Climate Change - the big debate
Discussion
Phil1 said:
King Fisher said:
Of course, the armchair scientists will heed the sensationalist headlines and that damages the public's perception of the argument for climate change. And that will obviously please the vast majority of the pistonheads community who frankly don't give a damn about the science but just want climate change to be disproved so they can drive their gas guzzling monsters with a clear conscience.
Why the need to go straight for the ad-hominem? Are you unable to argue the science?Speaking personally I have no especial desire to spend all my days driving around in something that 'guzzles gas' though once in a while would be fine. If other wish to do so that's up to them. Nor do I seek any 'justification' for public consumption. Nor would I on the basis of unproven climate change influences. At some point, the fuel availability issue may become critical and things may change. I doubt that will be in my lifetime, or at least my active driving lifetime, if natural events take their course. However unnatural events forced through against social 'agendas' may induce earlier changes. Forced changes rarely have a good outcome - people are unable to think things through far enough to predict the unpredictable.
Anyone espousing the concept of 'saving the planet' for future generations is just as likely, on the basis of history perhaps more likely, to present those future generations with a nightmare to deal with than some form of perfectly balanced world. Of course they don't really believe they can deliver it - but the attempt offers opportunities for establishing new controls and options for influence, power and wealth for those who have such desires as their main interests.
It seems to me that Copenhagen - the lead up to it, the event and the post event comments by those in positions of power and influence - was the point at which the power seekers felt able to go public with what they were really all about and ultimately it has little to do with ecology or the freedom of, and opportunities open to, future generations. It seems to have even less to do with science.
Guam said:
Phil1 said:
King Fisher said:
Of course, the armchair scientists will heed the sensationalist headlines and that damages the public's perception of the argument for climate change. And that will obviously please the vast majority of the pistonheads community who frankly don't give a damn about the science but just want climate change to be disproved so they can drive their gas guzzling monsters with a clear conscience.
Why the need to go straight for the ad-hominem? Are you unable to argue the science?
Guam said:
Is our TVR Tony Fisher this one I wonder? "Be men, not mice. Make tough decisions which may upset your electors at home but which will start to protect our planet and those who live on it. You will be gone in 20 years but the consequence of your decisions will live for much longer. Let the world remember you as those who started the change for the better. But I'm not holding my breath!
Tony Fisher, York, UK"
Also in York!
I wish he would Tony Fisher, York, UK"
Also in York!
b2hbm said:
It's the response from Joan Ruddock that caught my eye though, and there may well be an opening to exploit. As expected, she's stopped defending the CRU and joined the bandwagon of "well, even if the CRU have fiddled things, there's lots of other scientists who haven't". At that point I'd draw your attention (and your MP's attention) to the link posted earlier by dickymint (page 373 on the thread)
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/8155921...
That video is quite short but astounding in it's claims and does refute Joan Ruddock's defence for the government position because is illustrates just how other sources have manipulated their data to show warming.
And given that it's US tv, and they are known to have a tendency to sue at the slightest chance, it sounds to me like they have real evidence.
Another reason why that argument fails and please correct me if I am wrong is that these other scientists used the CRU data in their studies?http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/8155921...
That video is quite short but astounding in it's claims and does refute Joan Ruddock's defence for the government position because is illustrates just how other sources have manipulated their data to show warming.
And given that it's US tv, and they are known to have a tendency to sue at the slightest chance, it sounds to me like they have real evidence.
Guam said:
Is our TVR Tony Fisher this one I wonder? "Be men, not mice. Make tough decisions which may upset your electors at home but which will start to protect our planet and those who live on it. You will be gone in 20 years but the consequence of your decisions will live for much longer. Let the world remember you as those who started the change for the better. But I'm not holding my breath!
Tony Fisher, York, UK"
Also in York!
Correct - that's me. And I stand by every word.Tony Fisher, York, UK"
Also in York!
I have no axe to grind in the climate change debate. I do not do research in this field and so have no vested interest in proving climate change theories right or wrong, though I still work on material related to the modelling of stellar atmospheres in my spare time alongside my main job as a physics teacher; the physics is remarkably similar.
As for s2art's comment:
"Strange, I cant remember where Chandrasekhar factored in clouds or other mechanisms that can change albedo. Equally I dont recall Chandrasekhar attributing the increase in CO2 entirely to fossil fuel burning either. Probably because he was too intelligent to make such a mistake".
If you read p270 of Chandrasekhar's book, he explains that he idealises the ground as a reflector which obeys Lambert's law with a set albedo. This is not fundamentally different from taking the overall albedo with cloud factors included. His work has been fundamental to the modelling of the atmosphere of Venus, a planet entirely covered in cloud, and his model matched the observed outcomes very well. It is perfectly correct to point out that rising global temperatures will cause more evaporation from the oceans, leading to cloud formation which will change the albedo of the Earth and hence reduce the effects of increased absorbtion due to rising CO2 levels. However, the shrinking of the icecaps will also affect the albedo in the reverse direction. The last satellite measurement of the Earth's albedo I have seen still had it at 0.301, which is almost exactly the same as the figure quoted in papers published in my time at university in 1974-79. And where the increased CO2 comes from is utterly irrelevant; a significant cause of the increase is also due to deforestation, but that doesn't change the fact that 200+ years of burning fossil fuels has contributed to the increased levels as well.
As for TB who someone quotes as being likely to have me for breakfast (I presume this is turbobloke) he'd better have sharp teeth. I welcome the chance to debate with someone who you clearly regard as an expert in the field. He may be able to correct any misconceptions I have.
And finally, there are some delightful people on here - I have met some of them and they are a pleasure to know. But there are also some whose acquaintance I would not wish to make for a variety of reasons, but mainly because of their extreme, unmerited rudeness to some members of the forum who expressed views contrary to their own, exhibited long before I began to contribute.
King Fisher said:
If you read p270 of Chandrasekhar's book, he explains that he idealises the ground as a reflector which obeys Lambert's law with a set albedo. This is not fundamentally different from taking the overall albedo with cloud factors included. His work has been fundamental to the modelling of the atmosphere of Venus, a planet entirely covered in cloud, and his model matched the observed outcomes very well. It is perfectly correct to point out that rising global temperatures will cause more evaporation from the oceans, leading to cloud formation which will change the albedo of the Earth and hence reduce the effects of increased absorbtion due to rising CO2 levels. However, the shrinking of the icecaps will also affect the albedo in the reverse direction. The last satellite measurement of the Earth's albedo I have seen still had it at 0.301, which is almost exactly the same as the figure quoted in papers published in my time at university in 1974-79. And where the increased CO2 comes from is utterly irrelevant; a significant cause of the increase is also due to deforestation, but that doesn't change the fact that 200+ years of burning fossil fuels has contributed to the increased levels as well.
Hmm, Venus is somewhat homogenous (as far as clouds/albedo is concerned).The Earth isnt. It rather matters where the clouds are (and what type of cloud obviously), more in lower latitudes will have a bigger effect than more in higher latitudes. So a global albedo figure will not tell us much. In fact if we accept your premise that the icecaps have shrunk (compared to when? The early 20th century for instance?) thus potentially reducing the average albedo, but if the albedo hasnt changed then we must assume that clouds have increased at lower latitudes to compensate. The effect of that is that more radiation will be reflected than before. Regarding CO2 increases, why do you think deforestation has had a big effect? And how big a contrubution do you think fossil fuel burning has had?
Guam said:
And Some more on Venus just because we can
From WUWT
"In some ways, Venus is similar to earth. It is about the same size as the earth, has a nickel-iron core, and has volcanic activity due to radioactive heating in the interior. But that is where the similarities end. Venus has some serious problems as a vacation spot – mainly that it is extremely hot and the atmosphere is a thick cloud of sulfuric acid, CO2 and other unpleasant chemicals.
So how did Venus get to be like that, and why is the earth different?
1.Venus is closer to the sun, which makes it hotter and prevents formation of oceans due to excessive evaporation.
2.Venus suffered a traumatic collision in it’s early days, which causes it to rotate very slowly and parallel to the ecliptic. This makes for long afternoons (thousands of hours long) which get extremely hot.
3.Because of 1 and 2, Venus was never able to sequester CO2 in limestones like the earth.
For the last few billion years, volcanoes on earth have been spewing out the greenhouse gases H2O, CO2 and CH4, as well as, H2SO4, SO2, H2S, HCl and Cl2. If not for the oceans and limestone sequestration, we would have a very thick, hot acidic atmosphere like Venus which could not support life. Fortunately, temperatures and other conditions on earth were just right to allow huge volumes of CO2 to move into the oceans and precipitate carbonate rock layers, where the CO2 became sequestered. This makes earth the pleasant place which we all enjoy.
Wikipedia image – carbonate rocks in Italy, uplifted miles above sea level.
One of the oft stated concerns by the IPCC and others is excess CO2 from cement production, which involves heating carbonate rocks and has the side effect of returning CO2 to the atmosphere. Dr. Hansen and others have also suggested that periods of rapid warming in the past have been due to limestone formations being subducted into hot volcanic regions and losing their CO2 to the atmosphere.
But make no mistake, without the CO2 sequestered in limestone and other carbonate rocks, earth would be hot, toxic and probably unlivable – like Venus
In our solar system, isn’t the earth the only planet that has continental drift/plate tectonics, due to the large amount of water (which acts as a lubricant for the plates to shift) – and isn’t this was the whole carbon cycle is about?From WUWT
"In some ways, Venus is similar to earth. It is about the same size as the earth, has a nickel-iron core, and has volcanic activity due to radioactive heating in the interior. But that is where the similarities end. Venus has some serious problems as a vacation spot – mainly that it is extremely hot and the atmosphere is a thick cloud of sulfuric acid, CO2 and other unpleasant chemicals.
So how did Venus get to be like that, and why is the earth different?
1.Venus is closer to the sun, which makes it hotter and prevents formation of oceans due to excessive evaporation.
2.Venus suffered a traumatic collision in it’s early days, which causes it to rotate very slowly and parallel to the ecliptic. This makes for long afternoons (thousands of hours long) which get extremely hot.
3.Because of 1 and 2, Venus was never able to sequester CO2 in limestones like the earth.
For the last few billion years, volcanoes on earth have been spewing out the greenhouse gases H2O, CO2 and CH4, as well as, H2SO4, SO2, H2S, HCl and Cl2. If not for the oceans and limestone sequestration, we would have a very thick, hot acidic atmosphere like Venus which could not support life. Fortunately, temperatures and other conditions on earth were just right to allow huge volumes of CO2 to move into the oceans and precipitate carbonate rock layers, where the CO2 became sequestered. This makes earth the pleasant place which we all enjoy.
Wikipedia image – carbonate rocks in Italy, uplifted miles above sea level.
One of the oft stated concerns by the IPCC and others is excess CO2 from cement production, which involves heating carbonate rocks and has the side effect of returning CO2 to the atmosphere. Dr. Hansen and others have also suggested that periods of rapid warming in the past have been due to limestone formations being subducted into hot volcanic regions and losing their CO2 to the atmosphere.
But make no mistake, without the CO2 sequestered in limestone and other carbonate rocks, earth would be hot, toxic and probably unlivable – like Venus
Also, ‘earth wobble’ seems to play a major part in climate change, with the ice sheets expanding and shrinking with each ‘wobble’? Why is this never mentioned when talking about climate change?
s2art said:
King Fisher said:
If you read p270 of Chandrasekhar's book, he explains that he idealises the ground as a reflector which obeys Lambert's law with a set albedo. This is not fundamentally different from taking the overall albedo with cloud factors included. His work has been fundamental to the modelling of the atmosphere of Venus, a planet entirely covered in cloud, and his model matched the observed outcomes very well. It is perfectly correct to point out that rising global temperatures will cause more evaporation from the oceans, leading to cloud formation which will change the albedo of the Earth and hence reduce the effects of increased absorbtion due to rising CO2 levels. However, the shrinking of the icecaps will also affect the albedo in the reverse direction. The last satellite measurement of the Earth's albedo I have seen still had it at 0.301, which is almost exactly the same as the figure quoted in papers published in my time at university in 1974-79. And where the increased CO2 comes from is utterly irrelevant; a significant cause of the increase is also due to deforestation, but that doesn't change the fact that 200+ years of burning fossil fuels has contributed to the increased levels as well.
Hmm, Venus is somewhat homogenous (as far as clouds/albedo is concerned).The Earth isnt. It rather matters where the clouds are (and what type of cloud obviously), more in lower latitudes will have a bigger effect than more in higher latitudes. So a global albedo figure will not tell us much. In fact if we accept your premise that the icecaps have shrunk (compared to when? The early 20th century for instance?) thus potentially reducing the average albedo, but if the albedo hasnt changed then we must assume that clouds have increased at lower latitudes to compensate. The effect of that is that more radiation will be reflected than before. Regarding CO2 increases, why do you think deforestation has had a big effect? And how big a contrubution do you think fossil fuel burning has had?
The distribution of clouds with latitude is indeed a key consideration in assessing climate change and theoretical calculations of albedo are weighted to give clouds at equatorial latitudes more significance than at high levels. However, satellites are able to compare direct solar radiance with the intensity reflected from a whole hemisphere of Earth over a period of time, which compensates for this.
Deforestation increases the CO2 levels because, unless my biology is severely wrong, plants absorb CO2 to photosynthesise and sequester carbon in their structures. Hence, a large amount of CO2 is tied up in the biomass of the rain forests and other large areas of trees. Clearing these for slash and burn agriculture releases this stored carbon in the same way that burning fossil fuels releases carbon sequestered millions of years ago.
I also believe that there are other factors which affect the long term climate other than CO2 concentrations. Other potent greenhouse gases (methane, water vapour) may also have an effect and I strongly suspect that the solar sunspot cycle does too. I was fortunate to be taught by Prof Eric Priest (who may be the world's leading expert on these phenomena and their effects) and have retained a lifelong interest in them after doing a research project on them under his direction. Although the Sun is not an intrinsically variable star, its luminosity does vary slightly over the 11 (or 22 if you want to be pedantic) year sunspot cycle. However, this seems to be too short to cause any detectable effect in the climate - at least I've not seen any evidence to this effect. But the solar cycle can be subject to disruption (the Maunder minimum of the late C17th being a good example) and I would expect the extra insolation to produce some effects if maintained over a longer timespan than 11 years. The fact that sunspot activity is currently at a 500 year high should lead (if anything) to a drop in global temperatures and may be actually masking the effects caused by CO2 increase. But I strongly suspect that some of the periodic warming episodes in history (eg the MWP), often claimed by sceptics to cast doubt on global warming theories, were actually caused by disruptions to the sunspot cycle. Sadly, there are no records of sunspots at this time because Galileo hadn't been invented!
Guam said:
This is what to my mind makes comparing planetary bodies from a climatological standpoint pointless there are too many variables for a sensible comparison.
Cheers
Don't be so niaive Guam...Cheers
When has 'sense' ever been part of AGW arguement!
They base their whole theory on 'manipulated' data, and misprinted reports, and then think that you can solve the problem of 'dangerous CO2' by making you pay for it....and not by actually reducing the amount emitted.
Where's the 'sense' in that!
Guam said:
LOL
I have to agree, as you know I focus more on the Stats and maths side of their arguement and generally leave the core science issues to TB. From a behavioralistic standpoint any intelligent person would do well to question the behaviours that have been evidenced from the UEA and recent revelations about Giss etc etc etc. The key question that should bellow at anyone is if the Science is right and is settled WHY would one need to indulge in such behaviour?
We then come back to the general Environmental issues which have been raised such as deforestation and so on. I dont think many (if any ) disagree with the general environmental concerns on here, (counter to what is often alleged) however as TB and others have commented, where is the causality and why are we spinning away resources on something which in any event represents such a miniscule proportion of the atmospheric composition and with NO replicable science behind it (much fudging many hypotheses but NO evidence)!
Cheers
Isn't it 'Innocent until proven guilty' I have to agree, as you know I focus more on the Stats and maths side of their arguement and generally leave the core science issues to TB. From a behavioralistic standpoint any intelligent person would do well to question the behaviours that have been evidenced from the UEA and recent revelations about Giss etc etc etc. The key question that should bellow at anyone is if the Science is right and is settled WHY would one need to indulge in such behaviour?
We then come back to the general Environmental issues which have been raised such as deforestation and so on. I dont think many (if any ) disagree with the general environmental concerns on here, (counter to what is often alleged) however as TB and others have commented, where is the causality and why are we spinning away resources on something which in any event represents such a miniscule proportion of the atmospheric composition and with NO replicable science behind it (much fudging many hypotheses but NO evidence)!
Cheers
Where's the proof that MAN is repsonsible!!! Oh wait...that's right....there isn't any.
But they do have a lot of assumptions....and not a complete understanding of the system. They still do not know how much of an impact the clouds have on the system, and haven't factored that in to ANY climate models. They haven't factored in the sun's effect either. There is a lot they haven't factored in.
Still, don't let 30,000 + scientists, who dispute the claims by the IPCC, stand in the way of calling it a Consensus, and that the science is settled!!
King Fisher said:
s2art said:
King Fisher said:
If you read p270 of Chandrasekhar's book, he explains that he idealises the ground as a reflector which obeys Lambert's law with a set albedo. This is not fundamentally different from taking the overall albedo with cloud factors included. His work has been fundamental to the modelling of the atmosphere of Venus, a planet entirely covered in cloud, and his model matched the observed outcomes very well. It is perfectly correct to point out that rising global temperatures will cause more evaporation from the oceans, leading to cloud formation which will change the albedo of the Earth and hence reduce the effects of increased absorbtion due to rising CO2 levels. However, the shrinking of the icecaps will also affect the albedo in the reverse direction. The last satellite measurement of the Earth's albedo I have seen still had it at 0.301, which is almost exactly the same as the figure quoted in papers published in my time at university in 1974-79. And where the increased CO2 comes from is utterly irrelevant; a significant cause of the increase is also due to deforestation, but that doesn't change the fact that 200+ years of burning fossil fuels has contributed to the increased levels as well.
Hmm, Venus is somewhat homogenous (as far as clouds/albedo is concerned).The Earth isnt. It rather matters where the clouds are (and what type of cloud obviously), more in lower latitudes will have a bigger effect than more in higher latitudes. So a global albedo figure will not tell us much. In fact if we accept your premise that the icecaps have shrunk (compared to when? The early 20th century for instance?) thus potentially reducing the average albedo, but if the albedo hasnt changed then we must assume that clouds have increased at lower latitudes to compensate. The effect of that is that more radiation will be reflected than before. Regarding CO2 increases, why do you think deforestation has had a big effect? And how big a contrubution do you think fossil fuel burning has had?
The distribution of clouds with latitude is indeed a key consideration in assessing climate change and theoretical calculations of albedo are weighted to give clouds at equatorial latitudes more significance than at high levels. However, satellites are able to compare direct solar radiance with the intensity reflected from a whole hemisphere of Earth over a period of time, which compensates for this.
Deforestation increases the CO2 levels because, unless my biology is severely wrong, plants absorb CO2 to photosynthesise and sequester carbon in their structures. Hence, a large amount of CO2 is tied up in the biomass of the rain forests and other large areas of trees. Clearing these for slash and burn agriculture releases this stored carbon in the same way that burning fossil fuels releases carbon sequestered millions of years ago.
I also believe that there are other factors which affect the long term climate other than CO2 concentrations. Other potent greenhouse gases (methane, water vapour) may also have an effect and I strongly suspect that the solar sunspot cycle does too. I was fortunate to be taught by Prof Eric Priest (who may be the world's leading expert on these phenomena and their effects) and have retained a lifelong interest in them after doing a research project on them under his direction. Although the Sun is not an intrinsically variable star, its luminosity does vary slightly over the 11 (or 22 if you want to be pedantic) year sunspot cycle. However, this seems to be too short to cause any detectable effect in the climate - at least I've not seen any evidence to this effect. But the solar cycle can be subject to disruption (the Maunder minimum of the late C17th being a good example) and I would expect the extra insolation to produce some effects if maintained over a longer timespan than 11 years. The fact that sunspot activity is currently at a 500 year high should lead (if anything) to a drop in global temperatures and may be actually masking the effects caused by CO2 increase. But I strongly suspect that some of the periodic warming episodes in history (eg the MWP), often claimed by sceptics to cast doubt on global warming theories, were actually caused by disruptions to the sunspot cycle. Sadly, there are no records of sunspots at this time because Galileo hadn't been invented!
Re Albedo. Is the figure you gave the weighted one? You claimed little change since 1974.
Re Deforestation. Skip the beginners courses. The question I asked was what makes you think that deforestation has made a big difference. Any evidence that what deforestation that has occured, taking into account all the reforestation that has occurred in parallel, has made a big difference to atmospheric CO2?
s2art said:
Re Venus compared to Earth. You seem to be missing the point. Venus is simple compared to Earth. It can be treated as homogenous, so its not surprising that Chandesekhars equations are easy to apply to Venus.
Re Albedo. Is the figure you gave the weighted one? You claimed little change since 1974.
Re Deforestation. Skip the beginners courses. The question I asked was what makes you think that deforestation has made a big difference. Any evidence that what deforestation that has occured, taking into account all the reforestation that has occurred in parallel, has made a big difference to atmospheric CO2?
Not to mention the fact that the models DID NOT work for planet earth...until after they 'adjusted' the data to give the results they wanted.Re Albedo. Is the figure you gave the weighted one? You claimed little change since 1974.
Re Deforestation. Skip the beginners courses. The question I asked was what makes you think that deforestation has made a big difference. Any evidence that what deforestation that has occured, taking into account all the reforestation that has occurred in parallel, has made a big difference to atmospheric CO2?
Or are we talking about different models, and I'm getting confused (it's easily done
)Edited by Spiritual_Beggar on Monday 18th January 16:31
Guam said:
ON one of the threads Kerplunk raised the question about why a trend was changed from 13 years smoothing to 25 years heres old Spencer himself to explain why
Credit WUWT
"One of the great things about the internet is people can post anything they want, no matter how stupid, and lots of people who are incapable of critical thought will simply accept it.
I’m getting emails from people who have read blog postings accusing me of “hiding the increase” in global temperatures when I posted our most recent (Dec. 2009) global temperature update. In addition to the usual monthly temperature anomalies on the graph, for many months I have also been plotting a smoothed version, with a running 13 month average. The purpose of such smoothing is to better reveal longer-term variations, which is how “global warming” is manifested.
But on the latest update, I switched from 13 months to a running 25 month average instead. It is this last change which has led to accusations that I am hiding the increase in global temperatures. Well, here’s a plot with both running averages in addition to the monthly data. I’ll let you decide whether I have been hiding anything:
Note how the new 25-month smoother minimizes the warm 1998 temperature spike, which is the main reason why I switched to the longer averaging time. If anything, this ‘hides the decline’ since 1998…something I feared I would be accused of for sure after I posted the December update.
But just the opposite has happened, with accusations I have hidden the increase. Go figure
"
Thanks for posting Guam.Credit WUWT
"One of the great things about the internet is people can post anything they want, no matter how stupid, and lots of people who are incapable of critical thought will simply accept it.
I’m getting emails from people who have read blog postings accusing me of “hiding the increase” in global temperatures when I posted our most recent (Dec. 2009) global temperature update. In addition to the usual monthly temperature anomalies on the graph, for many months I have also been plotting a smoothed version, with a running 13 month average. The purpose of such smoothing is to better reveal longer-term variations, which is how “global warming” is manifested.
But on the latest update, I switched from 13 months to a running 25 month average instead. It is this last change which has led to accusations that I am hiding the increase in global temperatures. Well, here’s a plot with both running averages in addition to the monthly data. I’ll let you decide whether I have been hiding anything:
Note how the new 25-month smoother minimizes the warm 1998 temperature spike, which is the main reason why I switched to the longer averaging time. If anything, this ‘hides the decline’ since 1998…something I feared I would be accused of for sure after I posted the December update.
But just the opposite has happened, with accusations I have hidden the increase. Go figure
"
Edited by Guam on Monday 18th January 16:50
Roy Spencer: "Go figure"
Well Roy, we look at this monthly updated graph to see how things are progressing you see and therefore are more focussed on the last wiggles, and so the switch to a smoothing which truncates 12 months behind the present and hides recent change was quite noticeable. I hadn't noticed the effect on 1998 but it's good to have a vague reason for why it was done (if not why exactly reducing the 1998 year was desirable).
HTH
deeps said:
You don't know us very well at all do you. We actually give one hell of a damn about the science, and we don't spend hours sitting here keeping these threads alive with the latest climate information just for fun, we do it because we care a whole lot.
Sorry couldn't help but think of thisStill, I agree we everything posted above. The fact that people seem quite happy to sit back and take everything that is pushed at them through the media without a single question as to the origins or validity of the information presented leaves me in tears.
People look at me in a strange way when I tell them I refuse to have a television in the house. I guess it's no wonder I have no friends. I mean, when someone tells me they saw something on TV and I ask, well where was that information from? What was the message? What did you learn anything? What were the alternative points of view?
They just look at me like I'm some kind of modern day leper. Here's the problem, people really do believe the s
t that is pumped out through TV, radio and newspapers... after all it must be right - it was on TV and the radio and in the news papers.Where's that face-palm smiley?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff