Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 93
M
Max Offline
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 93
Originally Posted By: DA Morgan

PS: I like the jpl.nasa link you posted. Did you read it?

Yes I did, and you're welcome. I thought you would like it. Now, if I had cared to continue a discussion with you, we could have had an agreeable link to debate. This is how civil a discussion should take place.

Originally Posted By: DA Morgan

I note you ignored my point about your search criterion being biased.

No, I addressed that.

Originally Posted By: DA Morgan

I note you ignored my point about the equally low value of biasing in the other direction.

No, I took the comment for what it was worth. In fact, you ignored most of my post and only want to debate two very small aspects of my first post.

Originally Posted By: DA Morgan

I agree with leaving politics and religion out of it.

Then why did you mention them. Republicans and democrats are the same people to me. Sick people that insist on manufacturing hate. Republicans bankrupt the country and democrats tax us to no end. It's a game, and they are quite good at fooling people. Religion is a personal issue and there is no benefit to science with insulting religion.

Originally Posted By: DA Morgan

I didn't suggest your links were bogus. I stated flat out, in plain English, that they have zero credibility on a topic of serious science.

That is an outright lie. Once again, I will repeat myself...I have only left NASA links. Your desperate attempts to fool the few that read this forum (yourself) are obvious. Now, you're even trying to discredit your own recommended "brneurosci.org" link. I guess the google link blew a fuse in your brain, and you didn't know how to discredit such a wealth of scientific information. Your opinion of a link is meaningless. The content of the link is all that is relevant. Again...I don't play the link game, and I could tell that you do, so I left the list for you to choose from hoping to avoid this link game nonsense. I'm a busy man, and have no time to search for links that you will accept. I have no time to play the "discredit the link" game with you. There is nothing to be gained with the link game. Especially, if you only post a link without reference to what you are talking about.

If you like UT links, this one states the ice gain/loss is yet to be determined. But you are completely sold on loss, without evidence.
http://www.utexas.edu/features/archive/2002/polarice.html

Another from Ohio State
www-bprc.mps.ohio-state.edu/rsl/documents/science.ppt

A .gov site...
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777

Three links for you to tear apart...have fun. I?m through. No,I didn?t bother to read them. I accept that both are occurring.

I guess we'll have to disagree with the statement about linear projections. I have a HUGE problem with it. I'll let you try to figure out why.

Here is a link to an article with the IPCC admitting that they knew the numbers were wrong in the 2001 report, and said nothing for 6 years. Many scientists took these studies as being accurate. Many websites are based on the bogus 2001 report. I'm sorry, but it is the truth. You claim to be a teacher. Did you teach from the 2001 report? LOL. Please read the last few paragraphs on page two, and also pay close attention to this statement.

"The first chapter, written by more than 600 scientists and reviewed by another 600 experts and edited by bureaucrats from 154 countries," then "The 12-page summary for policymakers will be edited in secret word-by-word by government officials for several days in Paris next week and released to the public on Feb. 2."

Do you not have alarms going off? Secretly edited word by word, BY BUREAUCRATS? Do you not see something wrong here? Do you really want science reports that are edited in secret by government officials?

And the closing statement...
"I think probably the low value (in the 2001 report) and also the high value came from models that probably had mistakes in them," Trenberth recently told the Rocky Mountain News of Denver. "The confidence in those numbers was probably not that good, and they probably never should have been used in the way in which they were used."

"Never should have been used in the way in which they were used!"


WOW! I agree.
Thousands of website used the bogus 2001 report and are now discredited. The internet is full of pseudo-science and they let it happen. Just think of all the wasted work, and those poor scientists that stood behind the 2001 report. So much for their credibility. Why anyone would listen to them, after backing the CFC scam and now the confession of CO2 misinformation, is beyond me.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16760730/#storyContinued

If you would like, I can give you another link to a climate modeling scientist from Scripps that also speaks of how their models are inaccurate. I know you love Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Roger Revell was Gore's favorite teacher. Here it is.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate/somerville.html

Also, I won't fall for the alarmist language. Websites that use language such as..."highly likely, could happen, probably, appeared to accelerate, could reach" Been there, done that. That's bad science.

I have two EPA licenses, obtained in 1992 and started in this business in 1980. The company I work for produces CFC's, and also developed the HFC's that do not destroy ozone, and have less GWP. I understand (more than most) chemical reactions with the atmosphere. It's my job. Here's what the IPCC says. Read this and tell me why everyone is more worried about CO2 than anything else is.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/gwp.html

If you are serious about human impact,this is another good read.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/other_gases.html

Oh, NASA and NOAA all have an agenda. Funding. Drew Shindell of NASA just admitted at the hearing that he knew of unrealistically high numbers being used in the reports. He also admitted they wanted to alarm people with his Antarctica report, because his funding decreased. The IPCC was wrong about CFC's just like all of the real scientists said they were, but they still managed to make billions off of the industry from impact fees, licensing, fines...They even named a glacier after the NOAA scientist that did the CFC research. They now admit to fear mongering with CO2 for 6 years with false data. The IPCC has zero credibility in my books.

(FYI) The Union of Concerned Scientists? Great group! What does it take to become a member of the UCS? $25 and no education required. $35 will get you a free mouse pad. Join today.
https://secure.ga3.org/03/Join_UCS?qp_source=wacpromogooglefr

Who has actually read the Kyoto Protocol? Please tell me how selling carbon credits will do anything other than make the IPCC scientists rich.

You should really look at the real environmental problems instead of focusing on CO2. Humans are doing a lot of damage to the planet, and CO2 is the least of our problems. CO2 is the basis of all food on the planet. Do you really want to starve the planet into another ice age? (GWer's logic, not mine) Read up on the Atmospheric Brown Cloud. Pick any website that you feel is credible.

Hey, did you realize that we didn't have one hurricane hit the US in 2006? Not one. In fact, it was the mildest hurricane season recorded in years. What happened to the predictions that said we would have a very active season in 2006? It must be the cooling oceans. Remember all of the fear mongering after Katrina? Remember how they used Katrina and the 2006 predictions to DOUBLE home insurance rates. I?m sure a federal carbon tax will help...fund wars. WAKE-UP!

It's easy to see the limits of ones education when they use terms like "round earth, flat earth." and such. Not too many people thought the earth was flat. (Until the modern flat earth society...lol) Even Plato knew the Earth was a sphere. Here, read and learn?and stop getting your science from Washington Irving's fantasy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

You know, I would mention simple facts like "where are we going to get the fuel to force CO2 levels to double." We have used up about half of our fossil fuels and only added about 100 ppm CO2. Isn't it safe to say the other half will only add another 100 ppm? Where are we supposed to get the fuels to reach the alarmists claims of +-750 ppm? It won't happen due to human impact. Why didn't the runaway greenhouse effect happen when the Earth was at 7000 ppm CO2? Why didn't the temps rise when CO2 levels were at 7000 ppm?

How much research has gone into the earthquakes in Indonesia? You do realize that the 2004 earthquake raised the floor of the ocean so high that 10 or 12 new islands emerged. (going off of my memory) This displaced a lot...A LOT of water. Where did it go? The tsunami that followed also washed away entire islands and coast lines. How much water did all of that soil and rock displace? You know it had to raise the sea level. What about the millions of gallons of water that is being displaced due to the lava from the Mauna Loa volcano? Not to mention, the hundreds of underwater volcanoes. How much water do they displace? Erosion? No, the alarmists will blame the rising sea level on global warming and runoff from polar ice melt. I would wonder if this recent ocean cooling was due to the earthquake and tsunami displacing the cooler water from the depths. The timeline fits with the observed cooling. Hmmm. Just a passing thought.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics#Driving_forces_of_plate_motion

Another new island in Tonga. It had to have displaced water.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=17462

How about a man-made island? This had to have displaced water.
http://geography.about.com/b/a/132077.htm
.
I must admit, that picture of China that shows lower sea levels really has me confused. Could plate tectonics be lifting Asia, and be a driving factor in sea level change?

Do you want to terraform Mars? Forget it, it will never happen. The magnetic field on Mars is too weak to sustain life. Not to mention...the gravity is too weak to create an atmosphere and all gases would be lost to space.

About your comment,
"It is rather the determination of climatology and meteorology experts from all countries looking at serious science covering a very large number of years."
I agree. Do you know any of them? I do. My father is a very well known meteorologist. He co-founded what became a worldwide weather company in 1958. In fact, he has been credited with being a pioneer in the field. They now have offices in over 180 countries, and have hundreds of meteorologists/climatologists working for them. He retired last year, but he worked with NASA on a daily basis. His opinion of CO2 forced GW? Junk science fueled by politics. (Not his exact words, but close enough)

I hope you gain some insight before you delete this post. LOL

Anyway, I'm off to the real science forums. I was looking for a new forum and found this pseudo-science a go-go nonsense. Have fun with it. LOL!

Peace, and chill out. I think your temper may be causing GW.

.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 93
M
Max Offline
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 93
Originally Posted By: DA Morgan

PS: I like the jpl.nasa link you posted. Did you read it?

Yes I did, and you're welcome. I thought you would like it. Now, if I had cared to continue a discussion with you, we could have had an agreeable link to debate. This is how civil a discussion should take place.

Originally Posted By: DA Morgan

I note you ignored my point about your search criterion being biased.

No, I addressed that.

Originally Posted By: DA Morgan

I note you ignored my point about the equally low value of biasing in the other direction.

No, I took the comment for what it was worth. In fact, you ignored most of my post and only want to debate two very small aspects of my first post.

Originally Posted By: DA Morgan

I agree with leaving politics and religion out of it.

Then why did you mention them. Republicans and democrats are the same people to me. Sick people that insist on manufacturing hate. Republicans bankrupt the country and democrats tax us to no end. It's a game, and they are quite good at fooling people. Religion is a personal issue and there is no benefit to science with insulting religion.

Originally Posted By: DA Morgan

I didn't suggest your links were bogus. I stated flat out, in plain English, that they have zero credibility on a topic of serious science.

That is an outright lie. Once again, I will repeat myself...I have only left NASA links. Your desperate attempts to fool the few that read this forum (yourself) are obvious. Now, you're even trying to discredit your own recommended "brneurosci.org" link. I guess the google link blew a fuse in your brain, and you didn't know how to discredit such a wealth of scientific information. Your opinion of a link is meaningless. The content of the link is all that is relevant. Again...I don't play the link game, and I could tell that you do, so I left the list for you to choose from hoping to avoid this link game nonsense. I'm a busy man, and have no time to search for links that you will accept. I have no time to play the "discredit the link" game with you. There is nothing to be gained with the link game. Especially, if you only post a link without reference to what you are talking about.

If you like UT links, this one states the ice gain/loss is yet to be determined. But you are completely sold on loss, without evidence.
http://www.utexas.edu/features/archive/2002/polarice.html

Another from Ohio State
www-bprc.mps.ohio-state.edu/rsl/documents/science.ppt

A .gov site...
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777

Three links for you to tear apart...have fun. I?m through. No,I didn?t bother to read them. I accept that both are occurring.

I guess we'll have to disagree with the statement about linear projections. I have a HUGE problem with it. I'll let you try to figure out why.

Here is a link to an article with the IPCC admitting that they knew the numbers were wrong in the 2001 report, and said nothing for 6 years. Many scientists took these studies as being accurate. Many websites are based on the bogus 2001 report. I'm sorry, but it is the truth. You claim to be a teacher. Did you teach from the 2001 report? LOL. Please read the last few paragraphs on page two, and also pay close attention to this statement.

"The first chapter, written by more than 600 scientists and reviewed by another 600 experts and edited by bureaucrats from 154 countries," then "The 12-page summary for policymakers will be edited in secret word-by-word by government officials for several days in Paris next week and released to the public on Feb. 2."

Do you not have alarms going off? Secretly edited word by word, BY BUREAUCRATS? Do you not see something wrong here? Do you really want science reports that are edited in secret by government officials?

And the closing statement...
"I think probably the low value (in the 2001 report) and also the high value came from models that probably had mistakes in them," Trenberth recently told the Rocky Mountain News of Denver. "The confidence in those numbers was probably not that good, and they probably never should have been used in the way in which they were used."

"Never should have been used in the way in which they were used!"


WOW! I agree.
Thousands of website used the bogus 2001 report and are now discredited. The internet is full of pseudo-science and they let it happen. Just think of all the wasted work, and those poor scientists that stood behind the 2001 report. So much for their credibility. Why anyone would listen to them, after backing the CFC scam and now the confession of CO2 misinformation, is beyond me.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16760730/#storyContinued

If you would like, I can give you another link to a climate modeling scientist from Scripps that also speaks of how their models are inaccurate. I know you love Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Roger Revell was Gore's favorite teacher. Here it is.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate/somerville.html

Also, I won't fall for the alarmist language. Websites that use language such as..."highly likely, could happen, probably, appeared to accelerate, could reach" Been there, done that. That's bad science.

I have two EPA licenses, obtained in 1992 and started in this business in 1980. The company I work for produces CFC's, and also developed the HFC's that do not destroy ozone, and have less GWP. I understand (more than most) chemical reactions with the atmosphere. It's my job. Here's what the IPCC says. Read this and tell me why everyone is more worried about CO2 than anything else is.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/gwp.html

If you are serious about human impact,this is another good read.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/other_gases.html

Oh, NASA and NOAA all have an agenda. Funding. Drew Shindell of NASA just admitted at the hearing that he knew of unrealistically high numbers being used in the reports. He also admitted they wanted to alarm people with his Antarctica report, because his funding decreased. The IPCC was wrong about CFC's just like all of the real scientists said they were, but they still managed to make billions off of the industry from impact fees, licensing, fines...They even named a glacier after the NOAA scientist that did the CFC research. They now admit to fear mongering with CO2 for 6 years with false data. The IPCC has zero credibility in my books.

(FYI) The Union of Concerned Scientists? Great group! What does it take to become a member of the UCS? $25 and no education required. $35 will get you a free mouse pad. Join today.
https://secure.ga3.org/03/Join_UCS?qp_source=wacpromogooglefr

Who has actually read the Kyoto Protocol? Please tell me how selling carbon credits will do anything other than make the IPCC scientists rich.

You should really look at the real environmental problems instead of focusing on CO2. Humans are doing a lot of damage to the planet, and CO2 is the least of our problems. CO2 is the basis of all food on the planet. Do you really want to starve the planet into another ice age? (GWer's logic, not mine) Read up on the Atmospheric Brown Cloud. Pick any website that you feel is credible.

Hey, did you realize that we didn't have one hurricane hit the US in 2006? Not one. In fact, it was the mildest hurricane season recorded in years. What happened to the predictions that said we would have a very active season in 2006? It must be the cooling oceans. Remember all of the fear mongering after Katrina? Remember how they used Katrina and the 2006 predictions to DOUBLE home insurance rates. I?m sure a federal carbon tax will help...fund wars. WAKE-UP!

It's easy to see the limits of ones education when they use terms like "round earth, flat earth." and such. Not too many people thought the earth was flat. (Until the modern flat earth society...lol) Even Plato knew the Earth was a sphere. Here, read and learn?and stop getting your science from Washington Irving's fantasy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

You know, I would mention simple facts like "where are we going to get the fuel to force CO2 levels to double." We have used up about half of our fossil fuels and only added about 100 ppm CO2. Isn't it safe to say the other half will only add another 100 ppm? Where are we supposed to get the fuels to reach the alarmists claims of +-750 ppm? It won't happen due to human impact. Why didn't the runaway greenhouse effect happen when the Earth was at 7000 ppm CO2? Why didn't the temps rise when CO2 levels were at 7000 ppm?

How much research has gone into the earthquakes in Indonesia? You do realize that the 2004 earthquake raised the floor of the ocean so high that 10 or 12 new islands emerged. (going off of my memory) This displaced a lot...A LOT of water. Where did it go? The tsunami that followed also washed away entire islands and coast lines. How much water did all of that soil and rock displace? You know it had to raise the sea level. What about the millions of gallons of water that is being displaced due to the lava from the Mauna Loa volcano? Not to mention, the hundreds of underwater volcanoes. How much water do they displace? Erosion? No, the alarmists will blame the rising sea level on global warming and runoff from polar ice melt. I would wonder if this recent ocean cooling was due to the earthquake and tsunami displacing the cooler water from the depths. The timeline fits with the observed cooling. Hmmm. Just a passing thought.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics#Driving_forces_of_plate_motion

Another new island in Tonga. It had to have displaced water.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=17462

How about a man-made island? This had to have displaced water.
http://geography.about.com/b/a/132077.htm
.
I must admit, that picture of China that shows lower sea levels really has me confused. Could plate tectonics be lifting Asia, and be a driving factor in sea level change?

Do you want to terraform Mars? Forget it, it will never happen. The magnetic field on Mars is too weak to sustain life. Not to mention...the gravity is too weak to create an atmosphere and all gases would be lost to space.

About your comment,
"It is rather the determination of climatology and meteorology experts from all countries looking at serious science covering a very large number of years."
I agree. Do you know any of them? I do. My father is a very well known meteorologist. He co-founded what became a worldwide weather company in 1958. In fact, he has been credited with being a pioneer in the field. They now have offices in over 180 countries, and have hundreds of meteorologists/climatologists working for them. He retired last year, but he worked with NASA on a daily basis. His opinion of CO2 forced GW? Junk science fueled by politics. (Not his exact words, but close enough)

I hope you gain some insight before you delete this post. LOL

Anyway, I'm off to the real science forums. I was looking for a new forum and found this pseudo-science a go-go nonsense. Have fun with it. LOL!

Peace, and chill out. I think your temper may be causing GW.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Trying to be objective I took one of your links and followed it:

Here's what you wrote:
"Another new island in Tonga. It had to have displaced water.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=17462"

Your statement is: "It had to have displaced water."

For those who haven't check the link ... here is its essence:
"In August 2006, travelers yachting through the Tonga Islands discovered pumice floating on the ocean surface. The pumice resulted from an underwater eruption of the marine volcano Home Reef. Although the pumice eventually floated away, the new volcanic island could still be seen by satellites in the fall of 2006."

If your point is that one small island in the middle of the Pacific, after millions of years, finally broke the surface I agree ... some water was displaced. Relative to the size of the Pacific Ocean ... about a teaspoon's worth.

The relevance to the melting of mountain glaciers, the topic of this thread, escapes me. So you are on your own.


DA Morgan
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 7
J
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
J
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 7
I think people need to stop trying to convince other people that we are without a doubt responsible for global warming, but take the approach that we MIGHT or probably are responsible for it. Cause for me, if there is even a chance it's our fault then why not look for ways to help? Besides, oil is going to run out and even if you don't think emissions are a cause of global warming there is no denying they contribute to health issues. On the other hand, if anyone says they are 100% sure that global warming is the fault of humans then they are either lying or following their party blindly. I've been researching this subject up and down and it is not cut and dry.
We're all on the same team. Even NASCAR is looking to turn to biofuels in the next couple years. We have to be open to the fact that we may be responsible for global warming but we don't need to demand others to be convinced. Far lefters, change is a process and it has started, be patient. It seems that there are some people on here that are so far left they're close minded to baby steps. And right wingers, you can't dismiss global warming as a hoax, it is deffinitely possible and it doesn't take a whole lot of research to realise that. Now let's be one nation move forward.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
I'm not aware of anyone who is a serious climatologist who claims that "we" are 100% responsible.

Except perhaps if stated as "we are 100% responsible for doing essentially nothing to preserve the climate that has made possible human progress in the last 10,000 years."

The question of to what verifiable percentage we may be responsible is a red herring designed to keep us from doing something about it.


DA Morgan
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 7
J
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
J
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 7
What exactly do you want people to do?

Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 264
W
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
W
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 264
If I may - We (the Human Race) could get out of this mess, but it's a long shot. We need to educate the next generation to learn from our mistakes. Step One - Cease exponential population growth. Unfortunately Western Society is sick, and Third World Society is licking their proverbial chops at the chance to "catch up" to what we have taken for granted for years, Material Wealth.

I don't see us lasting very much longer.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
I see us lasting a lot longer Wolfman. I just see the quality of life for our descendants dipping strongly into negative territory.

What do I want people to do jamc? Lets start the list:

1. Love their children more than their personal creature comforts.

2. Demand of their governments concrete international steps to decrease the creation of greenhouse gases. And if their governments don't act within months throw the rascals out.

The steps must be international or those that don't go along with them gain a competitive advantage. So nations that refuse to join in should be boycotted.

3. Stop reproducing. That is the one thing everyone alive can do to help solve the problem. No excuses. No need for government intervention. No need for laws.

4. Publicly scorn and condemn those who are selfish, whether nations or individuals, who behave contrary to the best interests of the majority of people on this planet.

When the balance tips to a planet with too few people, too much food, too much wealth, and CO2 levels decreasing to 1750s levels, etc. let me know and we can reconsider our options.


DA Morgan
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 264
W
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
W
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 264
I'm pessimistic 'cause I've seen so many [censored]-holes in the World. Just one, of many, instances - On Java, I took a trip with some journalists from Sweden to an open pit Mine. It was either diamonds or gold they were after, it was over 30 years ago. Whatever. The authorites wouldn't let us bring our cameras inside. Everything was run by the Government. The Government was led by a Military Dictator named Mohammed Suharto. You'd see these big red concrete Helicoptor pads painted with a big white "S" on the top. They were all over the place, as were big photos of Suharto. They were to remind people that Suharto himself could show up any time, any place, you better be good. OK, the mine. It was like nothing I've ever seen. As big across as ten football fields. The sides were steep, with steps cut out of the bank. Thousands of these little Indonesian peasants were climbing, like ants, down to the bottom of the pit, and then back up again. Accoding to whoever you spoke to, there were between 15,000 and 40,000 of these little guys in the pit. Every one of them was either carrying a sack of mud up out of the pit or digging with picks and shovels. There was filthy, muddy water everywhere. You had to figure that landslides were common. Outside the pit there was a shanty town where the workers lived. The kids I went in with were in their 20's, just kids like me. They were laughing and joking on the way out to the mine, but the trip back to Djakarta was deathly quiet.
We, in the West, are vastly, vastly outnumbered by the have-nots in the poor parts of the World. It is they, not us, that will be our collective undoing. But we in the West sure aren't doing much to help the situation.

Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
I haven't seen a mine like that but in the Gambia in 1982 I saw some white powder the locals were usuing as insecticide. Guess what it turned out to be. I'm sure I don't need to tell you. I sometimes wonder if they still use it.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
There are a near endless number of these horror stories.

And not to invite a troll but did you also notice the lack of attention paid by those who claim to be leaders and concerned about the welfare of others?

See any first-world politicians?
See any first-world theologians?
See any first-world news photographers?

Judge them by what they do and by what they don't do.
Judge them by their acts not their words.
Judge them harshly.


DA Morgan
Page 2 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5