Jump to content
TEAM SHELBY FORUM

Obama picks global warming expert as science adviser


Recommended Posts

If you believe that anthropomorphic climate change is a major concern, your ship has come in with Obama's election.

 

I have already posted information about Obama's picks for the Department of Energy, EPA, and Energy & Environment Czar. This pick fits the pattern and shows that the President Elect has decided that Climate Change (Global Warming) is a major threat to all of us.

 

If however, you are like me and believe that most of the "proof" is dubious, and that some, specifically Jim Hansen, are engaged in downright deceit, its time to get ready to become very familiar with your congressional representatives.

 

I am afraid that we are about to witness Chicago Politics at it's bare-knuckled best and many far reaching regulations and rules being proposed and rammed through as part of a cure for the economy even though they, at best, are only loosely associated with the economy.

 

 

 

 

 

Obama picks global warming expert as science adviser

 

"By Renee Schoof, McClatchy Newspapers Renee Schoof, Mcclatchy Newspapers – Fri Dec 19, 6:19 pm ET

 

 

WASHINGTON — President-elect Barack Obama's choice of John P. Holdren as his science adviser sends a strong signal that Obama sees global warming as an urgent problem and wants bold suggestions for action.

 

The Harvard University environmental policy professor has argued that the world already is experiencing dangerous climate change as a result of fossil fuel combustion. He's said there's still time to avert catastrophe, but only with a strong and rapid global effort.

 

At a recent talk in Washington , Holdren boiled it down to this:

 

"Without energy there is no economy. Without climate there is no environment. Without economy and environment there's no material well-being, there's no civil society, there's no personal or national or international security. And the problem is that the way we've been getting the energy our economies need is wrecking the climate that our environment needs. That is the essence of the problem."

 

He said at the time that he hoped that the next administration would "really break its spear on the question of can we get a sensible climate policy with the Congress and the public behind it" in time to go to the final round of negotiations on a new international treaty late next year "and finally have a voice that is respected by other countries."

 

Harvard issued a news release Friday saying that Obama is expected to announce Holdren's appointment Saturday. The science adviser heads the Office of Science and Technology Policy in the Executive Office of the President.

 

Holdren has gone to China half a dozen times a year since 1984 to meet with Chinese climate and energy officials. Tsinghua University , one of China's most prestigious schools, named him this year as a three-year nonresident guest professor.

 

Holdren has said he thinks that if the United States leads with emission reduction requirements, China and the rest of the world will follow, because their countries already are suffering from water and agricultural problems.

 

Holdren has also said that scientists need to get better at explaining what's happening with more urgency. The term "global warming" could be part of the problem, he argued, because it implies something uniform, gradual and benign, and it's none of those.

 

"It is rapid compared to the capacity of ecosystems to adjust and, alas, rapid compared to our capacity as a society to adjust," he said.

 

"We should be calling it global climatic disruption."

 

Holdren is a professor of environmental policy at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government and the director of the science, technology and public policy program at the school's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs . He also is the director of the Woods Hole Research Station .

 

He earned Master of Science and Ph.D. degrees in aerospace engineering and plasma physics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Stanford University . He's a specialist in nuclear arms control and nonproliferation as well as global climate change and energy policy.

 

"John is the very model of a policy-relevant scientist," Belfer Center Director Graham Allison said in a statement Friday. "He has a deep understanding of the dynamics of science and technology as drivers of the challenges society faces — from climate disruption to nuclear danger — and new opportunities for feasible solutions.""

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Guest markham51

IMHO I think man made global warming is very likely real. I cant personally prove it is, any more than you can personally prove it isn't. I am not interested in more arguments about it on this board because I have heard it all before. Those on the side of the big poluters say its garbage and nature lovers who see glaciers disapearing and less and less polar sea ice say we are screwing up the planet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMHO I think man made global warming is very likely real. I cant personally prove it is, any more than you can personally prove it isn't. I am not interested in more arguments about it on this board because I have heard it all before. Those on the side of the big polluters say its garbage and nature lovers who see glaciers disappearing and less and less polar sea ice say we are screwing up the planet.

 

First, you make a logical flaw in saying that only those on the side of "big polluters" object to these unproven theories. There are many who have no connection to "big polluters" who object on the basis of the science alone. I have never hidden the fact that I am a Geophysicist working for an oil company. My company just won an award from the EPA for ..... reducing our CO2 emissions. I applaud that , not because I am worried about our CO2 emissions, rather I am pleased that we are using our energy wisely. My objections with this theory are based on the dubious studies I have read irregardless of my employment. I do not appreciate your cheap stereotype.

 

Second, I love "nature" as much as anyone and I object to your inference that because I do not believe in the hypothesis, that I don't. It is precisely because I am fascinated by our natural world that I majored in earth science (including a minor in meteorology). There are many examples of where we have neglected damage that is occurring from other causes because they have been blamed on Global Warming instead. This is especially true when considering coral reefs.

 

Third, It is everybody's duty to become informed about the underlying studies, both pro and con. When we do and we do not rely on three paragraph news reports from Seth Borenstein, I am confident that a majority of people can see the undeniable weight of evidence showing that this is a flawed theory.

 

Fourth, I think that it is critical for our society, that we become informed on this subject and until I am banned I will do my best to keep posting on this. It is directly related to our interest in these cars and the fuel that they run on and to our societies health in general.

 

Meanwhile, The Antarctic experienced the largest sea ice extent that we have ever measured last year. The Arctic recovered dramatically from the all time low sea ice extent seen last year and if this rate is sustained, which it probably will because we are now in the positive phase of the Pacific Multi-Decadal Oscillation, the Arctic will also be above average in sea ice coverage. The Glaciers in Alaska are advancing and the disappearance of the Mount Kilimanjaro Glacier is supposedly due to moisture changes because the long term temperature trend has shown a decrease there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they can get other countries like China Mexico India to follow the same rules Im all for it. It wont change much ia long as others countries arent held to the standards just make it harder to produce anything in the US. Why they wont talk about China when global warming is brought up I cant see how they can change the US when the worst polluter has no standard :headscratch:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMHO I think man made global warming is very likely real. I cant personally prove it is, any more than you can personally prove it isn't. I am not interested in more arguments about it on this board because I have heard it all before. Those on the side of the big poluters say its garbage and nature lovers who see glaciers disapearing and less and less polar sea ice say we are screwing up the planet.

 

What a general, uneducated and hateful statement. I abhor polluters and do everything I can to get them to change or shut down - when they are truly polluters and within reason. BTW I work in the environmental field responsible for meeting the local, state and federal regulations in my company and I also change chemistry formulations and mechanical processes to make us better than whats required. Just because your local EPA says it's bad does not mean it is as I come across this all the time. Man CAN have a direct impact on the environment as I have seen it (and cleaned it up) too many times but If you take away the money from the MMGW screamers, it goes away. It is a flawed science based on greed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, you make a logical flaw in saying that only those on the side of "big polluters" object to these unproven theories. There are many who have no connection to "big polluters" who object on the basis of the science alone. I have never hidden the fact that I am a Geophysicist working for an oil company. My company just won an award from the EPA for ..... reducing our CO2 emissions. I applaud that , not because I am worried about our CO2 emissions, rather I am pleased that we are using our energy wisely. My objections with this theory are based on the dubious studies I have read irregardless of my employment. I do not appreciate your cheap stereotype.

 

Second, I love "nature" as much as anyone and I object to your inference that because I do not believe in the hypothesis, that I don't. It is precisely because I am fascinated by our natural world that I majored in earth science (including a minor in meteorology). There are many examples of where we have neglected damage that is occurring from other causes because they have been blamed on Global Warming instead. This is especially true when considering coral reefs.

 

Third, It is everybody's duty to become informed about the underlying studies, both pro and con. When we do and we do not rely on three paragraph news reports from Seth Borenstein, I am confident that a majority of people can see the undeniable weight of evidence showing that this is a flawed theory.

 

Fourth, I think that it is critical for our society, that we become informed on this subject and until I am banned I will do my best to keep posting on this. It is directly related to our interest in these cars and the fuel that they run on and to our societies health in general.

 

Meanwhile, The Antarctic experienced the largest sea ice extent that we have ever measured last year. The Arctic recovered dramatically from the all time low sea ice extent seen last year and if this rate is sustained, which it probably will because we are now in the positive phase of the Pacific Multi-Decadal Oscillation, the Arctic will also be above average in sea ice coverage. The Glaciers in Alaska are advancing and the disappearance of the Mount Kilimanjaro Glacier is supposedly due to moisture changes because the long term temperature trend has shown a decrease there.

 

+1

Nice post. Thank you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I cant personally prove it is, any more than you can personally prove it isn't. I am not interested in more arguments about it on this board because I have heard it all before. Those on the side of the big poluters say its garbage and nature lovers who see glaciers disapearing and less and less polar sea ice say we are screwing up the planet.

 

I'm a nature lover too but global warming is still a hoax. There is no credible scientific data to support it but there is an absolute MOUNTAIN of credible evidence against it. Sea ice by the way is increasing not decreasing. Only ONE species of polar bear is in distress the other five species are growing and there are more polar bears now than in 1960. There is also irrefutable scientific proof that the planet is no hotter now than in 1980. Dr. Hansen who invented global warming has been caught using bad numbers and bad methodology repeatedly. He has to because actual science will not back up his theory (cash cow). Al Gore sells "carbon credits" so you won't get the truth out of him either. Watch "Global Warming or Global Governance" and get your eyes opened. This is all about turning our country over to the U.N. Your "I am not interested in more arguments about it" are typical of all liberals. This hoax is turning into a bona fide religion where facts don't matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMHO I think man made global warming is very likely real. I cant personally prove it is, any more than you can personally prove it isn't. I am not interested in more arguments about it on this board because I have heard it all before. Those on the side of the big poluters say its garbage and nature lovers who see glaciers disapearing and less and less polar sea ice say we are screwing up the planet.

+1

Of course I'd be thrilled if there wasn't such a thing as global warming, but I think the evidence for its existance is pretty overwhelming. Either way it seems the prudent approach would be better safe than sorry. I'll never understand why environmentalists are the target of so much "uneducated and hateful statements."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sea ice by the way is increasing not decreasing.

 

There is also irrefutable scientific proof that the planet is no hotter now than in 1980.

 

I don't know what the "truth" is but NASA would seem to disagree with you and the pictures are pretty clear!

 

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/t...ce_decline.html

 

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/sea_ice_nsidc.html

 

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This morning it is 6 degrees here in the St. Louis area with a wind chill of 10 below, and a high of 13 today.

 

I think i will put my swimming trunks on and wash the Shelby...

 

Isn't global warming great! :cold:

 

 

Global warming is :censored:

 

This is the fallacy of Global Warming spoilers. They say hey, look there are record lows in XXX place! That's the issue! Global Warming is a bad phrase in that some areas, such as the Arctic are getting warmer which causes weather havoc elsewhere. Warming ocean currents move air in ways it didn't so you can see things such as more northerly air movement in winter through the Americas while getting a more southerly flow into the mir-ocean regions.

 

It's way more complex than looking out your window....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the fallacy of Global Warming spoilers. They say hey, look there are record lows in XXX place! That's the issue! Global Warming is a bad phrase in that some areas, such as the Arctic are getting warmer which causes weather havoc elsewhere. Warming ocean currents move air in ways it didn't so you can see things such as more northerly air movement in winter through the Americas while getting a more southerly flow into the mir-ocean regions.

 

It's way more complex than looking out your window....

 

So if they have an inability to come up with an accurate name, why should their "research" from flawed models be trusted to be accurate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if they have an inability to come up with an accurate name, why should their "research" from flawed models be trusted to be accurate?

 

 

Both sides of this issue you numb you with statistics and "facts", charts up the wazoo, to support their premise but for me as we say "Post pics!" and for gawds sake just look at the pictures from NASA!

 

I don't know what's causing it! Cyclic weather? Man? Sun spots? Aliens? A combination? What ever it is we need to understand and be ready to deal with it! It will change things regardless of the cause.

 

As for what you call it, a rose by any other name...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='JeffIsHereToo' post='594822' date='Dec 21 2008, 12:38 PM' "This is the fallacy of the Global Warming spoilers". They say hey, look there are record lows in XXX place! That's the issue! Global Warming is a bad phrase in that some areas, such as the Arctic are getting warmer which causes weather havoc elsewhere. Warming ocean currents move air in ways it didn't so you can see things such as more northerly air movement in winter through the Americas while getting a more southerly flow into the mir-ocean regions.

 

It's way more complex than looking out your window....

 

I am no scientist, but i would venture to say the earth has been going thru warming and cooling cycles for millions of years. I don't see anything to abnormal about it. Has man contributed or possibly accelerated it, maybe....

 

Call me a conspiracy theorist if you will, but i see a hidden agenda here, and therein lies the "fallacy of the Global Warming promoters".

 

It's up to 8 degree's now, i better get out and get the Shelby washed.!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both sides of this issue you numb you with statistics and "facts", charts up the wazoo, to support their premise but for me as we say "Post pics!" and for gawds sake just look at the pictures from NASA!

 

I don't know what's causing it! Cyclic weather? Man? Sun spots? Aliens? A combination? What ever it is we need to understand and be ready to deal with it! It will change things regardless of the cause.

 

As for what you call it, a rose by any other name...

 

Don't get me wrong. I did not say there shouldn't be research, but if you think that NASA doesn't have ulterior motives for what they claim you're wrong. They do whatever it takes to remain relevant. I'm also not against cleaning up our environment, but I am against it being America's sole responsibility, and I also am for moving away from fossil fuels for other reasons. China is the biggest pollutor there is, and to do anything without them on board is ridiculous! I get upset at how people will fuss over the climate change issue and not give a sh!t about other simple things that can be done. I look at all the damn trees humans knock down for no good reason, and shake my head at why they don't understand that those trees clean CO2 from the air. Look at the empty space along our Interstates for God's sake. How many square miles of re-planting can be done in the areas that aren't a direct threat to cars/trucks? How about in forrested places like Tennessee, where these dumb-asses knock down and burn every tree, (most large White Oaks), on the property to build upon, then plant two little redbud trees? Simple plant science says that the more CO2 there is the more plants will grow to convert it to O2: therefore, fight whatever it is that humans think is going on.Where is that movement out of the environmentally concerned?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't get me wrong. I did not say there shouldn't be research, but if you think that NASA doesn't have ulterior motives for what they claim you're wrong. They do whatever it takes to remain relevant. I'm also not against cleaning up our environment, but I am against it being America's sole responsibility, and I also am for moving away from fossil fuels for other reasons. China is the biggest pollutor there is, and to do anything without them on board is ridiculous! I get upset at how people will fuss over the climate change issue and not give a sh!t about other simple things that can be done. I look at all the damn trees humans knock down for no good reason, and shake my head at why they don't understand that those trees clean CO2 from the air. Look at the empty space along our Interstates for God's sake. How many square miles of re-planting can be done in the areas that aren't a direct threat to cars/trucks? How about in forrested places like Tennessee, where these dumb-asses knock down and burn every tree, (most large White Oaks), on the property to build upon, then plant two little redbud trees? Simple plant science says that the more CO2 there is the more plants will grow to convert it to O2: therefore, fight whatever it is that humans think is going on.Where is that movement out of the environmentally concerned?

 

I agree that this is a VERY complex topic with many possible contributory factors. The fact is the ice is going away, the pictures CLEARLY show that, so the question before is do we shrug our shoulders or get into this and understand what's happening and how it will effect us. Ignoring that the ice sheet is going away and claiming "it's just the way it is" ignores the effects it can/will have on us, like the intense cold and snow we have had here in Chicago these past few weeks. Weather is not an isolated thing, everything effects something else, and we need to get a handle on this regardless of what China or Brazil does because it will effect us and the questions will be how do we deal with it and what if anything we can do to mitigate it.

 

Jay Dub...what are your thoughts? :lurk:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOOK AT THE PICTURES! :banghead:

 

A rose by any other name...

 

Jeff,

 

You would do well to read other sources than Goddard and Jim Hansen. He and they are are not really the most trustworthy sources. The GISS (from Goddard) temperature curve is the most flawed temperature measurement of the earth right now. They have added a "correction" that in essence has lowered the temperature in the past. I will not speculate on why they did this but it does dovetail very neatly with the Hansen's crusade. In addition, they ignore the differences from recently moved NOAA cooperative weather stations which almost universally show a sharp spike in temperatures because they are not sighted properly - they should be placed over grass with a minimum distance from way from any other structures. A brief look at these temperature records cries for a correction to be applied which Goddard was happy to do with their "urbanization" factor mentioned earlier but they will not apply one even though the error is obvious to anyone.

 

This last month, Goddard was caught publishing erroneous data that they used to generate a global map of the temperature anomalies. It showed a huge warm temperature anomaly over Siberia. The only problem is that the temperatures that were used for Siberia were from the previous month. Goddard acknowledged the mistake but blamed it on their data supplier. When the corrected map was published, new warm spots occurred in areas that didn't have warm anomalies before which was interesting because there were no data sources in the areas that changed. I grid and contour data for a living and I know a rat when I see one in maps.

 

The errors that are coming out of Goddard are so bad that there are several researchers that have web sites devoted solely to documenting them.

 

As for the sea ice - here are the facts: Last year, the Arctic experienced the lowest minimum extent that we have ever measured. The global warming advocates jumped on this and I saw probably twenty different stories in the news that were repeated in numerous outlets that claimed this was proof that the global warming theory is right. Problem is that during the same year, the Antarctic saw the highest maximum sea ice extent that was ever recorded. That didn't fit the global warming model so that was ignored by most of the media.

 

This year, after many dire predictions of an ice free north pole, the minimum although lower than normal, was 30% larger than last year which was an amazing recovery. We witnessed the ridiculous spectacle of a kayaker who believed the news stories, trying to Kayak his way to the North Pole from Svalbard this summer. He had to abandon his effort short of the pole because of the thickness of the sea ice. Look it up on Wikepedia. In Wikipedia, you will only see that he had to abandon his effort "more than 500 miles" form the North pole. OK, so the ice was more extensive than the experts predicted but what is not in the article is that Svalbard's northern-most point is at 81 degrees North. That's only 540 nautical miles from the pole. The sea ice was so thick,he didn't make it more than a 50 - 60 miles. That's the kind of propaganda that I routinely see in this debate. They actually set up a circle of flags on the ice (50-60 miles north of Svalbard) and took pictures of the end of the expedition. I am sure it was just a coincidence that the circle of flags looked very similar to the circle of flags seen in most pictures of the poles...

 

This year's freeze up has progressed much faster than last years and last years freeze up and recovery from the all time low was much faster than the "experts" you quote predicted. When we reached the all time low last year, they were quoted as saying how dire this was because most of the multi-year ice melted and they claimed that the young ice would melt much faster this summer. As I mentioned before, that didn't happen and we are very close to the long term average of sea-ice coverage. The Antarctic didn't set a record this year but it was higher than average.

 

Instead of speculating about global warming, the real experts know that the polar regions respond with a lag to widespread ocean circulation differences. By now everyone has heard of "El Nino" and "La Nina" which are opposite phases of a circulation pattern around the equator in the Pacific. Oceanographers and meteorologists have discovered other longer period patterns that effect the oceans. One is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation ( sometimes also named ...Multi-decadal...). Another is the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation. Both of these patterns have positive and negative phases. A few years ago, the PDO switched to the positive (cold) phase. We are still in a negative (warm) phase for the AMDO but it should also switch to a positive (cold) phase soon. When it does, the Arctic sea ice will return to above average amounts.

 

Our winter weather this year is a reflection of the quick freeze-up this year. As soon as the freeze up occurs, bitterly cold air forms over the pole and Siberia. This cold dense (remember "highs" always are pushing the low pressure cold fronts through) air spills down over the continents in density flows that are positioned by dips in the jet stream. Jeff, you are right in saying you can't look at one temperature extreme and derive much in the way of significance from it because a short lived, high amplitude, dip in the jet stream can help bring this cold polar air over almost any area above the tropics. However, with the early freeze-up, we have generated much greater volumes of this cold polar air and it has been spilling out over multiple continents and lasting for much longer than our recent normal. The early snows across such wide spread areas such as Europe, Houston and New Orleans, Las Vegas, Los Angeles are a testament to the amount of cold air that has already been generated over the frozen pole and Siberia.

 

Oh, by the way, happy winter solstice everyone in the Northern Hemisphere. Winter is just now officially here :hysterical:

 

If you are interested, I will post later about why I think the models that are used to forecast Global Warming are wrong. I would also be glad to point you in the right direction if you want to learn more about this topic (and I will reference both sides). Just PM me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

+1

Of course I'd be thrilled if there wasn't such a thing as global warming, but I think the evidence for its existance is pretty overwhelming. Either way it seems the prudent approach would be better safe than sorry. I'll never understand why environmentalists are the target of so much "uneducated and hateful statements."

 

Amazing! The only uneducated and hateful statement on this topic is the one you +1'd.

 

Here are some of my photographs of our home:

 

My top 20 Flickr pictures

 

Please look at them. Feel free to look at my other photographs on flickr. Do you really think they are the product of somebody who is on the side of "big polluters"?

 

So who is really hateful here? Who is stereotyping?

 

What scares me, is that you inferred to Ruf that you were also working in higher education. I can only pray that you are not as biased in that setting as you are here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too true! I am afraid that this Texican wouldn't make it to the New Year in ND. I went to graduate school with a great guy from ND who had just graduated from the University of Alberta. We all asked him what was that plug that dangled beneath the radiator on his pickup.. :hysterical:

 

I would love to visit someplace really cold but only visit.

 

Out of all the natural catastrophes that people talk about possibly effecting the earth, the end of this warm interglacial period is the most likely. We are close to the end of it in geological terms. What does that mean? It means that it will end in 100 years or maybe 1,000 years we don't know for sure, but it will be very likely that it will be sooner than 100,000 years.

 

When that happens, we better have alternative energy that doesn't depend on biomass because famine will be very likely as the cold stunts crop growth in the temperate regions. One mile of ice covering NY and Chicago and points North is a very sobering thought.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

+1

Of course I'd be thrilled if there wasn't such a thing as global warming, but I think the evidence for its existance is pretty overwhelming. Either way it seems the prudent approach would be better safe than sorry. I'll never understand why environmentalists are the target of so much "uneducated and hateful statements."

 

 

Well beacause we just spent 8 years being led by anti-intellectuals and the "news" supports the same thinking while engaing in doublespeak to give the charge of "liberal bias".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are too many variables to blame the possible global warming on fossil fuels alone. There is the cyclical changes, thermal currents which are influenced by undersea volcanoes and the releasing gases, and even the orbit of the earth. The orbit of the earth is not consistent but rather takes on eliptical orbits. There are years when the earth is farther from the sun than in other years. Thus a change in temperature. It is shame that anyone that disagrees with the global warming concept is considered uneducated and a member of the flat earth society. There needs to be tolerance for both views so as to encourage research, on both sides, to determine the truth. Only about 600 years ago there was global warming and England was able to grow grapes to rival italy. Then came the mini ice age. Another short term factor for warming or cooling is volcanic eruptions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='JeffIsHereToo' post='594822' date='Dec 21 2008, 12:38 PM' "This is the fallacy of the Global Warming spoilers". They say hey, look there are record lows in XXX place! That's the issue! Global Warming is a bad phrase in that some areas, such as the Arctic are getting warmer which causes weather havoc elsewhere. Warming ocean currents move air in ways it didn't so you can see things such as more northerly air movement in winter through the Americas while getting a more southerly flow into the mir-ocean regions.

 

It's way more complex than looking out your window....

 

I am no scientist, but i would venture to say the earth has been going thru warming and cooling cycles for millions of years. I don't see anything to abnormal about it. Has man contributed or possibly accelerated it, maybe....

 

Call me a conspiracy theorist if you will, but i see a hidden agenda here, and therein lies the "fallacy of the Global Warming promoters".

 

It's up to 8 degree's now, i better get out and get the Shelby washed.!

 

 

My wife IS a Scientist (that is actually her job title) working at the Ph.d level, many of our friends are scientists as well, its as real as evolution to all of them and they are all thinkers and readers. Not one of them does not think it is fake or "made-up" on false science. I have asked them several times about this, the changes will not be gradual nor will they result in "warmer winters" actually the oppisite is true.

 

Whatever, believe what you want, life is short, drive a Shelby!

 

Now Jeff quit thinking dang it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...
...