With the lengthy discussion of energy and climate issues in last night's debate, it was easy to miss some important aspects as the vice presidential candidates sped through their respective talking points.
For example, Joe Biden's repeated plugs for "clean coal" irked enviros, particularly the folks at 1Sky. It was a 1Sky organizer who asked Biden about clean coal on a rope line recently, prompting him to badmouth it; that got the McCain and Obama campaigns bickering over who loves clean coal more.
"It's time to call the bluff. There is no such thing as clean coal," said 1Sky campaign director Gillian Caldwell. "What he should have said is that clean coal does not exist. If clean coal technology did exist, if somebody could prove that carbon capture and storage technology existed, it could be put to good use to face the challenges in countries like China where coal is proliferating. But it does not exist right now, and it's a red herring."
Sarah Palin, too, talked up clean coal during the debate, further exasperating anti-coal campaigners.
"What's concerning is that the political climate is such that both candidates feel like it's an advantage with the electorate to promote a mythological response to global warming and energy independence," Caldwell said.
While Biden's coal pandering was problematic for enviros, they were more alarmed at Palin's continued reticence about the root cause of climate change. "I'm not one to attribute every activity of man to the changes in the climate," said Palin. "There is something to be said also for man's activities, but also for the cyclical temperature changes on our planet."
"I don't want to argue about the causes," she said. "What I want to argue about is, how are we going to get there to positively affect the impacts?"
But, of course, if she's still not sure if and how much humans are causing climate change, and how much it's "cyclical temperature changes," it's not clear what she thinks humankind can do to reverse it -- a point Biden himself made in a response during last night's debate. Enviros, to no one's surprise, continue to buck at her obfuscation on this topic.
"If your mapmaker still believes the world is flat, you don’t rely on her for good directions," said League of Conservation Voters president Gene Karpinski following the debate. "If your candidate doesn’t believe in the causes of global warming, you don’t rely on her for real energy solutions."
"Sarah Palin again said 'thanks but no thanks' to the science of global warming last night," said Cathy Duvall, Sierra Club's political director. "Not only does she continue to remain willfully unaware of the causes of climate change, but she also failed to recognize that other Republican governors like [Arnold] Schwarzenegger [of California] and [Charlie] Crist [of Florida] have actually been true leaders in the fight to reduce global warming pollution in their states and nationwide."
Palin's repeated calls for expanded drilling were also poorly received. Here's her talking about how the country shouldn't be bullied into opposing drilling by "East Coast politicians":
When we talk about energy, we have to consider the need to do all that we can to allow this nation to become energy independent. It's a nonsensical position that we are in when we have domestic supplies of energy all over this great land. And East Coast politicians who don't allow energy-producing states like Alaska to produce these, to tap into them, and instead we're relying on foreign countries to produce for us.
But, in fact, West Coast leaders have said "thanks but no thanks" to offshore drilling (the exception being, of course, Alaska). California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger opposes drilling off his state's coast and has aggressively challenged his partymates on the issue, saying anyone who suggests that offshore drilling would lower gas prices is "blowing smoke." Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire (D) and Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski (D) have also pledged to fight offshore drilling.
Palin followed with this:
We're circulating about $700 billion a year into foreign countries, some who do not like America -- they certainly don't have our best interests at heart -- instead of those dollars circulating here, creating tens of thousands of jobs and allowing domestic supplies of energy to be tapped into and start flowing into these very, very hungry markets.
Energy independence is the key to this nation's future, to our economic future, and to our national security. So when we talk about energy plans, it's not just about who got a tax break and who didn't. And we're not giving oil companies tax breaks, but it's about a heck of a lot more than that.
On her first point, that we should keep "those dollars circulating here," she seems to forget that oil companies, and therefore the oil markets, are multinational in scope, so it's not quite as simple as keeping American money at home in America, especially as global demand for oil is expected to continue growing as China and India expand their economies.
On her second point, that "we're not giving oil companies tax breaks," the stated policies of her running mate would in fact do just that. McCain's proposals would not only continue subsidies for Big Oil, which would total $33 billion [PDF] in the next five years, but they would also cut taxes on oil companies by nearly $4 billion a year [PDF]. The cuts would come via his call to reduce the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent and allow corporations to deduct all of their expenditures on equipment and technology.
Palin also attacked Biden for opposing drilling:
You even called drilling -- safe, environmentally friendly drilling offshore -- as raping the Outer Continental Shelf. With new technology, with tiny footprints even on land, it is safe to drill and we need to do more of that. But also in that "all of the above" approach that Sen. McCain supports, the alternative fuels will be tapped into: the nuclear, the clean coal.
Yet drilling remains far from "environmentally friendly." In 2005, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita caused 146 oil spills in federal waters, completely destroyed 113 oil rigs, and damaged 457 pipelines, resulting in oil spills large enough to be seen from space. During Hurricane Ike last month, at least three offshore rigs disappeared and are presumed to be total losses, and another deep-water production system sustained significant damage.
Palin also claimed that she "was the first governor to form a climate change subcabinet to start dealing with the impacts." But before she formed that committee in September 2007, the governors of Massachusetts and Nevada had both created similar committees, and at least 29 states had already begun taking steps to address climate change.
But perhaps what's most notable about last night from an environmental perspective is that climate and energy issues got so much play. Never before in a major debate have the candidates spent so much time talking about these issues, answering a number of direct climate and energy questions from the moderator. Even if enviros didn't like everything they said, at least that's progress.
Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success
‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science
Comments
View as Flat
saluki Posted 11:44 am
03 Oct 2008
Even the IPCC doesn't know how much of the current warming is due to humans. If you think they do, show me where it is in their report.
The past 157 years, during which we have kept instrument records of the global surface temperature, have yielded only .8C of temprature rise.
The past 11 years have yielded NO rise in the global surface temperature.
Of that .8C we know that part of it can be attributed to other causes, like increase in solar cycle activity and the fact that we were coming out of a little ice age. We also know that ocean cycles, like the PDO were responsible for part of the warming that was experienced from the late 70s to 98.
But no one knows exacly how much of the current warming is due to man. If you look at the warming that is suppose to be caused by a doubling of CO2 - according to the IPCC, you can also compute the warming that should be caused by 40% of a doubling - which is about what we have had. But that amount of warming is simply not there. Even if you attributed all of the warming that we have had to man, the numbers still don't come together. So I would say that Palin is considerably smarter than the cultists on this forum who seem to be living under the delusion that all of that trivial .8C of temperature gain is due to man.
Permalink
mreinbold Posted 1:31 pm
03 Oct 2008
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 2:02 pm
03 Oct 2008
CO2 traps heat. Methane traps heat. Climate change due to human activity preceded the industrial revolution by a fair bit simply due to loss of forest cover and plowing of soils. All of which release significant amounts of CO2 and methane.
Once we started burning coal the gig was up. That coal didnt' get laid down in a few weeks but took millions of years to accumulate. We're burning it in hundreds of years.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
human power Posted 2:55 pm
03 Oct 2008
I guess I shouldn't be surprised considering she had previously quoted a notorious neo-Nazi white supremacist. This woman will gladly pollute both the ecological environment and the social environment.
Permalink
saluki Posted 1:18 am
04 Oct 2008
Which of my comments do you believe to be incorrect. I can give you the sources.
"Climate change due to human activity preceded the industrial revolution by a fair bit simply due to loss of forest cover and plowing of soils. All of which release significant amounts of CO2 and methane."
Before the industrial revolution - that was the period of the Little Ice Age. Good point Pangolin.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 2:59 am
04 Oct 2008
Saluki, you really should be sending these incredible insights of yours to the IPCC. Specifically, you should be having direct dialouge with Hansen himself. These scientists need to be set straight. Telling us about them is a terrible waste of your time. As much as I would like to, I just can't give any credence to the rantings of your run-of-the-mill anonymous anti-global warming troll.
How can denuding an entire planet of its carbon sinks while simultaneously releasing millions of years of stored carbon not affect climate?
http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climat ...
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
saluki Posted 3:38 am
04 Oct 2008
Actually, Bio, I have had dialouge with Hansen's man Gavin Schmidt. Gavin is one of the contributers to the IPCC report, and of course he runs what is undoubtedly one of your favorite sites, Realclimate.
Now the HadCrut3 temperature record for the last 11 years has no temperature rise at all. One of Gavin's claims was that the data needed to be ENSO adjusted to be meaningful. So I ENSO adjusted that data and found that it made very little difference. Even with the ENSO adjustment, the temperature trend for the last 11 years was basically flat. I presented Gavin with this information, and he did not debate my results. Rather he claimed that there could be other elements of natural variation that could be overriding the CO2 effect for that 11 year term. I was ready to accept that assertion from Gavin; only I asked him to tell me what these elements of natural variation could be. The 11 years we were discussing were now history and so we should be able to attribute causation for the override. Unfortunately Gavin ran away from the question, refusing to answer, and trying to switch the topic to other temperature records like GISS. Of course GISS itself has only half the expected rise, while HadCrut3, RSS, and UAH have none of it. So the problem is that if we do not know enough about the climate system to explain why we have had 11 years of no temperature rise (11 years during which the CO2 level went steadily up) then how can we have enough information to give meaningful attribution to the prior temperature rise that we had seen.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 4:43 am
04 Oct 2008
I recall a debate I had years ago with a creationist. He used the undeniable fact that there were many, many unexplained, unanswered, questions about the theory of evolution as evidence that the entire theory is false. The theory of punctuated equilibrium being just one of them. Because we don't have all of the answers yet (and might I add, never will), the entire concept is false. Sound familiar?
Darwin had no idea how organisms changed in response to their environment when he postulated his theory. This was a main criticism of the theory. The discovery of DNA came much later.
Look at the on-the-ground evidence for disruptive climate change. You have to work very hard to explain it all away.
And what exactly has your argument evolved into?
Global warming is not real?
Global warming is real but insignificant?
Humanity has not exacerbated the warming?
Humanity has not significantly exacerbated the warming?
If we hit a tipping point (assuming we have not already) what are you going to say to your children and grandchildren? Oh well. See you in heaven?
There is no rational reason not to strive to bring renewable energy on line and to strive to end carbon sink destruction. It's called progress. It has to be done in a manner that does not further distress economies and can actually enhance economic growth. Why not support those efforts (or at least stop attempting to impede progress)?
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
saluki Posted 5:00 am
04 Oct 2008
We are not talking about creationism, we were talking about global warming. I hope you know the difference.
Permalink
HWilkes Posted 6:10 am
04 Oct 2008
The point biodiversivist was making was that you're using the same diversionary strategy that creationists use: you're claiming that because we might not have absolute proof of a theory, then that theory can't be taken seriously. Since I doubt you use the same standard with regards to all of the other theories in physics, biology, and chemisty that are responsible for the technologies you take for granted, I have to question why you only use this standard for anthropogenic global warming?
Permalink
saluki Posted 7:02 am
04 Oct 2008
There is no diversionay strategy. And what does it have to do with creationism. All kinds of people use diversionary strategies, including eco nuts.
"you're claiming that because we might not have absolute proof of a theory, then that theory can't be taken seriously. "
Absolute proof? LOL. No, I'm claiming that you don't have a theory that is supported by observation begin with. Physicists are smart enough to discard their theories when they disagree with actual observations. Climate scientists don't seem to be that smart.
First of all, the entire argument about AGW is around climate sensitivity; in other words, how much increase in global temperature results from a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere. Climate sensitivity is an output of models. These models use as much information about the physical processes that effect climate as we think we know. So they use parameters for things like aerosols, solar variability, etc. The output of these models already varies from about 1.7 C per CO2 doubling to 4.0 C. The fact that we do not know the physical elements of variation that have overriden the rise in temperature that we should have had over the past 11 years means that a very significant piece of information is absent for purposes of modeling the climate. Here is something, we don't know what it is, that has cancelled out 100% of the effect of the CO2 increase for those 11 years. This is not casting doubt based on what is unknown. We know that there has been no increase in the temperature and we know that CO2 has increased as rapidly as ever over that time period. This is the discovery that there are elements that would strongly effect the climate sensitivity number - and we don't know how they works. Let me make it simpler for you. If you are going to compute climate sensitivity with a computer, then the law "Garbage in garbage out" applies. You can't compute anything if you don't have the right information for computing it. Computers don't produce truth out of garbage. Even if we look beyond those last 11 years, the amount of warming we should be seeing according to CO2 theory is not there. We have had almost 40% of a CO2 doubling. The CO2 warming effect is logarithmic. So 40% of a CO2 doubling should give us almost 50% of the effect of a complete CO2 doubling with regard to temperature rise. This should be about 1.5C. And yet we have only about half that amount. And not only do we have half the amount, we also know that some of the increase we have has other causes. That doesn't leave you with much of actual physically observable warming that you can attribute to CO2. The warmers claim that the wattage is being absorbed by the oceans, and that is why we don't see it in the atmosphere. But the oceans have not warmed for the last 5 years. So where the hell is the heat hiding?
The argument, then, goes something like this - if the effect of a CO2 doubling is as low as +.5C, then we don't have anything to worry about, because we will run out of fossil fuels before the temperature rise becomes significant. However, if the effect of a CO2 doubling is 3, 4, or 5 C, then we may have some problems over the next 100 years. As time and observations continue, the .5C looks like it's going to be much closer than the 5C.
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 7:50 am
04 Oct 2008
Now, this is the same person who said she hadn't voted in the past two elections, but even today, if she could, she'd vote for George Bush.
This is the same person who actually believes Sarah Palin would make an excellent VP and could handle the job of President, if necessary.
This is the person who argues there's no good reason to move away from fossil fuels.
Saluki reminds me of the (so-called) "intelligent" people who made economic policy in the US over the past eight years. No doubt, many of those people were considered to be the brightest and most experienced economists and business leaders in the country. They could back up every one of their policy decisions with reams of data based on historical fact and proven systems of economic management. Only problem was, they had terrible judgment and virtually no common sense.
These are the same types of people who said we'd win the war in Iraq in no time at all. Brilliant military leaders and politicians... all with terrible judgment.
The thing is, these types of people.... just like Saluki... are incapable of understanding why they reach the wrong conclusions time and time again.
It's up to the rest of us to make certain the days of giving them power quickly come to an end.
Richard
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 8:02 am
04 Oct 2008
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
mreinbold Posted 9:03 am
04 Oct 2008
Permalink
ThomC Posted 9:52 am
04 Oct 2008
Models used to predict behaviour of complex systems such as climate or particle physics will continue to be in a state of flux. Observations such as a lower than predicted warming trend over the past few years are no justification to discredit the theory, but should be used to further the understanding of the dynamics at play.
On a fundamental level the presence of IR absorbing gases in ever increasing concentrations in the atmosphere will effect the heat flux between the earth and space.
I would look to the equilibrium position of water in its different phases as a likely explanation for the plateau in observable warming.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 11:21 am
04 Oct 2008
You didn't think global warming was real before you stumbled upon what you now believe is evidence to the contrary. There are reasons for that and they have nothing to do with science.
I honestly don't believe there is any evidence that can ever be presented by anybody that would convince you. Essentially, that is why the IPCC was formed--so that the world can safely ignore the interminable gadflies and get on with the business at hand.
We are not talking about creationism, we were talking about global warming. I hope you know the difference.
I presented you with an analogy and you pretended to take it literally. I don't know the difference between creationism and global warming? Looks suspiciously like an attempt (a transparent one at that) to dodge my point.
...he runs what is undoubtedly one of your favorite sites, Realclimate
I don't recall ever visiting that site.
With all due respect, you simply are not qualified to arbitrate between climate researchers. Get published in a peer reviewed science journal if you want climate scientists (or anyone else) to listen to you. Trolling the Grist blog sure isn't going to get you anywhere. Most of us know better than to take the analysis of an anonymous commenter over that of the IPCC.
Good luck with your endeavor and get back to us when you have been vindicated by the scientific community.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
mreinbold Posted 11:53 am
04 Oct 2008
Permalink
saluki Posted 1:27 pm
04 Oct 2008
Do you want to explain that a little further?
Permalink
saluki Posted 1:56 pm
04 Oct 2008
Are you actually unable to see the stupidity of your statement Bio. Climate has been going up and down for the entire history of the earth. Now we are in a warming phase, and using your moronic pronouncement, if mankind was not here, the temperature would be flat. When you say "it" is human caused you are attributing the entire rise to humans. Show me one credible scientist that makes such a claim. Show me where the IPCC makes such a claim. The IPCC position is that some of it is human caused. And since "all of it" is only 0.8C for 157 years, "some of it" is even less.
"I honestly don't believe there is any evidence that can ever be presented by anybody that would convince you."
Blah, blah, blah, yeah, I believe the same about you. Do we have to have these stupid discussions. Do you actually know anything about the issues or do you just accept that same old appeal to authority because it agrees with what you want to believe.
"Essentially, that is why the IPCC was formed--so that the world can safely ignore the interminable gadflies and get on with the business at hand."
The IPCC had concluded that it was going to get rid of CO2 before it even had any of the evidence that it needed. Once it made that decision, it mined the evidence that it needed. Governments love the idea that they can generate trillions in new taxes using AGW as an excuse. And of course the lunatic left loves anything that increases government power, diminishes freedom, and increases taxation.
"I presented you with an analogy and you pretended to take it literally."
It was a dumb analogy. If you want to discredit something you can always find a parallel that will serve your purpose. But the parallel is simply an artifact of your creation. It has no meaning in this context. But the lunatic left seems to be addicted to using the creationist parallel in place of meaningful arguments.
"I don't recall ever visiting that site."
My mistake. On the other hand, it tells me that you have spent very little time trying to understand the debate. I read the anti AGW sites, but I also read several of the top AGW sites to try to understand both sides of the issue as well as possible.
"Trolling the Grist blog sure isn't going to get you anywhere."
Sure it is. It will expose the fact that the Grist crowd knows absolutely nothing about the basis for the debate and that they accept issues of science based upon a vote who's outcome they they are predisposed to like. As a collection of left wing eco nuts, the leverage that AGW gives them is like a free ice cream cone.
"Good luck with your endeavor and get back to us when you have been vindicated by the scientific community."
I would prefer to be vindicated by real world climate observations. And so far that is going quite well, thank you.
Permalink
saluki Posted 2:30 pm
04 Oct 2008
I've always thought that it would be nice to be a left wing eco nut. If you have an IQ above 70 you can pick up all of their debating points in about 15 minutes and you are ready to go to war.
They go something like this.
1. Accuse your opponent of being a racist or
a bigot.
2. Big business is evil. (And it's variations)
The military industrial complex is evil.
Oil companies are evil.
Republicans are driven by greed and hatred.
Advance your issues by illustrating someone
who suffers if your issues are not advanced.
You can always find someone who is suffering.
This will allow you to pretend to be acting
out of compassion and moral superiority.
Ignore any suffering or loss of freedom that
may result from the implementation of your
proposed solutions.
5. Propose that the solution to every problem
is bigger government, more taxation, and
more socialism.
6. Propose the moral superiority of everthing
that is not American and the moral inferiority
of everything that is American. You've got
to tear the place down if you want to replace
it with a socialist state.
7. Pander to all minority groups. Everything
that they do is right, or at least
justifiable.
8. Pretend to be trying to save the environment
or some oppressed group. It's the best way
to get power.
9. Pretend to be a long suffering victim of
social injustice - even if you are a
millionaire.
10. Use popular issues like climate change to
further enhance your power base. Claim that
it is simply a matter of settled science.
11. If all of these things should fail, return
to dependable number one and never give it up.
Permalink
saluki Posted 3:24 pm
04 Oct 2008
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.0581.pdf
Permalink
saluki Posted 1:43 am
05 Oct 2008
Attack your opponent as being motivated by irrational religious extremism. This rule only applies to Christianity. For all other religions, follow pandering rule 7 above.
Attack you opponent as being a redneck. This only applies to those with American small town cultural backgrounds. For all other cultures, follow pandering rule 7 above.
Defend the principle of freedom when it fits the agenda, like "A woman's freedom to choose (abortion)". Ignore the principle of freedom in all other cases, like driving an SUV, smoking cigarettes, hunting, going to church, paying taxes, etc.
Coordinate your daily talking points by checking with sources like Nancy Pelosi, Daily Kos, Huffington Post, etc. These will provide you excellent examples of how to bundle the previous rules.
That should pretty much cover everything. You may get the rare exception, like Michael, who tries to overwhelm you with meaningless psychobabble, but these exceptions are almost too few to count.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 3:04 am
05 Oct 2008
Governments love the idea that they can generate trillions in new taxes using AGW as an excuse
Yes, yes, I know. You said that before. In your eyes, you're doing battle with the "lunatic left [that] loves anything that increases government power, diminishes freedom, and increases taxation." In my eyes, and based largely on the above comment and similar ones you've let slip before, you're a stereotypical, obsessed conspiracy theorist running from website to website building detailed and elaborate proofs of things like, faked moon landings and Twin Tower bombs. I wouldn't want to take on a tower bomb guy. I'm confident they have covered every conceivable comeback. Comments like the one above, and some to follow, expose your motivations. I like the lunatic left about as much as you do. I've yet to actually meet anyone fitting your description but I'm sure they must be out there somewhere. I also have a strong distaste for the lunatic right, of which you appear to be an example. Extremists are mirror images of one another. This stereotype you hate, it doesn't even exist.
the Grist crowd knows absolutely nothing about the basis for the debate and that they accept issues of science based upon a vote who's outcome they are predisposed to like. As a collection of left wing eco nuts, the leverage that AGW gives them is like a free ice cream cone
The "Grist crowd" has been watching this "debate" for some time now. The Grist crowd is generally wise enough to let the scientists do their research and present it in peer reviewed journals. That research gets back to the general readership via blog posts by those of us who subscribe to those journals or read about them elsewhere. If Nature and Science and the Journal of Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics start publishing papers reflecting your perspective (that global warming is indeed a giant global hoax propagated by governments and scientists to line their pockets with tax and research money respectively) we will all be greatly relieved. We would love it if new research would let us rest easier at night knowing our children and grandchildren won't be living on a planet being decimated by runaway global warming tipping points. This should all sound familiar because we have been here before. Your arguments are spiraling down the toilet.
Not everyone who frequents this site agrees with everything said in every post. Far from it. You only think Grist is one big collection of "eco nuts" because in comparison, you, along with your pals mreignbold and Jabailo, are intellectual giants. We eco nuts merely bask in the glow of the hot aura that emanates from your god-like intellects (eyes rolling, coffee cup to lips).
When you say "it" is human caused you are attributing the entire rise to humans. Show me one credible scientist that makes such a claim. Show me where the IPCC makes such a claim. The IPCC position is that some of it is human caused
Nice try but unfortunately for you my previous rhetorical questions above made it abundantly clear that I am not attributing the entire rise to human activity. Let me "show" them to you:
3) Humanity has not exacerbated the warming?
4) Humanity has not significantly exacerbated the warming?
Human activity has exascerbated it.
Blah, blah, blah, yeah, I believe the same about you [that no amount of peer reviewed science could dissuade me of my belief that anthropomorphic global warming is a reality].
I'm not into "belief" systems. If ongoing research by the scientific community actually does reverse itself I will not only accept it, I will be greatly relieved. Seriously, who in their right mind would accept the ranting of an anonymous internet troll in place of published peer reviewed science?
Do you actually know anything about the issues or do you just accept that same old appeal to authority because it agrees with what you want to believe ...
they accept issues of science based upon a vote who's outcome they they are predisposed to like
I've always had a problem with authority figures. As we go round and round you will note that we have been here before. Look up my previous response. And the next time that claim shows up on your merry go round, attach that response to your claim so I won't have to address it again and again like Bill Murray in Punxsutawney.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
saluki Posted 12:18 pm
06 Oct 2008
Just as you have said everything before. And it's all just as nonsensical as the first time that you said it.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:43 pm
06 Oct 2008
The rhetoric that is used to keep the Reagan revolutionaries in power is septic as well.
It emits dangerous gases into the political atmosphere.
Reform, regulation, and enforcement can flush the cesspool, that waste has to be treated. Only a small portion of the fetid gas will be left, as talkig point spam forever recirculating on the net.
Keep up the good work saluki. Hehey.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
mreinbold Posted 2:54 pm
07 Oct 2008
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:58 pm
07 Oct 2008
It turns the toxic waste into safe ferilizer, energy, and recycles clean air and water.
A new reality running on the detritus of the corrupt big lie.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink