US News
By M&C US News Dec 28, 2007, 18:36 GMT
French physicist calls Al Gore a 'crook' over global warming issues
And Also
Latest Headlines in US
- 1. Tiger Woods treated after car accident (2nd Lead)
- 2. Tiger Woods seriously injured in car accident (1st Lead)
- 3. REPORT: Tiger Woods seriously injured in car accident
- 4. Publicity-hungry socialites reportedly crashed state dinner
- 5. Millions of Americans hit roads, airports for Thanksgiving holiday
Older Talkback
'Science is a truely[sic] collaborative enterprise.'
What I was refuting was the idea that American science is something to be ridiculed. Especially by a society whose contribution to the modern world is expensive chocolate.
' Nothing I wrote detracts from Robert Goddards success, but his actual flight achievements pale to Von Braun's.'
Von Braun was a team manager, Goddard was a scientist. Here, read this:
www.thespacereview.com/article/1013/1
'And yes, AFTER these folks did their pioneering, they emigrated to the USA.'
Yes and no. You see, Fermi and Einstein came here to escape a truly European invention called the 'death camp'. Their countries were overtaken by another European invention called 'fascism' whereby their best minds 'collaborated' to come up with inventions like 'the master race' and the 'holocaust'. Even still, Fermi's best work was in the USA, Einstein's work came to fruition in the USA and Von Braun actually hit the moon instead of London as an American, not a Nazi.
It speaks to the society that we have that people can come here and live to the extent of their individual potential. That is why there is an American flag on the moon, not an Italian or German one.
'but my point was that science is a collaborative enterprise and one builds on the work of others. '
Well you see, MY point was that tonny is an ass. You hopped on in and muddied the waters with the 'science is a collaborative effort and you are a turd' proclamation. If you want to follow your point to it's logical ends then no one can take credit for anything because it all started with the ancient Chinese and Sumerians. I am sure tonny would LOVE to endorse that point of view. It is the collective theory of innovation; No one is responsible (especially those Yankee SOB's) because everyone is responsible. I do not buy it.
'Von Braun WAS motivated by Goddards work,'
Goddard and Von Braun were probably motivated by the legend of 'Wan Hu' the Ming dynasty era Chinese 'astronaut' who strapped bottle rockets to his chair and launched himself toward the moon... Unless you can find a scorched Chinaman up there the credit still goes to NASA/The USA. The Anasazi made glow in the dark decorations but the first atomic pile was under the tennis courts at University of Chicago. The abacus may have inspired the integrated circuit but Robert Noyce gets the point...
Yes, human achievement as well as scientific achievement is inherently built on the previous achievements, evolutionary more then collaborative. HOWEVER: In dealing with whiny, indoctrinated, parasitic idiots from Belgium who are furious at being surpassed by these upstart Americans it helps to run down a few contributions to scientific endeavor that have a 'made in America' pedigree.
It also helps to then not have to then go into a long protracted, ad nauseum debate about what precise degree of collaboration these innovations owe to evolution or revolution or collaboration versus inspiration because the original, irrefutable point was that tonny is an a*shole.
'Robert Goddard didn't develop the Saturn V, Von Braun did, end of story.'
Wrong, Von Braun presided over the team that developed it at NASA that used the research of American inventor Robert Goddard.
'Von Braun is, by his own account and history's, a GERMAN scientist, not an american[sic] scientist.'
Wrong, On April 15, 1955, von Braun became a naturalized citizen of the United States. Here is his grave:
www.v2rocket.com/start/chapters/grave_002.jpg
Ivy Hill Cemetery in Alexandria, Virginia. That is in the USA.
So “the other way” doesn’t work for you either.
Here is a photo of the Saturn V rocket:
www.spacecamp.com/media/images/saturn%20v-1.jpg
See any German flags on that? Nope.
Here is a photo of someone by the name of Armstrong:
www.vw.vccs.edu/vwhansd/HIS122/Images/ManOnMoon.jpg
Armstrong… That’s a Scottish name isn’t it? Why no cross of St. Andrew? Gee, that’s an American flag he is planting on the frigging moon… I wonder why he didn’t celebrate the collaboration of all that came before him and plant a big rainbow flag like the one that you carry at your gay pride marches? Because it was an American enterprise. Got it?
So, now for you and tonny who are both evidentially on the same page here, the United States has made great contributions to scientific endeavor. End of Story.
Man made global warming (what this story was originally about) is a theory that has yet to be definitively proved by scientists of ANY nationality...
Humans may very well be contributing to global warming and the facts are important, just ask any of the fire fighters who had to go up against the tremendous forest fires that decimated the U.S. woodlands in the 2007 fire season which lasted a bit longer than was the norm. Moreover, it is becoming more of a trend, pattern, if you will.
Politics and name-calling don't seem to help where actions are needed to save this planet from further devastation. You see, warfare isn't the only harmful means to an end.
Wasting energy on comparing science from Europe or the USA is pointless in this debate,completely irrelevant?Recorded temperatures indicate the same pattern in Europe and the USA alike ;temperatures are on the rise ...and fast.No need to be a rocket engineer to compare average temperatures for the last centuries .They all indicate the same trend.No need to blame China or India for the 6 percent of the world population living in the USA for spouting 25 percent of the total carbon dioxide .And no need to deny it is responsible for raising temperatures and shiftng weather patterns .Statistics contain the condensed facts ?Too bad people are willing to deny these facts solely basing themselves on absence of education and understanding facts .Fact is that in France nobody gives a fart about what an estranged scientist says.Public opinion is behind the facts,there is absolutely no rouse in the media like the above article claims.THere is simply no trace of it in the French press at all,it is spin from Monsters and Critics,shall I call it 'hot air ' ?
And if Gore was a Republican, SP4 would be posting constant glowing tributes!
'No need to blame China or India for the 6 percent of the world population living in the USA for spouting 25 percent of the total carbon dioxide'
Fine, blame it on the sun cycle.
'And no need to deny it is responsible for raising temperatures and shiftng weather patterns'
Prove it. Water vapor is by FAR the largest greenhouse gas. Put a cap on that.
'Statistics contain the condensed facts'
Whatever that means...
'Too[sic] bad people are willing to deny these facts solely basing themselves on absence of education and understanding facts'
A 'absence of education'???
'Claude Allegre, a former education minister and a physicist by profession'
Gee Claude sounds educated, you sound like a moron.
'.Public opinion is behind the facts,there is absolutely no rouse in the media like the above article claims'
Public opinion was once behind witch burning. Does that make it correct?
(1) Please, people, use the 'name' line for some sort of I.D. - and (possibly)then a Subject- better yet, put subject as first line of text - so we know who we are replying to and can follow a person's train of thought.
(2) PLEASE, stick with the subject. Discuss who built the first rocket and at what longitude in some sort of forum
(3)Speaking of forums - will this be moved to one?
tonny from belgium wrote: Recorded temperatures indicate the same pattern in Europe and the USA alike ;temperatures are on the rise ...and fast.No need to be a rocket engineer to compare average temperatures for the last centuries .They all indicate the same trend.
Tonny - go back to page 3 and read the data on temperatures.
After that - we need to figure out something else:
The oceans and land outgas 210 billion tons of CO2 per year compared to 3 billion tons per year from human activity.
On August 15, 2007, meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo, the first Director of Meteorology at The Weather Channel and former chairman of the American Meteorological Society’s Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting, said, “If the atmosphere was a 100-story building, our annual anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first floor.”
Just how significant is our contribution to the CO2 'crisis?' (3/213 = 1.4%). So if we cut out ALL human contribution of CO2 - kill everybody (stop them from breathing) and shutdown everything (including the electric for your computer) - what has been accomplished?.. NOTHING!
Average temperatures rose only about 0.6 degrees since the beginning of the industrial era, and the change hasn't been uniform — warming has largely occurred during the periods from 1919 to 1940 and from 1976 to 1998, with cooling in between. Researchers have been unable to explain this discrepancy.
Paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter - testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works - on his June 18, 2007 essay that global warming has stopped. Yet atmospheric CO2 has increased by 17 percent since 1979. Thus, the connection between CO2 and “global warming,” the key to the claims that it is occurring and will increase has been proven wrong.
To reiterate from my last post: The 15 hottest years since 1880 are spread over seven decades. Eight occurred before atmospheric carbon dioxide began its recent rise; seven occurred afterwards.
In other words, there is no discernible trend, no obvious warming of late.
It is hard ti fight to combat complete ignorance of facts.After having learned that carbon dioxide is in fact a conductor of heath from Noharness ( against the laws of physics more precisely the first and second laws of thermodynamics but never mind science,noharness knows better) last poster seems to think that in fact the oceans spout into the atmosphere vast amounts of carbon dioxide,in fact in such enormous amounts that compared to that,human contribution is just a puff of perfume .Not entirely untrue I ' d say ,but the poster is giving a biased picture.In fact the oceans have been absorbing these enormous amounts of carbon dioxide and have helped reducing thev impact of it on global warming....until recently .Latest survey made in 2006 on 60 different spots revealed the oceans are saturated with carbon dioxide and are now releasing the stuff,accelerating global warming .What is even worse is that methane ,which impacts global warming in an exponential way unparalleled even by carbon dioxide,might be released from the ocean floor (that is however not proved )What is actually been observed is relaese from methane from the melting permafrost ,billions of tons of it ,that is if the balance shifts to more warming still.
The situation right now seems to indicate that already the point of no return has been reached and humans will have to make efforts not to add further to the problems .
Never mind the neocon idiot SP4 who claims atheism is a religion,states that Bush is the greatest president in US history,still claims the existence of WMD in Iraq,claims 16 US intelligence sources all claiming Iran stopped it's military nuclear plans in 2003 have it all wrong if Bush and Bolton say so,who thinks a war is justified if it is won whatever the costs and reasons given to go to war ...in fact would you buy a second hand car from such a fraud ?
It takes learning and understanding or trust in the scientific community operating on a worldwide level to choose sides in this debate .Outside the USA it is already over,we have no oil lobby capable of spreading lies lik in the USA.A good precedent for that was indeed as another poster indicated the struggle to convince smokers that cigarettes cause cancer .Ten thousands of americans have died for nothing more than the profit of Marlboro and Philip Morris .Even there some nutty scientists were payed by the tobacco lobby toperformo a similar task ?THey hired the same canadian public relation that worked for the tobacco industry to spread their lies ,not exactly a coincidence. So,no thanks guys I'll stick to mainstream facts.Citing the fact that it was once fashion to hunt witches is completely irrelevant to the debate,it puts to shame the very person that uses this kind of argument in a serious debate .
What do we do with the temperature data that is an 'inconvenient truth?' - toss it, because it doesn't fit - or are they from the 'oil conspiracy too?'
tonney, you said: Outside the USA it is already over,we have no oil lobby capable of spreading lies lik in the USA.
Fine - Since money creates lies (your words) Then where are the global warming 'scientists' getting their money? Hmmm?
Scientists, primarily those in academia, but also those in other public and private industries, are promoted and advance mainly through their research efforts and publication record. In order to conduct research and ultimately publish the results in refereed scientific journals, scientists need money, ---> government money mostly.
This is a continuation of previous note - which got cut off inadvertantly:
Unfortunately, journals are unlikely to publish, what scientists call, negative results.
That is, if you spend five years researching a question and determine honestly through your research that there are no significant conclusions to be drawn from the work, this knowledge is valuable, but it will never be published and you will not be promoted or receive tenure. Additionally, the agency that funded your research will be highly unlikely to fund any more or your work. For instance, if you conducted a scientific experiment to test the effectiveness of a new drug on the treatment of cancer and found that patients administered the drug had the same rate of survival as those who received a placebo, these would be negative results. The information is valuable, because it has identified a fruitless path of inquiry, but it is also considered not worthy of publication, in most cases. As a result, there is an enormous amount of pressure placed upon scientists to produce significant results.
Now, apply this paradigm to the current ''human activity caused, global warming'' debate. Most scientists researching the issue do so through the receipt of government grants. What do you suppose would happen to a scientist's career if he or she took several million dollars from the federal government to study global warming and, after several years, produced results honestly that stated that, either global warming was not occurring or that there isn't any evidence supporting the idea that it is caused by human activity? The individual would almost certainly not get published and would definitely not receive any more research funding. In essence, it would be the end of a career. When you consider that most who hold doctoral degrees spend between six and 12 years striving to get the degree, it isn't surprising that so few are willing to risk what they have worked so hard for over something as trivial as objective inquiry.
RE:'It is hard ti fight to combat complete ignorance of facts. After having learned that carbon dioxide is in fact a conductor of heat from Noharness ( against the laws of physics more precisely the first and second laws of thermodynamics but never mind science,noharness knows better) last poster seems to think that in fact the oceans spout into the atmosphere vast amounts of carbon dioxide,in fact in such enormous amounts that compared to that,human contribution is just a puff of perfume.'
Tonny, if you tried to insulate your house with CO2 you'd have a monstrous great energy bill or bills. Why do you suppose we install insulation in buildings, none of which are gases? You are spouting off about the first and second laws of thermodynamic, but I have serious doubts about your understanding of them. Heat is a damnably difficult thing hang onto. It's natural tendency is to dissipate as quickly as it can. Any gas or liquid that can circulate speeds up that process. Further, even stagnant gases and liquids will eventually conduct enough heat out of a container that they simply do NOT serve as insulators.
RE:'Not entirely untrue I ' d say ,but the poster is giving a biased picture.In fact the oceans have been absorbing these enormous amounts of carbon dioxide and have helped reducing thev impact of it on global warming....until recently .Latest survey made in 2006 on 60 different spots revealed the oceans are saturated with carbon dioxide and are now releasing the stuff,accelerating global warming.'
This one really is scary because the people saying these things should definitely no better, but they are afraid that they might make all the tree-huggers mad by telling the truth. Seventy-one percent of the Earth is covered by sea water. Guess where the bulk of the carbon is permanently, sequestered--the ocean. Guess how it's done! It is, or has been taken care of by the pelagic microorganisms in the oceans. Every year, the oceans produce some five trillion (5,000,000,000,000) tons of algae and diatoms during the summer of every year. They either die or are consumed by larger organisms and guess where all that CO2 that was converted starches, lipids and carbohydrates ends up! On the ocean floor. IT STAYS THERE! Most of it gets buried and turned in to carbonate rock.
At the same time that we began burning fossil fuels, we started dumping who knows how many millions of tons of toxins into the oceans. If you were really and truly worried about CO2 your first order of business would be to put complete and total stop to water pollution. With the oceans and its indigenous life, the atmosphere will stay in balance. Without that indigenous life in the oceans we will die of CO2 poisoning. Right about then is when we might, maybe, perhaps could see, some greenhouse warming from the gorramned CO2.
RE:'It takes learning and understanding or trust in the scientific community operating on a worldwide level to choose sides in this debate.'
Scientists, perhaps, provided they make a good case for their theories. Bureaucrats, never! The scientists 'working with' the IPPC have not made a good case and most of the doubts expressed by the scientists in their reports were edited out by the bureaucrats at the UN. You still have not made a case, Tonny.
RE:'Outside the USA it is already over,we have no oil lobby capable of spreading lies like in the USA. A good precedent for that was indeed as another poster indicated the struggle to convince smokers that cigarettes cause cancer.'
Yeah, let's talk about this one for a minute, because there is a lot of lying done about it on both sides. Polonium free tobacco does not cause, lung cancer, Tonny. People started smoking tobacco way back in the 1600's and lung cancer remained so rare up until just before WWII that it was almost unheard of. What made the difference? Fertilizers taken from mines. Nearly all of them have trace amounts of polonium in them. A great many plants have an affinity for certain metals and concentrate them in their tissues. Rice for instance, concentrates tungsten in the hulls surrounding rice grains. Tobacco, as it happens, will concentrate polonium in its tissues whenever and wherever the plants find it in the soil.
This has been known for a long, long time and it was known by both government researchers and the tobacco companies. So why didn't US Government which heavily subsidized tobacco farming until the Clinton Administration, ban the use of certain fertilizers on tobacco crops? Why is it that was not made generally known until recently? Could have been because certain elements in American Society favored their political and legislative agendas more than they did the lives of US citizens? You want me to trust government? You want me to trust the frikkin' UN? Have you lost your pea-pickin' little mind?
'So,no thanks guys I'll stick to mainstream facts.'
There is no such thing as 'mainstream facts'. There never has been any such and there never will be.
RE:'Citing the fact that it was once fashion to hunt witches is completely irrelevant to the debate,it puts to shame the very person that uses this kind of argument in a serious debate.'
No, not really, but it you do not like witch hunting as an example, how about eugenics? Or, better yet, socialist genetics? How about German physics versus Jewish physics? How much of that kind of bilge water thinking will you sucker for, Tonny?
'...who doe this upstart imagine himself to be...fluanting his views in the face of 1500 years of accepted doctrine from the majority of scholers...?'
Paraphrase of comments made By Martin Luther in reference to Nicoli Copernicus's writings on celestial mechanics.
I would like to read more of your comments. Is it possible for you to be even less brief in your comments? Try embelishing more i.e anything pertaining to my posts, the kitchen sink, your favorite color, etc.
By all means, get back to us!
Just some final thoughts for tonny:
I have refrained from character demeaning - and will continue attempting to keep my thoughts on the discussion - trying to ignore your feeble attempts to posture yourself as a Supreme being and us as riff raff. eg: (1)lunatic fringe (2) Ignorance is a poor excuse (3)the disabled peanut brains in the USA (4) Some people need an education. (5) Its hard to fight complete ignorance (6) the neocon idiot - etc. etc. etc.
But, you DO make it difficult.
Now, you have preened and are quite proud of your 'scientific education' - and demean all those who dare come at you with data (facts) that don't fit with your 'ideology' (and that is what has become apparant). Have you even considered what the education of those of us who are trying to discuss this issue with your highness (Oops, sorry - I forgot).
Since we disagree with you - we 'obviously' are all bought out by the 'oil lobby.' - And since you disagree with us - I HAVE to presume you are part of the government subsidized (re my last post) - So where does that leave the debate - since we are both 'lying'?
Why are the global warming proponents so determined to end the debate over global warming? If the evidence in support of the idea is so overwhelming, it should only be a matter of thoughtful debate and time before everyone comes to agreement on it. Yet, skeptics and dissenters are discredited, threatened professionally and encouraged to keep silent on the issue.
The bottom line in my investigation of this subject is - it is very obvious that the data is there and is mounting - that man is not responsible for whatever (sporadic) slight temperature rise (0.6 F) there has been over the last 100+ years. I have shown data backing up that statement. Where is your data backing up your statement that 'Recorded temperatures are on the rise ...and FAST'?
You stated: 'No need to be a rocket engineer to compare average temperatures for the last centuries?' - and I agree. so go back & check - and while your at it - what does the temperatures of 'centuries' ago have to do with the discussion?
Lastly, I have seen a DRAMATIC shift in the scientific community on their hypotheses over the last 6 months. Funny how deeper investigation sometimes sheds light where some least expect it...
Here is the truth. When you look at the essentials, Earth is little different from a kettle of water sitting on a fire. Granted, we are here talking about a very large kettle sitting on a positively huge fire, but all that really means is that it takes longer for the fire to change and it takes longer for the kettle to heat up or cool off. As I am writing this, old Sol is falling into what the data suggests will be a prolonged period of relative quiescence. We are now going to cool off and the IPCC is going to look silly. This will NOT end the argument over carbon dioxide, so let's take a hard look at what the greenhouse panic-mongers are saying.
They are saying that carbon dioxide, a minor component of the Earth's atmosphere at about .038%, is such an effective insulator that the relative minor increases caused by human activity will cause a global catastrophe. They make this claim even though the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere is much greater, something like 26 times as high. Water vapor is hundreds of times more effective as an absorber of infra-red light as CO2. In fact, water absorbs, retains and re-emits nearly all of the EM spectrum. The IPCC went well out of its way, even stating in the first paragraph of its report that it was not addressing the impact water vapor has on the global climate. I suspect the primary reason they have not done is is that their computer models cannot deal with clouds so they simply pretended that water vapor has nothing to do with our current warming trend. Presumably, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere has changed but very little so it is of no account, but this is false in the eyes of the IPCC.
This is a false assumption. We have been dumping water vapor into the atmosphere in large quantities. A quick look at the chemistry of burning hydrocarbon fuels reveals that for every ten grams of fuel burned, we dump about 3.5 grams of water vapor into the atmosphere. This is important, if you accept the greenhouse theory, because water vapor is vastly more effective as than carbon dioxide as a 'greenhouse' gas. CFC's, HCFC's, methane and a variety of other gases are also vastly more effective as greenhouse gases, but they are given little consideration. Presumably, these other gases are too low in concentration for the IPCC to worry about them, even though a concentration of 0.038% of carbon dioxide is claimed to be grounds for panic. The use and eventual release of HCFC's by China and India alone should have the IPCC in a wild-eyed panic if their theory is correct, yet we hear almost no mention of HCFC's from the IPCC. Their focus has been on carbon dioxide.
A geologist once told me that the Earth has three basic constituents. 'Earth,' he said, 'is basically water, whale shit (calcium carbonate) and sand (any and all silicates). There isn't enough of anything else to really matter.' When it comes to climate control, it is the water and whale shit that matter the most. Here's why.
Seventy-one percent of Earth's surface is covered by water. Yes, that's right, we mis-named our planet. We should have named it 'Sea' or 'Oceanus' or something. Water soaks up heat like a sponge soaks up water and water releases that heat relatively slowly compared to the land or the atmosphere. If Earth had no oceans it would be only barely habitable. The temperature would plummet at night and soar during the day. The oceans MODERATE temperature fluctuations. The atmosphere is incapable of such.
Remember the first Persian Gulf War? Remember when Saddam Hussein had his army dynamite all those oil wells in Kuwait? Did you notice the reports that the air temperature beneath those clouds dropped down around to 50 degrees F? Folks, the atmosphere CANNOT and does NOT retain heat!
Does this mean that we are out of the woods insofar as carbon dioxide is concerned? NO! Here's why.
Carbon dioxide begins to have deleterious effects on your health at concentrations at 1% and above. At five percent, one-half of a percent greater than the concentration you exhale, it becomes lethal. We do NOT have unlimited license to dump carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
Now, most of the carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere by the oceans and the microorganisms living in them. Yes, I know, you've heard that the Amazon Basin and its trees are the 'lungs of the Earth'. That's nonsense propaganda invented by treehuggers. Remember, the oceans cover seventy-one percent of the Earth's surface. The Amazon Basin isn't a patch on that. We have two long-term problems that MUST be addressed. We MUST stop burning coal and we MUST stop polluting the water. During the spring and summer of each year the oceans produce five trillion tons of algae and diatoms. Those microscopic plants convert the carbon dioxide into sugars, starches and lipids, nearly all of which settles on the bottom of the oceans and eventually becomes 'whale shit'--calcium carbonate.
Tonny eagerly pointed out in last post that carbon dioxide concentrations in sea water are now approaching the saturation limit. This, to me, is a sure sign that we are already in trouble. Not because of climate change, but because we poisoning the water which eventually lead to us dying of carbon dioxide poisoning.
Here is the great irony of this situation. We have the technologies we need to stop this. All we really need to do is to stop burning coal, but the coal interests, a very large and rich political constituency, and the environmentalists both hate nuclear power plants. Can you say, 'short-sighted fools'? I thought so.
Their whole game centers around their religion i.e. the Church-of-the-Divine-Liberal. If you defame the prophets they will declare you:
(1) stupid - Bush in 2000
(2) Crazy - Bush in 2004 after beating the self proclaimed 'smart' guy (they got the same grades at Yale!)
(3) A Radical - Bush, after the 1st two did not work.
Now, with a score like that...0 out of 3...we are now all supposed to bow to Harvard 5 times a day, an praise their golden calf i.e. their point of view.
The only thing missing is the burning Bush (not THAT Bush) and the tablets, but I suspect they are in the works...
Yes, Bush is the antichrist, coming to earth in Texas, of all places, and leading us to Armageddon. The libnazi press, advancing every negative story, and burying the positive news at every turn, like the Catholic church in the middle ages, pillorying the infidels, their believers marching lockstep to the hymns of their holy men.
So woe be to those who defame these prophets of doom. They will smite you with charges of bigotry, a subject they know so well, lies and propaganda.
Like all clerics with no resraints, they will indulge themselves in all of those things they purport to despise, Big-assed SUV's, zillions of gallons of jet fuel, drugs, alchohol, racial slurs behind your backs, while preaching carbon foot prints and the straight (or gay) and narrow for the masses.
You see, Libnazis are NEVER happy:
They hate you, your car, your house, the number of kids you have, their color (if white) the income you make, where you live, the size of your home, what you read (unless they approve it) guns, unless it's theirs,and the list is, well, endless.
So relax and get back to us.
Gore is not a crook about Global Warming.
Gore is just a crook about everything.
As science does it's job, there will be more scientists coming out with questions about this science that was offered up.
Your Talkback on this Story