NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/31/AR2007053100934.html?hpid=topnews

President Bush today outlined what he described as a new initiative to combat global warming, calling on other nations to work with the United States in setting a long-term goal by the end of 2008 for reductions in greenhouse gases.

In a speech in Washington, Bush signaled a change in tone on global warming ahead of next week's Group of Eight summit meeting in Germany, where the issue is high on the agenda for the gathering of the world's most industrialized nations. But critics promptly complained that Bush's proposal falls short of the urgent action needed to sharply reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and head off potential catastrophe in the future.

Excellent news on the global warming front. Hopefully this can get accomplished and we can stop the trend.

Why? What happened?

Bush is actually going to act on global warming?



Quick, someone check on the temperature in hell!

This is good news!

Bush is actually going to act on global warming?

Quick, someone check on the temperature in hell!

It Froze over when Nixon took office so don't worry about it

Bush is actually going to act on global warming?



Quick, someone check on the temperature in hell!

*Looks at thermometer*

It shattered! :eek:

Quick, someone check on the temperature in hell!

We need tea people! Boiling hot tea, and lots of it! NOW!

We need tea people! Boiling hot tea, and lots of it! NOW!

Too late! Better break out the gunpowder!

In other news, the Pope admitted to being a Muslim, bears were sighted using public lavatories, and Hitler suggested that everyone should be nice to the Jews.

Honestly, wtf?

In other news, the Pope called for all Catholics to become Muslims, bears were sighted using public lavatories, and Hitler suggested that everyone should be nice to the Jews.

Honestly, wtf?

It was only a matter of time...and luck...and faith...and the blood of a virgin

Uh... good? I think? What's the catch? Is it a trade off so that he can make coats out of Dalmatian puppies or something?

call me cynical but...

he announced this...and the new anti Aids spend for '3rd world countries'...

Is he trying to make good before he gets booted?

Maybe he thinks it's to stop Car-bombs rather than Car-bon?

In other news, the Pope admitted to being a Muslim, bears were sighted using public lavatories, and Hitler suggested that everyone should be nice to the Jews.

Honestly, wtf?

Maybe it's their opposite day.

Maybe he thinks it's to stop Car-bombs rather than Car-bon?

I steal this opinion and call it my own.

Is he trying to make good before he gets booted?

Who knows? Could be for popularity, it could be because of the issue's signifigance amongst the population, He was persuaded by advisors, and fellow politicians, or he gave in?

Too little too late.

The positive feedback loops are already established. Catastrophic Climate Change is now inevitable, and to think that now there is still time to tackle it is highly naive.

People need to admit that we failed this challenge. We need to stop placing all of our efforts into trying to reduce emissions and so on, (because by now, even if we totally shut down the entire industrial economy, it would make little difference - although doing that to the economy would cause damage several thousand times worse than CC itself). From now, the prime concern should be protecting the areas of the world that are at threat from rising sea levels and stronger storms.

Unfortunately, it took over a decade for the reality of the last challenge to sink in, and I fear our societies will not be any quicker this time. So when the industrial world is sat around, signing the nth Kyoto Protocols, the ice-caps will already be gone, countless cities will be left to ruin and everyone will just continue to pussyfoot and fail to do what needs doing.

Sigh.

Reality has the peculiar capability to bludgeon even the silliest belief sets out of existence...
The mountain of evidence became too great for Bush to ignore, and he was forced to come to the conclusion that 75% of us came to a long time ago.

Too little too late.

The positive feedback loops are already established. Catastrophic Climate Change is now inevitable, and to think that now there is still time to tackle it is highly naive.

People need to admit that we failed this challenge. We need to stop placing all of our efforts into trying to reduce emissions and so on, (because by now, even if we totally shut down the entire industrial economy, it would make little difference - although doing that to the economy would cause damage several thousand times worse than CC itself). From now, the prime concern should be protecting the areas of the world that are at threat from rising sea levels and stronger storms.

Unfortunately, it took over a decade for the reality of the last challenge to sink in, and I fear our societies will not be any quicker this time. So when the industrial world is sat around, signing the nth Kyoto Protocols, the ice-caps will already be gone, countless cities will be left to ruin and everyone will just continue to pussyfoot and fail to do what needs doing.

Sigh.
It's a possibility that you are right but it is not a certainty.

Too little too late.

The positive feedback loops are already established. Catastrophic Climate Change is now inevitable, and to think that now there is still time to tackle it is highly naive.

People need to admit that we failed this challenge. We need to stop placing all of our efforts into trying to reduce emissions and so on, (because by now, even if we totally shut down the entire industrial economy, it would make little difference - although doing that to the economy would cause damage several thousand times worse than CC itself). From now, the prime concern should be protecting the areas of the world that are at threat from rising sea levels and stronger storms.

Unfortunately, it took over a decade for the reality of the last challenge to sink in, and I fear our societies will not be any quicker this time. So when the industrial world is sat around, signing the nth Kyoto Protocols, the ice-caps will already be gone, countless cities will be left to ruin and everyone will just continue to pussyfoot and fail to do what needs doing.

Sigh.

I tend to disagree...we can take action and have an effect. Cutting emissions and developing new carbon sinks are some key steps that can be taken, the positive feedback loops are not established, and we still have time...however short it may be.

I steal this opinion and call it my own.

:D

Reality has the peculiar capability to bludgeon even the silliest belief sets out of existence...
The mountain of evidence became too great for Bush to ignore, and he was forced to come to the conclusion that 75% of us came to a long time ago.

The article says that Bush still opposes caps on emissions, and just wants everyone to spend lots of time talking about what should be done. In a few years time, the deniers position will switch from "it isn't happening" to "it is happening, but it's too late to do anything".

Too little too late.

The positive feedback loops are already established. Catastrophic Climate Change is now inevitable, and to think that now there is still time to tackle it is highly naive.

People need to admit that we failed this challenge. We need to stop placing all of our efforts into trying to reduce emissions and so on, (because by now, even if we totally shut down the entire industrial economy, it would make little difference - although doing that to the economy would cause damage several thousand times worse than CC itself). From now, the prime concern should be protecting the areas of the world that are at threat from rising sea levels and stronger storms.

Unfortunately, it took over a decade for the reality of the last challenge to sink in, and I fear our societies will not be any quicker this time. So when the industrial world is sat around, signing the nth Kyoto Protocols, the ice-caps will already be gone, countless cities will be left to ruin and everyone will just continue to pussyfoot and fail to do what needs doing.

Sigh.

I think that climate change is inevitable, as the IPCC said, but that we can probably mitigate the worst predictions if we take radical action. Not that we will, of course, but we could.

It's a shame really. Becoming more efficient and using clearner technologies would be good for us in other ways too, but there'll be not point doing it if we're facing catastrophic change in the earth's climate as we couldnt be sure if civilisation would survive.

This isn't actually the first time hes acounced something like this.

In other news, the Pope admitted to being a Muslim, bears were sighted using public lavatories, and Hitler suggested that everyone should be nice to the Jews.

Honestly, wtf?

Uh... good? I think? What's the catch? Is it a trade off so that he can make coats out of Dalmatian puppies or something?

Hmm, I suspect this is a ploy to allow him to control the talks, and point them towards technological solutions (that will keep people happy) rather than actual emissions cuts. Voluntary self-'regulation', if you will. As far as I can see, he makes no mention of co-operating with the IPCC, or anything like that.

Bush is going to act on global warming?

:D BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!! :D

*Dies laughing*


I'm sorry, but I don't believe a word of it. Action speaks louder than words.

Didn't Clinton do the same thing? Whatever happened with that?


Oh yeah, Bush refused to sign. :rolleyes:

Isn't the USA apparently doing better then most of europe in lowering emissions? I heard that somewhere and I wan't to see if this is true or false.

Isn't the USA apparently doing better then most of europe in lowering emissions? I heard that somewhere and I wan't to see if this is true or false.

I never heard that. I'd be surprised and lose a ton of hope.

I never heard that. I'd be surprised and lose a ton of hope.

I found this:

http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2007/02/white_house_cla.html

edit: and this http://volokh.com/posts/1166449696.shtml

I found this:

http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2007/02/white_house_cla.html

edit: and this http://volokh.com/posts/1166449696.shtml

But that just shows growth. Per person, we still release more carbon dioxide.

Carbon dioxide released per person per year:

United States 5.8 tons
Canada 4.8
Germany 3.2
United Kingdom 2.9
Japan 2.2
OECD Europe 1.8
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/8Comparison.htm

Didn't Clinton do the same thing? Whatever happened with that?


Oh yeah, Bush refused to sign. :rolleyes:

Umm....Clinton never sent it to the floor to be ratified by the US Senate. Why? Because Clinton knew it would not pass the Senate. At least get the Kyoto Facts straight if you are going to use it.

I found this:

http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2007/02/white_house_cla.html

edit: and this http://volokh.com/posts/1166449696.shtml

1st link doesn't have any information and is a blog. (not a reliable source)

As a response to the second one points out that the EU grew considerably in 2004 which could mess up the implications of the study (which I can't see in the first place.)

I love how, after repeatedly turning down other proposals for the exact same general idea, he's putting this out here like he came up with it. We've got news for him I think... some people are already working on Global Emissions cuts.

But that just shows growth. Per person, we still release more carbon dioxide.

Carbon dioxide released per person per year:

United States 5.8 tons
Canada 4.8
Germany 3.2
United Kingdom 2.9
Japan 2.2
OECD Europe 1.8
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/8Comparison.htm

And China gets excluded again.

And China gets excluded again.

I imagine China's emissions per person per year would be rather low given its enormous population.

1st link doesn't have any information and is a blog. (not a reliable source)


http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/40267/story.htm

It's from reuters


As a response to the second one points out that the EU grew considerably in 2004 which could mess up the implications of the study (which I can't see in the first place.)

Hmm maybe but the USA was also growing considerably then, especially with population.

Growing yes but not as much as growing by about 10 countries. ( Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia)

Theres two possibilities: One, Bush has finaly realised that "Wow, I really screwed this up huh" and he wants to actually do something that we benifit from, or he thinks that he can get the constitution ammended so that he can go for a third term by doing something seemingly humane.
If its the first one I'm going to go and eat someone just to restore the messed up country we all know and love.

we all know and love.

Know? Unfortunatly. Love? Meh.

Know? Unfortunatly. Love? Meh. LOL, I actually agree with that, but if Bush is doing something so that we benifit, SOMEthing messed up has to happen, or else the universe will be completely out of order.

SOMEthing messed up has to happen, or else the universe will be completely out of order.
I'm sure something of that nature will happen on its own without you having to interfer.

I found this:

http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2007/02/white_house_cla.html

edit: and this http://volokh.com/posts/1166449696.shtml

A few percent means shit when we're burning 25% of the oil.

Probably, but interfering is so much fun! Although not very tasty... :D

call me cynical but...

he announced this...and the new anti Aids spend for '3rd world countries'...

Is he trying to make good before he gets booted?


:D

Seems like a good observation.

The question is how much funding with the initiative actually get? He is good at announcing things and then not funding them(ie No child).

And China gets excluded again.

Yep. China got excluded when the question involved the U.S. and Europe. Shall we ask another question about the US, Europe and China? I'm not gonna research it but I'd guess that China is rising very quickly when it comes to Co2 emissions.

It might be like his 'clean air initiatave' or things like that where it says one thing and then does something else entirely. Or maybe we should look on page 8 to see what he's hoping we won't talk about and talk about this instead. Let's just say that at this point I'm skeptical that hes actually going to do anything.

Yep. China got excluded when the question involved the U.S. and Europe. Shall we ask another question about the US, Europe and China? I'm not gonna research it but I'd guess that China is rising very quickly when it comes to Co2 emissions.

China is number 1 now I believe.

China is number 1 now I believe.

It sucks.

Didn't Clinton do the same thing? Whatever happened with that?


Oh yeah, Bush refused to sign. :rolleyes:

How can you blame Bush for Kyoto when the Senate voted 95-0 against it in the 1990s?

China is number 1 now I believe.

2002:
http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/national_carbon_dioxide_co2_emissions_per_capita

and (2006 I believe)

#1 Qatar: 40.6735 per 1,000 people
#2 United Arab Emirates: 28.213 per 1,000 people
#3 Kuwait: 25.0499 per 1,000 people
#4 Bahrain: 20.0253 per 1,000 people
#5 United States: 19.4839 per 1,000 people
#6 Luxembourg: 17.977 per 1,000 people
#7 Trinidad and Tobago: 16.8278 per 1,000 people
#8 Australia: 16.5444 per 1,000 people
#9 Canada: 15.8941 per 1,000 people
#10 Singapore: 13.8137 per 1,000 people
#11 Czech Republic: 12.115 per 1,000 people
#12 Belgium: 12.0632 per 1,000 people
#13 Palau: 11.9096 per 1,000 people
#14 Estonia: 11.1657 per 1,000 people
#15 Finland: 10.8403 per 1,000 people
#16 Russia: 10.7402 per 1,000 people
#17 Ireland: 10.6612 per 1,000 people
#18 Netherlands: 10.6545 per 1,000 people
#19 Nauru: 10.3924 per 1,000 people
#20 Germany: 10.1591 per 1,000 people
With a pretty bar graph: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_co2_emi_percap-environment-co2-emissions-per-capita

They differ somewhat, not sure why. I haven't looked at the links in a while.

How can you blame Bush for Kyoto when the Senate voted 95-0 against it in the 1990s?

Because we knew better by the time Bush came into office? Or we should have...

Because we knew better by the time Bush came into office? Or we should have...

The Senate would never ratify a treaty that would fuck their constituents as much as Kyoto would while the Chinese and the rest of SE Asia get away free.

2002:
http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/national_carbon_dioxide_co2_emissions_per_capita

and (2006 I believe)

#1 Qatar: 40.6735 per 1,000 people
#2 United Arab Emirates: 28.213 per 1,000 people
#3 Kuwait: 25.0499 per 1,000 people
#4 Bahrain: 20.0253 per 1,000 people
#5 United States: 19.4839 per 1,000 people
#6 Luxembourg: 17.977 per 1,000 people
#7 Trinidad and Tobago: 16.8278 per 1,000 people
#8 Australia: 16.5444 per 1,000 people
#9 Canada: 15.8941 per 1,000 people
#10 Singapore: 13.8137 per 1,000 people
#11 Czech Republic: 12.115 per 1,000 people
#12 Belgium: 12.0632 per 1,000 people
#13 Palau: 11.9096 per 1,000 people
#14 Estonia: 11.1657 per 1,000 people
#15 Finland: 10.8403 per 1,000 people
#16 Russia: 10.7402 per 1,000 people
#17 Ireland: 10.6612 per 1,000 people
#18 Netherlands: 10.6545 per 1,000 people
#19 Nauru: 10.3924 per 1,000 people
#20 Germany: 10.1591 per 1,000 people
With a pretty bar graph: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_co2_emi_percap-environment-co2-emissions-per-capita

They differ somewhat, not sure why. I haven't looked at the links in a while.

For reference,

"#80 China: 2.65908 per 1,000 people "

For reference,

"#80 China: 2.65908 per 1,000 people "
In the last 5 years that has changed by a dramatic amount.

As for the US's numbers. We are about 20-25% of the world's GDP so it should make sense that we have 20% of emissions.

We have a GDP to emission ratio of less than 1. China's ratio the last time I checked was 1.5 so expect total global emissions to dramatically increase as their GDP continues to skyrocket.

The Senate would never ratify a treaty that would fuck their constituents as much as Kyoto would while the Chinese and the rest of SE Asia get away free.

That's a nice opinion. Mine is that it was a good starting point when the alternative was, what? Nothing?

That's a nice opinion. Mine is that it was a good starting point when the alternative was, what? Nothing?
All Kyoto would accomplish is giving SE Asia a competitive edge to improve their economies at our expense.

It would increase global emissions in the end because the SE Asian countries produce more emissions for every % point of global GDP they represent. The US has a GDP to CO2 emissiosn ratio of less than 1. China and SE Asia have one of greater than 1.

As bad as we are, we are more efficient and produce more with less emissions than China or India.

All Kyoto would accomplish is giving SE Asia a competitive edge to improve their economies at our expense.

It would increase global emissions in the end because the SE Asian countries produce more emissions for every % point of global GDP they represent. The US has a GDP to CO2 emissiosn ratio of less than 1. China and SE Asia have one of greater than 1.

As bad as we are, we are more efficient and produce more with less emissions than China or India.

But where is it written that China or India would forever be excluded? Also, it is important to remember that the Kyoto Protocol was largely based on the Montreal Protocol where the critics brought up these very same arguments at the time and it cannot be said that the Montreal Protocol was not a success.

But where is it written that China or India would forever be excluded? Also, it is important to remember that the Kyoto Protocol was largely based on the Montreal Protocol where the critics brought up these very same arguments at the time and it cannot be said that the Montreal Protocol was not a success.
So long as they are excluded, the US shouldn't join the Kyoto Protocol. It doesn't even lower global emissions. It just has countries like the US produce less while China and India produce far more extra emissions to make up for what we are cutting back on.

Until either nations increase their efficiency to cut down their GDP to Emission ratio or are included in the protocol, I will be opposed to it. Should the conditions change, then I'd support it.

Politicians change their stances.

Remember John Kerry turned against the war, and he was called a flip flop...

well its only fitting that Bush gets the same treatment!

http://www.poppyseedsgifts.com/pink%20flip%20flop.jpg

In the last 5 years that has changed by a dramatic amount.


The second one was 2006.

So long as they are excluded, the US shouldn't join the Kyoto Protocol. It doesn't even lower global emissions. It just has countries like the US produce less while China and India produce far more extra emissions to make up for what we are cutting back on.

Until either nations increase their efficiency to cut down their GDP to Emission ratio or are included in the protocol, I will be opposed to it. Should the conditions change, then I'd support it.

I understand the sentiment but I still disagree.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/31/AR2007053100934.html?hpid=topnews
Excellent news on the global warming front. Hopefully this can get accomplished and we can stop the trend.
I somehow sincerely doubt it: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,485992,00.html

"For months, German Chancellor Angela Merkel has been trying to hammer out an agreement to combat climate change that all members of the G-8 could agree with. For just as long, the US has been resisting any agreement that involves a commitment to concrete emissions-reduction goals."

"However Perino made clear the United States would continue to reject Kyoto-style caps on carbon emissions. The White House also emphasized that the US does not support a worldwide emissions-trading scheme, another of Merkel's key goals for Heiligendamm."

"'The challenge remains that of convincing the Americans that they have a responsibility -- also for their own citizens who suffer from climate change,' he [German environment minister Sigmar Gabriel] said"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/31/AR2007053100934.html?hpid=topnews

Excellent news on the global warming front. Hopefully this can get accomplished and we can stop the trend.

...Urg!

*dies*

I understand the sentiment but I still disagree.
We'll just agree to disagree on this one then.

Anyone read what he actually said?
"long-term goals for reducing greenhouse gases are needed."
= we'll set targets for reduction by 2532 when Buck Rogers will be back to save us.

Further, he wants the 14 most polluting countries to join a new global framework to fight climate change once the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012.
=ohhh...let's do nothing for yet another 5 years.

He plans to host a series of meetings aimed at setting a global target by the end of 2008 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
= more waffling, no action.
Notice also the date? "end of 2008" - i.e he hopes to leave the office with a smidgen of respect in that he's doing something about global warming. 2008 = setting targets that his successor has to deal with, not him (successor can take the blame if it goes pear-shaped, Bush will claim credit if it's successful). Also, it means Bush can continue doing nothing but hopes this will look like he is doing something.

Each of the nations, he explained, would also "establish mid-term national targets and programmes that reflect their own mix of energy sources and future energy needs".
= USA will set convoluted, easily ignored targets because of "future energy needs". So, oil compaines will be able to do whatever the hell they like by claiming that "future energy needs" trumps emission cuts.

Bush is actually going to act on global warming?



Quick, someone check on the temperature in hell!

It's Frozen
http://www.cambridgenow.ca/images/newsimage/Hell%20Freezes%20Oversml.JPG

= USA will set convoluted, easily ignored targets because of "future energy needs". So, oil compaines will be able to do whatever the hell they like by claiming that "future energy needs" trumps emission cuts.

Well, they DO.

Without all the revenue, how could the Big Oil executives have their daily money shower in their money pool on their yachts?

Bush is a political corpse, I would expect alot more random events by him over the next few months, it's called desperation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/31/AR2007053100934.html?hpid=topnews

Excellent news on the global warming front. Hopefully this can get accomplished and we can stop the trend.
First and most important step: prevent him and his asshole administration from speaking another word at any press conference or to anyone else willing to listen to him. A close second is all the sycophantic radio "pundits" :rolleyes: who've been doing their twisted bidding for so long - and the ones who got Cheney/Bush into power in the first place.
Most of the hot air right there.

Bush is a political corpseGood. Let's flip him over and let the good voters from Deliverance pay their last respects.

We'll just agree to disagree on this one then.

Agreed!
...er, disagreed.
..uhm ...

Uh... good? I think? What's the catch? Is it a trade off so that he can make coats out of Dalmatian puppies or something?

Something, indeed.
Some men hunt for sport,
Others hunt for food,
The only thing I'm hunting for,
Is an outfit that looks good...

See my vest, see my vest,
Made from real gorilla chest,
Feel this sweater, there's no better,
Than authentic Irish setter.

See this hat, 'twas my cat,
My evening wear - vampire bat,
These white slippers are albino
African endangered rhino.

Grizzly bear underwear,
Turtles' necks, I've got my share,
Beret of poodle, on my noodle
It shall rest,

Try my red robin suit,
It comes one breast or two,
See my vest, see my vest,
See my vest.

Like my loafers? Former gophers -
It was that or skin my chauffeurs,
But a greyhound fur tuxedo
Would be best,

So let's prepare these dogs,

Mrs. Potts: Kill two for matching clogs,

Burns: See my vest, see my vest,
Oh please, won't you see my vest.

Love? Meh.
Tough love?

Maybe he's trying to get his approval ratings back into the 40's :eek: the first time in quite a while...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/31/AR2007053100934.html?hpid=topnews

Excellent news on the global warming front. Hopefully this can get accomplished and we can stop the trend.

It would be more excellent if Bush, instead of calling on OTHER countries, would have stated that he's going to do something about the US domestic CO2 emissions.

Oh well... no more than 7 months of Bush left.

Oh well... no more than 7 months of Bush left.

Um...what?

It seems rather an odd statement to make considering his continued refusal of the G8/Kyoto agreements.

It seems rather an odd statement to make considering his continued refusal of the G8/Kyoto agreements.

You cannot hang Kyoto on him. You can blame the Senate for Kyoto though. I mean, they did pass a resolution 95-0 about it. That was why Clinton never sent it to the floor of the Senate. He knew it would have gotten bounced right off the floor in devestating fashion.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2093357,00.html

A more sceptical version of events.

Something, indeed.

The post of utter sadness. When the Simpsons were funny and relevant at the same time.

The post of utter sadness. When the Simpsons were funny and relevant at the same time.

Round that off with this year of their "motion picture" ...

Round that off with this year of their "motion picture" ...

The adult in me says it will suck. But the kid in me says, "What if...?"

The adult in me says it will suck. But the kid in me says, "What if...?"

Funny, i had the same reaction, and also to the commercial for Transformers.

Ah, i'm still waiting on the conclusion for Futurama anyway.

Funny, i had the same reaction, and also to the commercial for Transformers.

Ah, i'm still waiting on the conclusion for Futurama anyway.

You'll appreciate this. Masters of the Universe. Feature length movie. In the works. I get a bit nostalgic when I've had a few beers. No word on a Dolph Lundgren appearance, though.

Oh... yeah. Climate change... to get back on topic.

You'll appreciate this. Masters of the Universe. Feature length movie. In the works. I get a bit nostalgic when I've had a few beers. No word on a Dolph Lundgren appearance, though.
I was in Blockbuster two nights ago and that exact cover caught my eye for a few seconds, over this very topic. :D
Now it'll be another movie my wife will force me to watch. Yay!
At least it isn't "The Notebook" again.

Oh... yeah. Climate change... to get back on topic.What? I'm not sure i've heard of it.
:confused:

What? I'm not sure i've heard of it.
:confused:

'Climate change' or 'on topic'? ;)

'Climate change' or 'on topic'? ;)

Damnit, am i that transparent? :p

I was in Blockbuster two nights ago and that exact cover caught my eye for a few seconds, over this very topic. :D
Now it'll be another movie my wife will force me to watch. Yay!
At least it isn't "The Notebook" again.
What? I'm not sure i've heard of it.
:confused:

Oh fuck. Me and my wife got advance screenings to that movie before we got married. I knew she was the one when I could detect the choking back of vomit.

Oh fuck. Me and my wife got advance screenings to that movie before we got married. I knew she was the one when I could detect the choking back of vomit.

I say, Lo, that is TRULY a keeper!

Most others are often left hearing "Oh, come on, it's not THAT bad" *nods emphatically*

So, the President is serious about global warming. Great! The oceans will shrink, it will snow in the Caribean, and world will be a more peaceful place. Yay!

Seriously, folks, everything from Kyoto to this little declaration is diddly shit. Either we pray that it's not really happening (which is possible), or just learn to adapt.