hburgnews.com

Comment from writergirl
Time: May 15, 2007, 1:19 pm

Somewhat related I guess; Fallwell found unconscious.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/15/jerry.falwell.ap/index.html

Comment from finnegan
Time: May 15, 2007, 1:25 pm

Hmm. If he dies, I wonder what he’ll be remembered for?

Comment from JGFitzgerald
Time: May 15, 2007, 1:42 pm

I am currently writing 500 times: I will go to Hell if I joke about Falwell’s misfortune.

“Falwell denounces global warming, succumbs”

Make that 1,000.

Comment from zen
Time: May 15, 2007, 1:49 pm

Falwell out

Comment from finnegan
Time: May 15, 2007, 2:04 pm

And his last words in the international press were, “Despite all the hype by liberal politicians, the media, Hollywood and so forth, it is not yet proven by any means that greenhouse gas emissions are the cause of global warming.”

Comment from writergirl
Time: May 15, 2007, 2:06 pm

You know what’s sad, every time I think of him I think of Teletubbies.

Comment from cook
Time: May 15, 2007, 2:53 pm

As a long-ago alum of Liberty University, I have a much different view of Jerry than most of you on the outside. It is a shame, really, that the caricature of Falwell (which is not a false picture, just an incomplete one) is how he is known and how the school is perceived. Certainly Falwell, even with all of his flaws and bombast, was a strong leader and a man of great vision: look at what he was able to produce and sustain throughout a very long career. My fond memories of life at Liberty are recollections of wonderful faculty members/mentors and a great student body; Jerry is almost nonexistent in those memories except as the guy up front during chapel services and out front at basketball games.

Comment from Loren Swartzendruber
Time: May 15, 2007, 4:16 pm

Despite our differences on some theological issues as noted in the BBC coverage of U.S. evangelical church response to reported climate change, the EMU community is saddened by the news of Rev. Falwell’s death. We lift the Liberty University community, as well as Rev. Falwell’s family and friends, up in prayer at this difficult time, and extend our condolences as a sister university from Virginia.

Comment from Dave Briggman
Time: May 15, 2007, 6:38 pm

finnegan, it was nice of your to point out, that Reverend Falwell’s last words were correct…if greenhouse gases are the cause of global warming and we’re the creators of greenhouse gases, explain the poles melting on Mars?

We it not for global warming 10s of millions of years ago, we’d still be in an ice age. I bet you think Al Gore invented the internet, too. :-)

Comment from JGFitzgerald
Time: May 15, 2007, 7:45 pm

A man went out upon a binge,
Homesteading on the rightward fringe
On no wide range did he impinge,
For he swung on a single hinge.

He said the towers didn’t fall,
Because of aeroplanes at all,
And once he built a mighty fort
Around the cause of child support.
He said the world would be less grim
If only we would list to him.
There’d be less death and lots more fun
If everyone would pack a gun.
He gave this bullet-pointed edict
With knowledge most encyclopedic
About the fearful college minions
And the state AG opinions,
And with the mem’ry of an elephant,
Caring not if it was relevant.
Now Katrina-like he’s storming,
That there is no global warming.
And his climatic argument stars
The fact that we don’t live on Mars.

And though I fight him long and selfless,
In the end I still am helpless;
For he’ll always say with force,
I voted for that damned golf course.

Comment from writergirl
Time: May 15, 2007, 8:09 pm

Oh my gosh!!!! Joe, you have a way with words!! I know I probably shouldn’t be….but I am laughing!

Comment from Dave Briggman
Time: May 15, 2007, 8:13 pm

He has me laughing too, admittedly.

Perhaps he could, some day, replace Charles Osgood and he penchant with rhyme.

Comment from Dave Briggman
Time: May 15, 2007, 9:35 pm

Dr. Swartzendruber:

Can you tell us why EMU accepts federal tax dollars for the financial aid of students and federal tax dollars in the form of grants to complete buildings on your campus, but your campus not only refuses to fly the flag of this country, but also forced “college night” for the local government schools to move from your campus because your campus disallowed military recruiters?

Comment from writergirl
Time: May 15, 2007, 9:45 pm

Oh good grief. Dave do you ever get tired? You know, just tired of having things to be unhappy with people about? You had like 5 seconds of levity there….and then right back on it!

Comment from writergirl
Time: May 15, 2007, 9:50 pm

I retract my question….because I’m tired, and because I know you’ll attack me.

Comment from Benny Neal
Time: May 15, 2007, 10:10 pm

Have you heard of “don’t be a dick?”…well, the new saying is “don’t be a dave”.

Comment from finnegan
Time: May 15, 2007, 10:44 pm

Not only way off topic, but inappropriate, given the nature of Loren’s comment.

Poor form, Dave.

Comment from Dave Briggman
Time: May 15, 2007, 11:05 pm

Have you heard of “having your butt handed to you in an election”, Benny?

I suspect you’ll have the experience in November.

Comment from Benny Neal
Time: May 16, 2007, 7:25 am

Finnegan,
Sorry about that,it was inappropriate on my part.

Comment from zen
Time: May 16, 2007, 8:32 am

Hey Dave,
You might be surprised to know that we are not currently in an ice age, so all that trapped heat certainly isn’t going to be beneficial.
Look around and today and try to keep count how many cars you see on the roads today. How can you honestly think that all the millions of cars on the road, plus every other greenhouse gas spewing mechanism is not negatively impacting the earth? Seriously what’s blocking you from simple, observable logic?

And so even if human activity were not the cause or a major contribution—so what?! The earth’s temperature IS rising. So quickly in fact that there will be devestating implications.

I guess it’s all just a big joke to you.

Comment from Josh
Time: May 16, 2007, 8:53 am

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/05/15/jerryfalwell/

THE STONE IS CAST

Jerry Falwell spent a career demonizing others. Upon his death, what else could he expect in return?

By Alan Wolfe, Salon.com

May 15, 2007 | One never wants to speak ill of the dead, but in the case of Jerry Falwell, how can one not? Falwell will always be remembered for his “700 Club” comment in the wake of Sept. 11: “I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America, I point the finger in their face and say ‘you helped this happen.’” Even though Falwell later apologized, the damage had been done: A sacred moment had been used for profane purpose.

And that, really, is Falwell’s legacy. To the religious life of the United States he made no significant contribution. But to the political life of the country, he made one: He founded the Moral Majority. In so doing, Falwell managed to take something holy — one does not have to be a Christian to admire the life and teachings of Jesus Christ — and turned it into something partisan and divisive. Falwell, the quintessential conservative Christian, was always more conservative than Christian. To the extent that history will remember him, it will be as a politician, not as a preacher.

Even Falwell’s political contribution, despite the success of the Republicans during the Reagan years, left a mixed legacy behind. But the Moral Majority disbanded in 1989, prompting the inevitable thought that Falwell’s ideas were neither moral nor in the majority. The movement of conservative Protestants into the base of the Republican Party was far too important a task to be entrusted to a man as oblivious to public relations as Falwell. Once the Ralph Reeds and Karl Roves took over the task of blending religion and politics, there was no room for Falwell. Longing for Washington, he had to settle for Lynchburg, Va.

But then there was cable television, the perfect medium for someone as shallow as this man. Falwell appeared so many times on cable news that one tended to forget how little influence he actually wielded. Had it not been for cable television, Falwell would have been forgotten long ago (and I would not be writing about his legacy). He was perfect for the world created by Fox: extremist, polarizing, Manichaean. (The Manichees, a Persian sect that for a time attracted the great Saint Augustine, adhered to a black-and-white reality in which evil was always in an endless struggle with the good.) Five minutes of hate followed by a commercial break: It is not a format fit for all, but for Falwell, it fit like a glove.

Conservative Christianity has been trying to recover from Falwell for the past two decades. Just as his political views were too buffoonish to make the Moral Majority a reality, his religious sensibilities were too shallow to spread evangelical Protestantism. Evangelicalism grew in the exurban megachurches, and the megachurches, implicitly and occasionally explicitly, rejected Falwell’s approach to the faith. Rick Warren, Joel Osteen, Bill Hybels — these inclusive preachers inherited the mantle of Billy Graham, not Falwell and his great rival Pat Robertson. With the maturation of American evangelicalism has come an interest in social justice, environmentalism and peace. The people who represent evangelical Protestantism’s future want little or nothing to do with injustice, pollution and war.

Of course America’s megachurches offer a thin theology equivalent to twelve-step theology. But Falwell’s contribution to American religion was even less than that. Falwell’s university — Liberty University — never achieved anything resembling serious academic status, although it did produce a decent enough basketball team. Falwell’s church, Thomas Road Baptist Church, with its Scopes-trial era insistence on hell and damnation, was not what American Christians wanted to hear. Falwell’s 1980 book, “Listen, America,” is an embarrassing string of clichés. “Sin is a transgression of God’s law and God’s law is unalterable,” Falwell wrote. “To sin is to voluntarily disobey God and His divine laws.” But it was not the sinfulness of human beings that preoccupied Falwell; it was the sinfulness of the country in which they lived: “Sin brings reproach upon a people. This is the reason we are in a nosedive as a nation.” Less than 50 years after the defeat of Nazi Germany, Falwell could write of America that “we have become one of the most blatantly sinful nations of all time.” Falwell’s theology, such as it was, never made clear how America could be both the promised land and Gomorrah at the same time.

Instead of pondering Jerry Falwell’s legacy, we would be better off asking how this man ever become a public figure in the first place. America has had more than its share of religiously inspired demagogues — Dr. Fred Swartz, Billy James Hargis, Carl McIntyre come to mind — but they are forgotten figures, marginal even to the times in which lived. One would like to believe that the United States has become a bigger and better country since the days when men like them preached about captive nations and denounced the pernicious influence of rock ‘n’ roll. But then there is Jerry Falwell. In death, as he did in life, he reminds us that demagoguery never dies; it just changes its form. Jerry Falwell expressed great hate for a lot of his fellow Americans. It is no wonder that so many of them will greet his death with something less than love.

Copyright ©2007 Salon Media Group, Inc.

Comment from Dave Briggman
Time: May 16, 2007, 12:22 pm

Zen, the average temperature rise over the last century is less than ONE (1) degree fahrenheit.

Perhaps, you would consider reading this piece from a Professor of Meteorology from M.I.T.?

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html

The SUN is hotter, zen, which is why temps are rising on all of the planets in the solar system.

Comment from Frank Witt
Time: May 16, 2007, 12:57 pm

But Dave, don’t you want the blame instead?

People will ignore any facts that don’t fit their agendas.

Comment from zen
Time: May 16, 2007, 1:04 pm

Dave, the science is against you. And also against Mr. Lindzen.
Why don’t you do a little digging and see if you can tell us who the underwriter was for that article you link to. Or maybe who he was contracted to consult for, and then get back to us on how independent his opinion is.

I ask you again Dave. The temps are rising, so what difference does it make in the end?
Ice caps are still melting. Coastal populations are still being threatened. Millions of people potentially displaced. Untold expanses of infrastructure destroyed.
So what’s your plan? Joke us all into dealing with reality?

Comment from JGFitzgerald
Time: May 16, 2007, 1:13 pm

Frank,

Just curious, and not trying to pick a fight: What is the supposed “agenda” of those who believe the warnings about global warming?

Comment from Deona Landes Houff
Time: May 16, 2007, 1:26 pm

My aunt recently told me what she heard Mark Warner say about global warning and this is a huge paraphrase: “If you don’t want to believe Al Gore, consider what Arnold Swartzenegger says: ‘If 98 out of 100 doctors say your child is sick, you are going to have that child treated. 98 out of 100 scientists believe in global warming. Ergo … ‘”

Comment from Frank Witt
Time: May 16, 2007, 2:01 pm

Haven’t really had much to comment on recently, so as a regular listener of dave’s from WSVA I figured I just stir the pot alittle.

Nothing really meant by it more than that and from your response JGF some people appear ready to fight to how who is right or wrong…

But I hope you do realize that the price of corn is out of control now becuase of the government pushing ethanol.The corn farmers may like the price of a bussel but they have to pay more for the feed end as well. Now, get ready for a spike in the soybean market as those farmers are now jumping to corn without thinking things out.

When you start using FEED, both animal and human, you start to drivethe prices up. Chicken parts and whole are at an almost all-time high as will turkeys and beef and everything else that you feed corn to.

This is not the answer to whatever gas problems we MIGHT have…besides the oil companies price-gouging. By the year 2017 the prez would like to ethanol account for 10% of the fuel.

Way too much cost involved to be worth anything.

Comment from zen
Time: May 16, 2007, 2:17 pm

Try growing Hemp.

Comment from JGFitzgerald
Time: May 16, 2007, 2:22 pm

Frank,

Not so much ready to fight, as to avoid sideshows. Ethanol’s a bust. No argument. But that doesn’t mean the earth’s not warming. Windmills kill migratory birds. But that doesn’t mean the earth’s not warming. Ice has ebbed and flowed before. But that doesn’t mean it won’t flood areas inhabited by hundreds of millions of people. I’m spending a week this summer on a beach that may be ocean-bed in 50 years, and I can’t see how demonizing Al Gore will stop that. I can search the web and find apparently reputable scientists and historians who will tell me there’s no global warming, there were few guns in frontier America, planes didn’t take down the twin towers, and JFK is married to Marilyn Monroe and living in Uruguay. They would be, in no particular order, misinformed, misguided, wrong, and/or whacko. So does that mean I have an “agenda”?

Comment from Benjamin
Time: May 16, 2007, 2:41 pm

I have trouble understanding why people have such strong feelings against climate change. If something bad is happening that can potentially have a negative impact on everyone on the planet, why spend so much effort trying to disprove it? The scientific community has come to a virtual consensus. Who are Rev. Falwell, Pres. Bush, and other politicians to decide on matters of science? Government officials testified back in 05′ to congressional committees admitting that they edited documents to remove the scientific link between fossil fuels and climate change. What motive would drive people to be so against it? It is great having the oil companies determine our nation’s policies.

http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1214

Comment from Dave Briggman
Time: May 16, 2007, 3:03 pm

Joe, Ben, ,zen, finnegan, et al.,

It’s actually my fault because I drive a Suburban.

Virginia’s own state climatologist, whom I believe wrote the piece I referenced on cato.org, says we’re not causing “global warming”… there are many scientists who believe that the warming temperatures are causing an increase in greenhouse gases — and not the reverse.

The agenda here is both political and economic…political because our socialist left (having lost the communist ideology) has now swung into the enviro-whacko movement whose name is global warming, economic in just the same war the drug and gang “wars” are: lots of government grant money available to be pissed away on research/programs to combat the problem.

Much of the global warming crowd are the same people who two decades ago swore we were hearing into an ice age again, such as in this Newsweek article in the 1970s, the text of which is here:

http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

Lastly, science involves knowledge that can be proven using the scientific method…consensus represents “belief” and not necessarily proven using the scientific method. Come back when you’re ready to use science.

Comment from Frank Witt
Time: May 16, 2007, 3:09 pm

Its not so much about feelings against climate change but it has deeper roots because all the scientists are pointing theri collective fingers at America. WE alone do not drive the destruction train. China is a bigger polluter than we are. They continue to alter landscape to feed their need for space but no one gives a damn about that.

Forget it…just like i said above…just trying to stir the pot

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/issues8/index.htm

Comment from Frank Witt
Time: May 16, 2007, 3:14 pm

oh, and where can I bury the mercury from my broken CFL’s ? Something like 6,600 tons of dirt to properly cover the mercury from ONE broken bulb.

Maybe the dirt can be made into a beach so people can go get skin cance while on vacation.

Comment from Dave Briggman
Time: May 16, 2007, 3:17 pm

Frank, watch out…it’s about $2,000 to clean up the mercury, should the bulb burst in your house.

Comment from Frank Witt
Time: May 16, 2007, 3:19 pm

Yeah that us what I am referring to. But NO ONE had said anything about that aspect because it doesn’t fit what they are pumping.

Comment from JGFitzgerald
Time: May 16, 2007, 3:32 pm

Let me try asking it a different way: Who are “they” and what are they “pumping”? What’s the “agenda”?

Comment from John
Time: May 16, 2007, 3:33 pm

http://www.nema.org/lamprecycle/epafactsheet-cfl.pdf

Comment from zen
Time: May 16, 2007, 3:34 pm

Ah yes…more jokes.
Dave, I’d still like to know how you propose we respond to the threat that rising temperatures pose.

Also, instead of pointing to “much of the global warming crowd” and the now infamous Newsweek article, why doesn’t anyone ever reference a scientific journal?

Comment from JGFitzgerald
Time: May 16, 2007, 3:44 pm

Dave,

Are you answering the “agenda” question for Frank? If so, try again. I love the capitalist system. Cars, house, computer, TVs, TiVo, cell phone — everything but a good gun. But are you saying I lean more toward peer-reviewed journals than a 20-year-old Newsweek because I’m a socialist?

Just asking, mind you. Clarifying, in case I need to add a verse. “Peer-reviewed” and “really screwed” rhyme pretty nicely, don’t you think?

Comment from David Miller
Time: May 16, 2007, 3:50 pm

The Cato Institute is a very thinly veiled Conservative Think Tank (THIS IS A FACT, we who reside in reality prefer fact to fiction). Dave Briggman, you are wrong because you ignore facts. You claim that our world is increasing in temperature because the Sun is getting hotter, fine. If that is the case then why would you be opposed to thinning the blanket (CO2) that we are making for ourselves. If the sun is getting hotter, then we need to take the blanket down a bit don’t we. Why must you insist on half truths that only FOX news can report with a straight face. Do you believe what you write or do YOU have an agenda?

Comment from Frank Witt
Time: May 16, 2007, 4:04 pm

BUT WHY ARE AMERICANS THTE ONLY GROUP GETTING HOLLARED AT ?

Comment from JGFitzgerald
Time: May 16, 2007, 4:09 pm

Americans get and deserve more of the criticism for global warming for two reasons: one is that we cause more of it proportionally, and the other is that our position as the best nation on earth gives us the responsibility to lead on the topic.

Comment from Dave Briggman
Time: May 16, 2007, 4:30 pm

The CATO Institute is libertarian in nature, much of which jives with conservatism…a FACT reported by People for the American Way, which is not exactly a favorite of conservatives — or libertarians.

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=9261

Sorry, I don’t watch Fox News so I can’t tell you what they report.

From what I understand, human-generated CO2 accounts for

Comment from David Miller
Time: May 16, 2007, 4:37 pm

The fist sentence in the first screen shot of the first paragraph from the link you provided “The Cato Institute is a libertarian think tank that often works in coalitions with right-wing groups. “

Comment from David Miller
Time: May 16, 2007, 5:04 pm

I’d hear more as to the unfinished sentence that you were working on.

Try the Christian Science Monitor “So what does the future hold? An acceleration of the buildup, according to a Monitor analysis of power-industry data. Despite Kyoto limits on greenhouse gases, the analysis shows that nations will add enough coal-fired capacity in the next five years to create an extra 1.2 billion tons of CO2 per year.”

or The USGS “Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006) -” Marland, G., Boden, T.A., and Andres, R.J., 2006, Global, Regional, and National Fossil Fuel CO2 Emissions, In Trends: A Compendium of data on global change, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Dept. of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn., U.S.A. (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/meth_reg.htm)

Seemingly, there isn’t an agreed upon number but the avaition industry has settled on the following “With 130 to 180 million tons of jet fuel per year, aviation burns approximately five to six percent of the global petrol products. Based on the higher number, this results in an emission of 567 million tons of carbon dioxides per year, which would be appropriate to 2,2 percent of the human generated CO2 emissions.” http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRHeft/FRH9806/FR9806g.htm

Didn’t know where you were heading with your unfinished sentence but thought that by using SCIENTIFIC FACTS, I could assist your argument.

Comment from finnegan
Time: May 16, 2007, 5:09 pm

If you look at this map you can see where the majority of the greenhouse gasses are being produced per capita (North America, Australia). I’s tend to agree with Fitzgerald that those countries deserve the largest portion of the blame.

The continued production of these gasses (by consumers and businesses) is connected to money flowing in from non-renewable energy industries like petroleum and coal.

I suppose we all tend to self-indoctrinate ourselves, believing only what we want to believe, and writing the rest off as a right wing or left wing conspiracy. However, I always tend to get suspicious whenever there are large sums of money involved. For example, why would the oil industry want a car on the market that uses no gas? Especially when there are still billions of dollars worth of petroleum still in the ground?

Lots of powerful people (advertisers in the media) have a vested interest in saying that global warming does not exist.

Comment from Frank Witt
Time: May 16, 2007, 5:37 pm

PLEEEEEZZEEEE !

Using a map that links to Wiki….OMG

Check how much coal china burns before reading anything that links to WIKI…OMG

Comment from David Miller
Time: May 16, 2007, 6:02 pm

Frank please elaborate , also Finnegan remember that this is a per capita rating system. Not gross.

Comment from David Miller
Time: May 16, 2007, 7:04 pm

Also, upon further investigation of the map you linked to, it doesn’t have CO2 emission data for china!

Comment from Frank Witt
Time: May 16, 2007, 7:27 pm

Dave, what I am mentioning…….you know what?, nevermind. There is nothin in this conversation that even makes me believe one side or the other.

Just 2 groups (in favor of believing and not in favor of believing) wanting to show they are right…but…no one wins in this one.

Comment from Del Marval
Time: May 16, 2007, 7:46 pm

“Frank, watch out…it’s about $2,000 to clean up the mercury, should the bulb burst in your house.”

You got a source on this besides the Worldnetdaily.com article? Just curious. When the Wacknetdaily article was first making the rounds, I couldn’t find anything to back it up.

Comment from Del Marval
Time: May 16, 2007, 7:54 pm

Actually, I see since then the story has been picked up by the usual suspects. But here’s something on the toxic lightbulb story from snopes.

http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/cfl.asp

Comment from Thanh
Time: May 16, 2007, 10:54 pm

1) Dave, Patrick Michaels who claimed to be Virginia’s state climatologist has been quite controversial. In 2006, the governor’s office asked Michaels to refrain from using his title on non-state business because they feared his views would be considered as Virginia’s official views. ( http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?ID=6045&Method=Full&PageCall=&Title=Virginia%20Governor%3A%20Michaels%20Does%20Not%20Speak%20for%20the%20State&Cache=False ) And then later the state clarified that the code of Virginia does not appoint a state climatologist ( http://www.dailyprogress.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=CDP%2FMGArticle%2FCDP_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1149190060797&path= ) He’s not a good reference.

2) CFLs. John linked to an EPA factsheet above ( http://www.nema.org/lamprecycle/epafactsheet-cfl.pdf ) that describes how incandescent light bulb usage results in more release of mercury into the environment. Here is another link: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/05/ask_treehugger_14.php . Let me also add that the amount of mercury released from coal burning for electricity to run incandecents is of a greater amount than the mercury in CFLs and the energy to run them combined. Most of the energy for our region comes from coal.

3) I do believe in climate change because I have found a lot of evidence to support it, and no evidence against it that makes sense to me. But regardless of whether you or I believe in climate change or not, there is no reason why we can’t change/improve our behaviors to decrease pollution - think about particulate matter and other toxins that enter the air from cars, coal burning, etc that are also believed to cause climate change. You can’t argue against respiratory problems caused by some of these emissions. Even if you don’t believe there is 100% proof that climate change is happening or that its a result of human activities, why risk putting future generations and the entire planet at risk? It doesn’t hurt to turn off the lights in a room you’re not using, or walking to the store instead of driving your car there… every little bit could (I believe it does) make a huge difference when its added with everyone else’s every little bit.

4) I am glad to see that there are people “talking” about climate change, that its worth something to discuss.

Comment from Benjamin
Time: May 17, 2007, 8:53 am

Frank,

I thought we were the world leader on important issues. Since when does America wait for China to take the first step? We are the innovators with the foresight and technology to make smart decisions independently. Don’t countries usually follow our example?

Comment from Barnabas
Time: May 17, 2007, 10:20 am

I’m sure it’s all wal-marts fault.
Shipping cheap crap from china and then using trucks to ship it all over the U.S. and the world.
And then everyone drives their SUVs from all over the boondocks to go to wal-mart instead of bying at the mom and pop shop in their own town.
Shop online, the internet has a much better selection and better prices. Buy your produce from your closest grocer / farmers market. The best way to be globally minded is to be locally minded.

Comment from Maria
Time: May 17, 2007, 3:41 pm

Mr. Briggman got these “facts” from where he gets most of his arguing points. Boortz has been spewing the thousands of cubic feet of dirt to contain the mercury nonsense over the past few days.
One would think these bulbs were just invented.

Comment from JGFitzgerald
Time: May 17, 2007, 3:59 pm

Maria,

I can’t criticize the idea of getting environmental science from Boortz. I get most of my medical knowledge from Grey’s Anatomy. Of course, I keep a general practitioner on the side in case Derek and Meredith are busy pouting when I develop a symptom. I hope those who deny global climate change (can we call them anti-climatic?) keep a spare spaceship on hand for when we burn out this planet.

Comment from Dave Briggman
Time: May 17, 2007, 4:14 pm

Uh oh…the “global warming” brigade is beginning to fold, including some of the main scientists who started the hysteria:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12&Region_id=&Issue_id=

Comment from Dave Briggman
Time: May 17, 2007, 4:15 pm

Oh crap, that damn global warming caused average April temps to fall.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html

Comment from Dave Briggman
Time: May 17, 2007, 4:34 pm

Hey, I know…how about all of you who believe in global warming, please tell us that if it is done by human activity, how is it that climate changed prior to man’s arrival on earth?

Comment from zen
Time: May 17, 2007, 5:03 pm

Dave, honestly…do you think that the burning of fossil fuels has no bad implications on the earth’s climate?

Comment from Frank witt
Time: May 17, 2007, 5:32 pm

Zen, what would you like us to do about transportation, electricity, and food preperation…

Let me guess what the answers would be…
Walk…can’t ride a bike becuase it takes metals and rubber and synthetic materials to build a bike.

Electricity… can’t be wind turbines, solar energy only works on sunny days becuase the batteries are made while polluting the enviroment with chemicals, can’t use hydro- electric dams becuase you would have to flood areas that people are living in…

Cooking…can’t use trees because cutting tree would cause deforrestation and erosion. Plus the smoke from all those fires would only add to the pollution…

Huh, this should be good.

Comment from JGFitzgerald
Time: May 17, 2007, 5:42 pm

If the globe were warming, then this would make it worse.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/05/17/climate.ocean.reut/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

It’s about an article from the journal Science. Not the journal Faith. Not the journal Best Guesses. Not the journal Maybe. Science. See how that works.

Comment from Frank witt
Time: May 17, 2007, 5:53 pm

What are your answers for turning it around JGF ? I need to be shown what the answers are that you guys have…please

Comment from finnegan
Time: May 17, 2007, 5:58 pm

Frank,

Here are 6 pages of answers.

Comment from Daytonres
Time: May 17, 2007, 6:03 pm

Why discount the sun heating up? Gradeschool has been a long time ago, but I think I learned back then that the sun would heat up as it began its eventual self destruction.

I agree that all the green house gases and the like that we produce are no good for the environment, but I have a hard time with the limited average temp records that have been kept that we can say anything firmly. How do we know (100%) that similar things didn’t happen in th 1300’s? Science is a lot of theory and until they can tell me what blew up to create the big bang, I’m not buying a whole lot of it. In math you learn 0×0=0, but in science 0×0=the milky way and I’ll never understand that.

Comment from Frank witt
Time: May 17, 2007, 6:07 pm

So, just keep doing things as is with some minor changes. i thought you all had something major. Thanks for the 6 easy steps to save the world…who would have known it was SO easy.

As per JGF’s last story, why not look at what the college studies turned up about the Southern Ocean…
http://comm.uea.ac.uk/press/release.asp?id=752

with this little ditty right in the middle of the article…“The Southern Ocean is the least well understood part of the world ocean, but one of the most important parts. We are going to have to understand its circulation before we can make really confident predictions about how the climate is going to change over the next 100 years. ”

They don’t even understand what they found yet.

Comment from finnegan
Time: May 17, 2007, 6:21 pm

Frank, I honestly don’t know where your sarcasm and animosity is coming from, man. You asked. I answered.

Comment from David Miller
Time: May 17, 2007, 6:21 pm

One note that doesn’t really add to the conversation but corrects Dave Briggman’s “addition”. When quoting the article entitled “Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics”.

Dave Briggman was quoting an article written by the minority party (you know>Republicans, this according to the site) and written about a French Socialist scientist’s work. A few things about this seemed really funny to me, but I’ll let you be the judge. I just didn’t want anyone to believe that what he had posted could in any way be misconstrued as science without a unhealthy blend of politics.

Also, the climate change that you refer to prior to man’s existence, took tens of thousands of years. Please argue with complete facts that aren’t derived by Conservative or Socialist think tanks that oppose the Kyoto protocol.

And for God sakes please listen to Thanh’s statement “regardless of whether you or I believe in climate change or not, there is no reason why we can’t change/improve our behaviors to decrease pollution”. It is the best and simplest argument made yet!

Comment from Frank witt
Time: May 17, 2007, 6:23 pm

I thanked you…nothing more…

Comment from Frank witt
Time: May 17, 2007, 6:44 pm

Ok Fin ~ 2aplease accept my apology…I might have come off as smart-assed. What I was trying to imply or ask~
Are Americans the only ones that are being asked or reporte to about this. Does the same news reach across the pond?

Are other major economic areas being asked or told to reduce, recycle and reuse or it the world just basically hollaring at US?

As much as I love the net I probably only go to .00001 percent…if that much… of the knowledgable realistic websites.

And just becuase I think you guys might be thinking it “I do not drink the Briggman Kool-Aid”

Comment from David Miller
Time: May 17, 2007, 6:55 pm

Frank

I think that most developed European countries (China excluded of course but that is a topic that is under serious debate, see new technology is expensive but developing it has long term benefits, think NASA!) are adopting the recommendations (or already have) that the link referenced. We are behind.

Comment from David Miller
Time: May 17, 2007, 7:04 pm

ps. I’m out for the weekend but Frank, love the “And just becuase I think you guys might be thinking it “I do not drink the Briggman Kool-Aid”” See you all next week.

Comment from Frank witt
Time: May 17, 2007, 7:18 pm

See, I don’t know that we are behind. If we are, then how did it get this far or does it have deeper political roots.

I have never been so informed in my 40 years but info is good.

Comment from MF
Time: May 17, 2007, 7:26 pm

“Oh crap, that damn global warming caused average April temps to fall.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html”

If you understood anything at all about climate science or global warming, you would understand that the warming part of it does not directly deal with regional temp.’s.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12&Region_id=&Issue_id=

The link you posted above is a blog wraped in a bogus government seal. It’s the same list Inhofe has been yelling about for a couple years now. The list is small, and for the most part full of hacks. A list of scientists that support the man made theroy would be diffcult to put togther because of the amount of them.

My question for you Dave is, what if your wrong? How would you
be able to come to terms with the fact that you helped brake your grandchildren’s home? Do you think someone that helped support the destruction of gods greatest creation would burn in hell?

Comment from Dave Briggman
Time: May 17, 2007, 8:51 pm

MF,

How arrogant are you that you believe that man could destroy what God has created. Sorry, I’m not a thumper and I don’t believe that the God most believe is a loving God would put people in hell.

Comment from finnegan
Time: May 17, 2007, 9:44 pm

I’ve never had any of Dave’s kool aid. What flavor is it?

Comment from Barnabas
Time: May 17, 2007, 10:09 pm

The following may consist of late night psycobable and it may have a point:
This planet would beso easy to destroy….
Um… I mean yeah God made the planet invincible.
From what I understand this is how things go down:
Ice caps slowly melt, oceans slowly rise, preasure in oceans increase causing the earths oceanic fault lines to shfit causing massive tsunami world wide, land masses decrease in size due to erosion, as land masses fall into the ocean preasure increases even more. All the massive preasure causes volcanos to urrupt and so on and so forth. This planet will fall apart, it was designed that way. If God created this planet then skip to the end of his book read Revelation Chapter 8. If this planet evolved into what it is today than I geuss it’s evolving again. People in billions of years will dig up my ford escort and put it on display and make up stories of how it was an object of worship, or someting like that. I like the version with the four horsemen, it would make a better movie.
Either way, no matter what you believe just start being a less wasteful person. Buy local, use less Energy, recycle. I personally don’t believe in global warming. To me it’s not worth fighting over, because the things that the people in the corner of global warming want us to do are good for us and our communities. What a horrible agenda, live cleaner, save money, create less landfills, use cleaner energy.

What can we as a community do? Harrsionburg should really stop weekly trash pichup and move to a rotation of getting trash one week and recyclables the next.

Comment from Dave Briggman
Time: May 17, 2007, 10:47 pm

.5 degress over the last 100 years don’t exactly give me great cause to worry.

Dayton Res is right, we don’t have accurate temps over 100 years old…we can’t even tell what the weather is going to be 24 hours from now, let alone a decade or a millenia.

I’m not understanding why you people are so determined to have global warming exist?

Weather is cyclical, get over it.

Comment from zen
Time: May 17, 2007, 11:47 pm

heh…”get over it”

Which is the point some are arguing here?
a) Global warming is not a result of human activity?
b) Or, the earth is not warming?

I mean Brigmann, all in one post, doubts the temps are trending higher, and then says it’s getting hotter because of the sun.
Seriously, how valid do you think your point is if it isn’t even consistent?
There’s a difference between being skeptical, and provocatively illogical.

Comment from David Troyer
Time: May 18, 2007, 8:50 am

Daytonres, Dave… you are half correct. We only have temperature records for the past 150 years. But scientists (oops, used the science word again) can use other proxies such as tree rings, ice cores and sediment cores to reconstruct temperatures for the last couple of thousand years.

Just thought I’d add to the fire :)

Comment from Thanh
Time: May 18, 2007, 12:55 pm

I agree what Barnabas posted about “Either way, no matter what you believe just start being a less wasteful person.” However, I’m not sure I understand his comment about how the City should pick up trash one week and recyclables the next. Are you aware that the City of Harrisonburg will provide residents with a recycling bin and pick up the recycables once a week on the same day as trash is picked up? Call 434-5928 for more information. One thing the City is working on is how to get restaurants and bars to recycle. Most of them don’t. Any suggestions would be appreciated.

Comment from zen
Time: May 18, 2007, 12:58 pm

Do schools recycle?

Comment from finnegan
Time: May 18, 2007, 1:04 pm

The amount of glass from places that serve bottled beer (the Dodger, Dave’s, etc) is tremendous. Does all that glass go in the trash every week?

Comment from Barnabas
Time: May 18, 2007, 1:14 pm

If you are having your trash picked up once a week you don’t really need to recycle in order to avoid having to much trash build up. However if your trash is only picked up every other week then in order to keep it all from building into a huge pile you would seperate your recyclables out so that they can be picked up. This gets people that wouldn’t otherwise recycle have a reason for doing it.

Comment from zen
Time: May 18, 2007, 1:18 pm

That’s a good point Barnabas. Also wouldn’t the city only be running one set of trucks around town weekly, rather than two?

How about LED stoplights? Or streetlights?

Comment from Del Marvel
Time: May 18, 2007, 2:12 pm

“The amount of glass from places that serve bottled beer (the Dodger, Dave’s, etc) is tremendous. Does all that glass go in the trash every week?”

Someone correct me if I’m wrong but I think they pick up recycling every day downtown. I know they pick up trash every day.

Comment from Benjamin
Time: May 18, 2007, 2:50 pm

They do pick up commercial trash everyday downtown including recycling. Unfortunately, recycling is volunteer and many businesses are not enrolled, though I can’t imagine what their reason for non-participation would be.

The City has all LED traffic lights, and I believe they are going to switch to LED street lights soon as well.

The recycling every other week idea is good. Charlottesville has a great program for refuse collection, where you are permitted only a certain amount of trash bags a week and you pay per bag if you want extra. the trade off is that you can you can recycle as much as you want for free.

Comment from writergirl
Time: May 18, 2007, 5:18 pm

“Unfortunately, recycling is volunteer and many businesses are not enrolled, though I can’t imagine what their reason for non-participation would be.”

Our reason is because no matter what we do, they won’t take it! We have two bins, they know we do, and yet they will not pick it up. They will pick everyone else around us up, but not us! It’s nuts, so we stopped doing it.

Comment from Frank witt
Time: May 18, 2007, 5:27 pm

Over on this side of town, they collect our plastic/glass on Wednesday morning @9. It has reduced our haul to the garbage alot…just recycling the bottles and jugs from the kitchen as well.

If you need info, you can call Nikki Shifflet at 434-5928

Comment from Dave Briggman
Time: May 19, 2007, 5:23 pm

Down under, they’ve come to realize that global warming is a scam as well.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/timaruherald/4064691a6571.html

Comment from Erik Curren
Time: May 19, 2007, 10:07 pm

It’s silly to debate the truth of global warming anymore. Only the flat-earth folks doubt climate science these days. When even George Bush, Newt Gingrich and ExxonMobil say that it’s real, then it’s time to move on to solutions. That’s the real debate: government regulation or the free market?

As we remember the Rev. Falwell, we should note that Pat Robertson did convert, while Falwell never did:

“Jerry Falwell Scoffed at Global Warming”
http://www.conservemag.com/2007/05/18/global-warming/falwell-scoffed-at-global-warming/

Comment from MF
Time: May 20, 2007, 8:58 am

Dave Briggman
“How arrogant are you that you believe that man could destroy what God has created.”

Oh ok. So I guess you think the nuclear buildup during the cold war by Nixon and Regan was pretty pointless then?

Comment from JGFitzgerald
Time: May 20, 2007, 12:34 pm

The Timaru Herald.

The Timaru Herald?

Timaru?

Comment from republitarian
Time: May 20, 2007, 8:54 pm

Oh, I thought we had solved global warming by using “1 square at a time”.

If you see me on the campaign trail make sure you stop me so we can shake hands……

Comment from Dave Briggman
Time: May 20, 2007, 9:09 pm

Erik, Newt DOES say it’s real, however, it’s not the catastrophic condition that most of the left makes it out to be.

Newt also postulates that monetary prizes for idea to reduce “global warming” would be FAR more effective than the sham of “carbon credits” or any of that crap.

Here’s Newt on “global warming”:
http://newt.org/backpage.asp?art=4335

MF, I think that the nuclear buildup by Reagan had a very useful purpose, namely, breaking the back of the former Soviet Union.

Comment from Dave Briggman
Time: May 20, 2007, 9:11 pm

By the way, I just got threw reading an article on “global warming” which says that bovines throw out 300 POUNDS of methane/a day…most of which comes out as burping — as opposed to flatulence.

Comment from Gxeremio
Time: May 20, 2007, 9:44 pm

Yeah, those ain’t wild cows emitting so much methane. Humans are still responsible.

Comment from Del Marvel
Time: May 20, 2007, 10:37 pm

“the question of urgency isn’t what’s being debated here.”

“So it is a problem. We should address it and we should address it very actively”

“I want a really big solution. I believe a really big solution has to mean very rapid change”

Gingrich on global warming from previously cited article.

Comment from zen
Time: May 21, 2007, 8:43 am

“I just got threw reading…” That alone is fascinating.

Perhaps you can read threw [sic] this article that deconstructs the 26 most common climate myths and misconceptions. Included in the list are some favorites like the previous ice age predictions, the sun and not humans are causing it, we cannot do anything about it, oceans are cooling, and many more.

Comment from Dave Briggman
Time: May 21, 2007, 10:22 am

Geez, zen.

If I took the time to correct everything wrong you’ve said on Candid Comment, they could devote a week of radio programming to that end.

Comment from zen
Time: May 21, 2007, 10:38 am

Hey Dave…the sentiment is mutual.
But in the case of global warming you’ve made statements that either deny it all together, and yet also say it is happening, but it isn’t being impacted by human activity. So which one do you prefer to be wrong about, both it seems.

Comment from Dave Briggman
Time: May 21, 2007, 11:02 am

I think I’ve been fairly clear…

Comment from Dave Briggman
Time: May 21, 2007, 11:03 am

I think I’ve been fairly clear…

Comment from zen
Time: May 21, 2007, 11:21 am

Well, I guess you’re certainly entitled to think that….but it doesn’t make it so.

Comment from Dave Briggman
Time: May 21, 2007, 11:38 am

Sorry zen, for some reason WordPress didn’t place my entire comment in either time.

Hopefully it will this time.

I have been consistent and clear.

—Temp rise over the past century is less than ONE degree.

—Human activity accounts for perhaps .4 PERCENT of greenhouse gas emissions

—Global warming is merely a cyclical weather cycle, hence, explain the change in climate prior to man’s existence.

—Global warming ain’t the catastrophic event you and your allies make it out to be.

Comment from Barnabas
Time: May 21, 2007, 12:09 pm

Dave,
as I’ve said I don’t believe in “Global Warming”. I’m curious if there is anything that the global warming community wants or thinks people should do that you are opposed to. I really am truely curious. Because I don’t think it’s worth fighting over wether it exists, if you agree that the changes should take place regardless. I agree with the agenda but not the reasons behind it. Does that make any sense?

Comment from Del Marvel
Time: May 21, 2007, 12:21 pm

“I’m not going to stand up here and defend our failure to lead. There has to be a green conservatism.

Newt Gingrich on global warming

Comment from Dave Briggman
Time: May 22, 2007, 12:56 pm

The Aussies now stand against the global warming nutjobs.

http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/story/0,23663,21779177-10388,00.html

Comment from Del Marvel
Time: May 22, 2007, 1:38 pm

You’re making a logically unjustified extrapolation to conclude that “the Aussies now stand against the global warming nutjobs.” An Australian television network is showing one controversial documentary. By the way, are you including Newt Gingrich when you write about “nutjobs”?

Comment from Del Marvel
Time: May 22, 2007, 1:45 pm

For example, by your logic one could post this article from the same Australian network and say: ” The Aussies now believe global warming is a serious threat that must be dealt with immediately:

http://www.abc.net.au/science/features/curbingclimatechange/

Comment from David Miller
Time: May 22, 2007, 4:13 pm

Fin, The Dodger does not recycle.

Comment from Benny Neal
Time: May 22, 2007, 5:01 pm

I’m sure you all have heard this,but don’t you believe the
weather has 100 yr 500 yr cycles ?(and so on) I would think
one would have to look at the weather pattern’s over a
1000 years.

Comment from Del Marvel
Time: May 22, 2007, 5:20 pm

They’ve examined ice cores from Antarctica and found that atmospheric carbon dioxide is the highest in 650,000 years.

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/nov2005/2005-11-25-04.asp

Comment from Frank witt
Time: May 23, 2007, 11:28 am

Del, doesn’t that make sense though? If more people are needed more materials, more buildings, more cars, more EVERYTHING, then even someone as blind as I am, can figure that the levels would increase each year.

I can also bet you 650,000 years ago, there was not much going on around here, thus little carbon dioxide…

MORE PEOPLE = MORE POLLUTION. Air, water, ground, noise…you name it.

Comment from Dave Briggman
Time: May 24, 2007, 8:41 pm

Global warming hits Colorado Springs’ Pike’s Peak:

http://www.gazette.com/articles/snow_22774___article.html/summit_cadets.html

Comment from zen
Time: May 25, 2007, 5:43 pm

Wow…erratic global weather patterns. Well, I guess that proves global warming is a hoax.

Comment from Del Marvel
Time: May 25, 2007, 7:57 pm

Actually, that article CONFIRMS global warming theories. With rising temperatures and more water vapor available, you
have bigger and more frequent precipitation events, such as snowstorms at higher elevations.

Comment from zen
Time: May 26, 2007, 9:11 am

Yeah Del. I knew that, but that logic apparently escapes some people.

Comment from Dave Briggman
Time: May 27, 2007, 9:13 pm

Hey zen,

Do you purchase carbon credits for your commute from Staunton to Harrisonburg?

Comment from Del Marvel
Time: May 28, 2007, 9:15 am

Even if Zen is driving 500 miles a day it has nothing to do with whether or not global warming is real and nothing to do with your implicit argument that the weather on Pike’s Peak proves global warming isn’t real. Criticizing the actions of one making a point is a logical fallacy.

Comment from Dave Briggman
Time: May 28, 2007, 9:15 pm

You’re kidding me, Del. You mean driving one’s car has absolutely nothing to do with “global warming”.

I didn’t criticize anyone’s actions, I merely asked if he purchased carbon credits to offset the amount of greenhouse gas emissions caused by his commute between Staunton and Harrisonburg.

But then, you appear to be writing that individuals who drive 500 miles a day don’t contribute to this global calmity you envision.

Comment from chuck norris
Time: May 29, 2007, 2:43 am

I would also be interested in hearing an answer to Barnabas’ question:
“Dave, …. I’m curious if there is anything that the global warming community wants or thinks people should do that you are opposed to.”

and I agree with the point he makes:
“I don’t think it’s worth fighting over wether (sic) it exists, if you agree that the changes should take place regardless.” echoing Thanh’s statement “regardless of whether you or I believe in climate change or not, there is no reason why we can’t change/improve our behaviors to decrease pollution.”

“you appear to be writing that individuals who drive 500 miles a day don’t contribute to this global calmity (sic) you envision.”
…not really, it appears to me that he’s writing “Even if Zen is driving 500 miles a day it has nothing to do with whether or not global warming is real” in other words, Zen’s actions are not proof of the existence or non-existence of global warming.

“Criticizing the actions of one making a point is a logical fallacy.”
good point.

Comment from Frank Witt
Time: June 1, 2007, 9:15 am

Hey all, I hate to get the heatback up on this subject but I need some info…

Where can I get a few rainbarrels locally. I realized what a waste it s to be using perfectly (HA) good tap water to spray my flowers.

Thank for the info

Comment from Dave Briggman
Time: June 1, 2007, 10:38 am

A quote from Michael Crichton, author of the Andromeda Strain:

“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.”

Comment from JGFitzgerald
Time: June 1, 2007, 10:51 am

Michael Crichton, creator of the TV show, “ER.” Because that’s who you want telling you what science is. Remember the episode where Maura Tierney dove into Lake Michigan? That’ll warm some globes.

Breaking with the consensus is all well and good if it’s done for reasons of principle and courage. Doing it because you’re a consultant for the hydrocarbon industry is another issue.

Comment from Frank Witt
Time: June 1, 2007, 10:54 am

How did I know this would happen?

Thanks for the info on the barrels…

Comment from JGFitzgerald
Time: June 1, 2007, 11:10 am

Frank,

Not locally, but there are several good sites on line. The extension office may know, or a landscaper with a greenward bent.

Comment from Frank Witt
Time: June 1, 2007, 11:46 am

Thanks JGF…I found the ones on google but prefer to shop locally…I’ll check with the places that sell mulch.

Thanks again !

Comment from Tina
Time: June 1, 2007, 11:54 am

Apparently an administrator from NASA was on NPR’s “Morning Edition” yesterday and questioned whether global warming was much of a concern. This morning NPR spoke with other scientists who criticized him for his lack of concern on the issue.

Both reports can be heard at http://www.npr.org

Comment from finnegan
Time: August 4, 2007, 12:02 pm

EMU ranked third out of 90 colleges and universities from across the nation for its efficient energy use. (DNR)

Pingback from hburgnews » So long, 2007
Time: December 20, 2007, 6:42 pm

[...] • Bill Hopkins’ story of Gil Colman, a local Virginia Tech shooting survivor, was one of the most-viewed stories of hburgnews in 2007. Also among the most-viewed was EMU, Falwell on global warming. [...]

Pingback from hburgnews » Rose signs Presidents Climate Commitment
Time: January 7, 2008, 11:52 am

[...] thought this was a nice follow-up to the BBC story about EMU and global warming. Thanks to Ben for the [...]