York Times recently published an answer to a query about why mockingbirds were becoming common in Manhattan. The expert answer was: food -- an exotic plant species that mockingbirds like to eat had spread to New York City. It was this, not temperature or rainfall, the expert said, that caused the change in mockingbird geography.
You might think I must be one of those know-nothing naysayers who believes global warming is a liberal plot. On the contrary, I am a biologist and ecologist who has worked on global warming, and been concerned about its effects, since 1968. I've developed the computer model of forest growth that has been used widely to forecast possible effects of global warming on life -- I've used the model for that purpose myself, and to forecast likely effects on specific endangered species.
I'm not a naysayer. I'm a scientist who believes in the scientific method and in what facts tell us. I have worked for 40 years to try to improve our environment and improve human life as well. I believe we can do this only from a basis in reality, and that is not what I see happening now. Instead, like fashions that took hold in the past and are eloquently analyzed in the classic 19th century book "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds," the popular imagination today appears to have been captured by beliefs that have little scientific basis.
Some colleagues who share some of my doubts argue that the only way to get our society to change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe, and that therefore it is all right and even necessary for scientists to exaggerate. They tell me that my belief in open and honest assessment is naďve. "Wolves deceive their prey, don't they?" one said to me recently. Therefore, biologically, he said, we are justified in exaggerating to get society to change.
The climate modelers who developed the computer programs that are being used to forecast climate change used to readily admit that the models were crude and not very realistic, but were the best that could be done with available computers and programming methods. They said our options were to either believe those crude models or believe the opinions of experienced, data-focused scientists. Having done a great deal of computer modeling myself, I appreciated their acknowledgment of the limits of their methods. But I hear no such statements today. Oddly, the forecasts of computer models have become our new reality, while facts such as the few extinctions of the past 2.5 million years are pushed aside, as if they were not our reality.
A recent article in the well-respected journal American Scientist explained why the glacier on Mt. Kilimanjaro could not be melting from global warming. Simply from an intellectual point of view it was fascinating -- especially the author's Sherlock Holmes approach to figuring out what was causing the glacier to melt. That it couldn't be global warming directly (i.e., the result of air around the glacier warming) was made clear by the fact that the air temperature at the altitude of the glacier is below freezing. This means that only direct radiant heat from sunlight could be warming and melting the glacier. The author also studied the shape of the glacier and deduced that its melting pattern was consistent with radiant heat but not air temperature. Although acknowledged by many scientists, the paper is scorned by the true believers in global warming.
We are told that the melting of the arctic ice will be a disaster. But during the famous medieval warming period -- A.D. 750 to 1230 or so -- the Vikings found the warmer northern climate to their advantage. Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie addressed this in his book "Times of Feast, Times of Famine: A History of Climate Since the Year 1000," perhaps the greatest book about climate change before the onset of modern concerns with global warming. He wrote that Erik the Red "took advantage of a sea relatively free of ice to sail due west from Iceland to reach Greenland. . . . Two and a half centuries later, at the height of the climatic and demographic fortunes of the northern settlers, a bishopric of Greenland was founded at Gardar in 1126."
Ladurie pointed out that "it is reasonable to think of the Vikings as unconsciously taking advantage of this [referring to the warming of the Middle Ages] to colonize the most northern and inclement of their conquests, Iceland and Greenland." Good thing that Erik the Red didn't have Al Gore or his climatologists as his advisers.
Should we therefore dismiss global warming? Of course not. But we should make a realistic assessment, as rationally as possible, about its cultural, economic and environmental effects. As Erik the Red might have told you, not everything due to a climatic warming is bad, nor is everything that is bad due to a climatic warming.
We should approach the problem the way we decide whether to buy insurance and take precautions against other catastrophes -- wildfires, hurricanes, earthquakes. And as I have written elsewhere, many of the actions we would take to reduce greenhouse-gas production and mitigate global-warming effects are beneficial anyway, most particularly a movement away from fossil fuels to alternative solar and wind energy.
My concern is that we may be moving away from an irrational lack of concern about climate change to an equally irrational panic about it.
Many of my colleagues ask, "What's the problem? Hasn't it been a good thing to raise public concern?" The problem is that in this panic we are going to spend our money unwisely, we will take actions that are counterproductive, and we will fail to do many of those things that will benefit the environment and ourselves.
For example, right now the clearest threat to many species is habitat destruction. Take the orangutans, for instance, one of those charismatic species that people are often fascinated by and concerned about. They are endangered because of deforestation. In our fear of global warming, it would be sad if we fail to find funds to purchase those forests before they are destroyed, and thus let this species go extinct.
At the heart of the matter is how much faith we decide to put in science -- even how much faith scientists put in science. Our times have benefited from clear-thinking, science-based rationality. I hope this prevails as we try to deal with our changing climate.
[FONT='Calibri','sans-serif']Mr. Botkin, president of the Center for the Study of the Environment and professor emeritus in the Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology at the University of California, Santa Barbara, is the author of "Discordant Harmonies: A New Ecology for the Twenty-First Century" (Replica Books, 2001).[/font]
__________________
\\Jamie\\



"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin

"The plural of anecdote is not data"
LiveFreeorDie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2007, 08:32 AM   #2
TPunk Recognized
 
MeTurk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1,590
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Send a message via Skype™ to MeTurk
Default

I don't know what to believe anymore I cam on here a few months ago crying and ranting about channel 4 (UK) "the great global warming swindell" But since then the BBC have hit back with a show specifically aimed at the claims of the C4 show.

Quote:
Should we therefore dismiss global warming? Of course not. But we should make a realistic assessment, as rationally as possible
That's not going to happen, ever!


At the end of the day we have to be having a bad effect on the earth and maybe global warming is just people feeling guilty about the destruction of earth and life but I think from now on I'll side with the global warming is happening team. It's encouraging more economical and efficient use of just about everything. It's encouraging new technologies and a better way of life. We do seriously need an alternative to oil if not for the planets sake we need it for ourselves because it's a simple fact that oil will continue to rise in price to the point where it's just not going to be affordable.
__________________
"It's nice to have a nun around. Gives the place a bit of glamour." Fr Ted
Couchsurfer (:_irritainment_
MeTurk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2007, 05:26 AM   #3
lover of Germany
 
expatben's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ontario,Canada
Posts: 2,660
Thanks: 4
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default

What the effects of global warming will actually be are unknown, what we do know is we as a species are consuming way too much and eventually we will run out of what we need to live unless we act now.
__________________
I have been to: Canada, USA, Iceland, Britain, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Poland, Germany, Sardinia, Switzerland, China, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Uruguay and Morocco.

Do to list: [color=blue][color=black] Australia, New Zealand, Austria India and Bolivia.

[color=blue][i][font=Verdana][color=black]"I'm just another stranger lookin' for the promised land"
expatben is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2007, 12:53 AM   #4
Members
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 720
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

although i hate to agree with al gore. this is really happening, and we need to act now.
not to reverse the damage, but to stop future damage.
wong name is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2007, 01:35 AM   #5
TPunk Recognized
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Cologne/Köln, Germany
Posts: 214
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Send a message via MSN to freakypete
Default

Does it really matter if they are exagerrating? if its making people think and act then surely its a good thing?

Quote:
Take the orangutans, for instance, one of those charismatic species that people are often fascinated by and concerned about. They are endangered because of deforestation. In our fear of global warming, it would be sad if we fail to find funds to purchase those forests before they are destroyed, and thus let this species go extinct.
I dont agree with this last point. Deforestation and global warming are two completely different problems, even if they are caused by the same thing. Global warming is likely to have an effect on these habitats as well.
When has there ever been any suggestion that rainforest protection has been reduced in order to fund more global warming prevention/research?
__________________
"For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

Pete
freakypete is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2007, 05:44 AM   #6
TPunk Emeritus
 
LiveFreeorDie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Newly relocated to C-bus - USA
Posts: 2,858
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Does it really matter if they are exagerrating? if its making people think and act then surely its a good thing?
It does matter if they are exaggerating because the economic impact not only to Western countries but also to developing nations is staggering if you are to initiate policies to truly make a dent (which is still sketchy as to whether its possible to even make much of a difference). We are not talking about recycling your plastics, we are talking about major changes to industrial emmissions and fuel sources. These changes will cost trillions and trillions of dollars. If the problem is overblown then this money could be better spent elsewhere, perhaps buying up more rainforest or developing new aids drugs or drugs for other diseases which will likely kill far more humans in the next century than global warming ever will. There are limited resources at the end of the day and having accurate, TRUTHFUL information to help decide where best to spend these resources is critical.

I am sick of all the hype about global warming when there are hundreds of thousands of people dying every day from famine/hunger, malaria, TB and AIDS. Those are far more pressing issues right now. The earth was warmer 1000 years ago than it is now. Humans did just fine. The overall point is balance and moderation - yes we need to make changes, identify alternative fuel sources, etc. but it shouldn't be such a major focus that other issues get shunted aside or such a major issue that we enact costly agreements, like Kyoto, based on hype. Kyoto btw has tuned out to be a joke. None of the European countries are complying because they can't, it would be economically crippling.
__________________
\\Jamie\\



"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin

"The plural of anecdote is not data"
LiveFreeorDie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2007, 02:12 AM   #7
TPunk Emeritus
 
worldwidemike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Columbus, Ohio USA
Posts: 3,390
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

I'm not sure about this one, Jamie. National Geographic has been focussing its articles of late on global warming and its effects. I don't see them as being part of a "Liberal Plot."

I think whatever effects global warming is having now is about to get a triple size kick in the ass as China and India keep industrializing. Can you imagine their populations consuming the raw materials, producing the greenhouse gases on the same scale as the U.S. does? Consider how much larger their populations are, whatever effects we're seeing now could easily be doubled, tripled or worse...

I think the #1 thing we need to do now is focus on alternative, renewable energy sources. If we come up with something that is much less damaging to the environment, and share that technology with developing nations (Hell, the Chinese would just steal it anyway with their industrial espionage), then we'd be a lot better off, I think.

To think a country the size of China, if it were filled with coal fired power plants belching smoke into the sky, WOULDN'T affect the environment adversely, is wishful thinking, I'm afraid...

worldwidemike
__________________
Check out my travel web page at:
Worldwidemike.com
"Life is not measured in the number of breaths we take, but by the places that take our breath away..."
worldwidemike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2007, 07:43 AM   #8
TPunk Emeritus
 
LiveFreeorDie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Newly relocated to C-bus - USA
Posts: 2,858
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

I am not saying ignore the problem, I am saying that it is not the only problem, that's all. I definately am not saying it is a liberal plot. However, the science on global warming is still highly questionable. It is predicated almost entirely on computer models which have yet to accurately predict anything. Therefore, do we go absolutely balls to the wall to limit CO2 emissions (which again would cost so much money that it would have considerable economic impact to all of us and could cripple the growth of many countries that are trying to catch up to the West) based on less than factual/accurate information or do you take a more moderate approach.

Decisions to implement polices like Kyoto are politics at its worst and do nothing to solve the problem. At the end of the day, I am less concerned with global warming/CO2 emmissions per se than actual pollution of the air and water. I would rather see focus on technologies and laws to force reduction of actual pollution first versus a focus on massive reductions in overall CO2 emmissions (clean or not) when the reality is we have no idea if it will do a thing to stop global warming.

I would like to see China (and all countries really ) reduce the pollutants that are spewed into the air and water. The level of smog in Hong Kong and many other big cities on any given day is atrocious. Reducing CO2 and reducing pollutants though are two different issues.

I agree 110% that we need alternative sources of renewable energy and that more investment needs to be made in those areas. We are not, however, on the edge of a catastrophe and all of the fear mongering is not helping people to make rational, fact based decisions.
__________________
\\Jamie\\



"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin

"The plural of anecdote is not data"
LiveFreeorDie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2007, 02:13 PM   #9
TPunk Moderator
 
pinknic38's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Sierra Vista, AZ
Posts: 2,829
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Send a message via AIM to pinknic38 Send a message via Yahoo to pinknic38 Send a message via Skype™ to pinknic38
Default

I am ashamed to say that I don't know a lot about global warming and dismissed it as "craziness", but now that it's kind of a huge issue it seems, I do need to get into it. I kind of had a renewed sense of the whole "I heart nature" after watching BBC's Planet Earth series. so I just now read this topic and I went today to the local bazaar and got my very own pirated copy of Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth". I didn't care too much for politics at the time Al Gore was in office and only heard my father's crazy ramblings about him (and of course the brilliant SNL sketches ) so I have never really taken him too seriously, but I see that the man won a Nobel Prize for his work, so I figured I should check out the documentary, as I am a documentary whore anyway.

anyone else seen it? I think I am going to watch it when I get off shift in a few hours or when I come into work tomorrow.
__________________
SO FAR: USA, Canada, Mexico, Ireland, Spain, Germany, Poland, Hungary, Kuwait, Qatar, Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan
UP NEXT: Mexico, Belize, Honduras, Grand Cayman Islands - Feb 2012


tpunk gallery * twitter
pinknic38 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2007, 03:09 PM   #10
TPunk Emeritus
 
LiveFreeorDie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Newly relocated to C-bus - USA
Posts: 2,858
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

I have seen it, and many other people on the boards have seen it as well, there was a lllooonnnggggg thread about it awhile back.

Al Gore means well but I was disappointed personally because he used a great deal of exaggeration as well as some factual innaccuracies to try to make his point.

What irritates me to no end in this debate is both sides have a tendency to either cherry pick select bits of data to prove their point (versus using ALL the data to try to find the truth) or use outright factual inaccuracies. Instead of trying to let the data tell a story, they try to find data to tell their story. Both sides do it, I am not on the right about this, nor am I on the left. I want truth and facts, not BS.

Much of the global warming theorists' argument lies with computer models that predict (key word: predict) future warming. Well, these models have been hugely innaccurate to date. We can't predict the weather more than 2 days ahead, we certainly cannot predict global climate trends years into the future. These models are used in Gore's documentary. Just keep an open mind.

The facts as I see them are:

1.)Is there some evidence that indicates parts of the globe are warming - Yes. (but some parts of Antarctica are cooling...huh?)
2.)Do we know this is caused by man? No.
3.)Fact - it was warmer 1000 years ago when Vikings were farming Greenland then it is now. Why? No one knows.
4.)Do we know reducing carbon emmissions will do one bit of good to reduce what we think is global warming? No - it could be part of the normal warming cycle the planet goes through.
5.)Will it be hugely expensive to implement changes to greatly reduce carbon emmissions quickly? Yes.
6.)Will this have a negative impact on a lot of people because the cost of goods goes up signifcantly, particularly poorer peoples in less developed nations? Yes.
6.)What is the real impact to human life of global warming? Unknown. The only thing that exists are wildly differing predictive models and theories by all sorts of scientists who can't agree on anything.

What should we do? Focus on investing in alternative energy but don't make any rash decisions? It's not an easy call. For sure pollution needs to be reduced, but its not exactly the same as reducing carbon emmissions. Not all carbon emissions contain pollutants.

A good example of the confusion is ethanol. All the environmentalists love ethanol. Corn farmers love ethanol too - it is making them a shit load of money. It turns out that the carbon footprint of corn based ethanol, because of the need for all of the fertilizers to grow the corn winds up being larger than the carbon footprint for regular gasoline, so there is little environmental benefit of corn based ethanol. Apparently sugar based ethanol is much better from that perspective, but its all produced in Brazil and there are tarriffs so it wont be imported into the States. That's what I have read. Is it true? Who knows. What is fact is that the price of corn is through the roof. Other types of basic produce like wheat is now very expensive as well because everyone is growing corn so now there is less wheat. That means bread is much more expensive now than it was 2 years ago. Is it good that people can't afford bread so we can produce ethanol????? What is more important? Not sure I have an answer, just the question.

None of the data and viewpoints out there are clear. Everyone has an agenda and an angle to push and there is little to no unbiased reporting or fact based analysis. It's maddening. That's the end of my rant and my last comment on this subject on these boards.
__________________
\\Jamie\\



"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin

"The plural of anecdote is not data"
LiveFreeorDie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2007, 08:02 PM   #11
No one regrets traveling
 
joe7f's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 2,056
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Send a message via AIM to joe7f Send a message via Skype™ to joe7f
Default

The environment, like the economy, has some real counterintuitive aspects. For example, recycling paper is a waste of time, money and resources. You don't save a tree, because paper is largely coming from farms meant to grow trees. By constantly replacing fully grown trees with small ones, you are actually sequestering more CO2 (small trees like small children grow faster).

Collecting the paper is not without consequence. We aren't powering our collection vehicles with solar power. We are spewing the same noxious fumes picking up those green bins as we are going to the supermarket.

Moreover, the recycled paper is substandard in quality, which makes businesses not want it. Someone I know works in a building materials plant which uses newspaper for lining a product. Because they have always used newspaper that was at most 10% recycled content, and now it is much higher, the product breaks down. It is creating more waste that as to be hauled away by, you guessed it, fossil fuel powered cars. So what does recycling paper do? It makes people feel good.

Environmentalism has to be a science and not a religion.

--Joey
__________________


Countries visited: USA, Netherlands, Norway, France, Switzerland, Germany, Spain (and Gibraltar), Italy, Belgium, Hungary, Austria, Ireland, UK, Japan, Canada , Portugal, Czech Republic, Poland, Andorra, Croatia, Montenegro

Next up: Mongolia, China

"I sought trains; I found passengers" - Paul Theroux

Help Travelpunk's continued existence with a small donation
joe7f is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2007, 09:08 PM   #12
An Optimistic Realist.
 
Sijuki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Detroit / Las Vegas
Posts: 3,294
Thanks: 2
Thanked 10 Times in 10 Posts
Send a message via AIM to Sijuki Send a message via MSN to Sijuki Send a message via Yahoo to Sijuki
Default

I don't jump on the hype about Global Warming. I had a friend at my store in Taylor kind of take offense to that. As I said, it's been warm before, it's been cold before. Are humans having an effect... yeah. Everything has an effect in some way. My issue with most people and their global warming effort is just like the editorial writer put it. It's creates hysteria, and is usually highly misinformed, and causes irrational decisions.

I have always plotted myself as a realist. Animals and plants will become extinct, things will change, and new will come around. While I support helping endangered species, is it prudent for humans to force a species to stay alive, if nature is removing it? Plenty of current endangered creatures are from humans, and honestly little attention gets paid to them.

All of these efforts, are honestly, somewhat humorous to me sometimes. People fighting and campaigning and traveling, and mailing, and writing to get money to help save the polkadotted slant gilled gorilla fish whale. I had never heard of the gorilla fish whale til I read that piece of junk mail, and I bet a couple billion people around the world never will. Until I read an article about it I never knew there were dolphins in the major rivers of China. Actually, there might not be any anymore, the last sighting I think was 2004. Many of these problems are caused by government. Yes, I will place a large amount of the blame on Gov't. Gov't, especially ones that like to poke into our lives like the U.S., China, India, EU, etc. set standards. Our gov't should be concerned about the environment. If their country becomes a wasteland, they lose their power. Our gov't should set the standards required to meet the goals we need to meet for clean industry, saving forests, saving creatures, and keeping water clean.

I read an article not too long ago here in LV about how with Global Warming, Las Vegas will disappear and become a ghost town. This will happen because in Global Warming we will no longer have water or rain, and we won't have gas or oil, and we get all our power from gas and oil. This, that, the other about blah blah blah global warming is gonna fuck us all in the ass. Quite frankly I wanted to find the writer and stab him, with a gel pen, in the neck... in the name of stopping global warming of course, one less person to fart and put methane in the air and breath out dangerous CO2 and drink my water and use my oil. That bastard. They say within my lifetime the SE US could become a desert, cities like New Orleans, Miami, and Bangkok will succumb to the sea. And with any luck that long pased rumor of Cali falling into the Pacific might happen. Who knows.

I can rant and ramble on about things, but frankly it all doesn't matter. I am using electricity to type this, sitting in my house with air conditioning, and tomorrow I will take a bus to work and carry on with life. Some big industrial company will dump millions of tons of pollution into our rivers and air, and all the enviro-warming freaks will walk out of their houses, get in the SUV's, burn a few barrels of gas going to Starbucks to get a Venti Cap with two maybe three shots of espresso and tell me i should wipe my ass with leaves to save trees, and not eat beef because cows farting is raising the temperature and causes them to use their ac more often. The biggest voices will be the biggest hypocrites and in the end the people on the bottom will get short end of the deal. By time we get stuck with an unliveable environment, all those people will have funded a way to get their ass to the Moon or Mars and tell us all we got what we deserved. Unfortunately, they will forget to take the nuclear weapons with them and we can blow their sorry asses up too.

That was some ramblin... and frankly I am not sure it made any sense... but you know what I'm sayin.
__________________
.~Sijuki~.



2009-2014: February - Mexico (Cancun x 3, Cozumel x 1, Mazatlan x 2

2014 : Europe: Norway, Denmark, Hungary, Czech Rep, Germany, France, England

2015 : US:Yellowstone, Grand Teton, Joshua Tree NP, Salton Sea, Grand Canyon, Petrified Forest, Mt. Rushmore. 20 states. Europe: Stockholm, Barcelona, Madrid, Prague, Krakow, Warsaw, Ireland (month driving around), Northern Ireland, Edinburgh.

2021: Europe?

Need a Railpass for that Trip to Europe?
Or Maybe a Hostel Reservation?
Frog Creek Brewing -- Upcoming Microbrewery

Sijuki@gmail.com
Sijuki is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply






Thread Tools
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 Off



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:43 PM.



 

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 (Unregistered)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121