Tuesday, March 18, 2008

The widest river in the world

This is going to be a lot of fun to watch play out. It would actually be funny if it weren’t so important to the economic future of the region. But the battle lines are being drawn….

The Portland City Council, none of whom have any clue of economics, the private sector, or wealth creation, have thrown down the gauntlet: Unless Clark County and Vancouver agrees to put a choo-choo train over the Columbia River bridge, they will withdraw their support.

Now, last time Clark County had a vote on whether they wanted light rail, it went down 2-1. They opted for a transportation grid that allowed them to be competitive instead.

But it’s a decade later now, and the light rail delusion has infected the political class on the other side of the river. But the business class is fighting them – they see light rail for what it is: a boondoggle that will bring with it the same urban-renewal-transit-oriented-development-payoff-to-favored-developers scam that Portland has suffered through for the last 25 years.

And the people in Clark County? They just want a bridge that will allow them to get to their jobs in Portland and back home as quickly and efficiently as possible. They know that light rail won’t fill that need.

But on this side of the river, all our urban-utopia dreamers don’t want the bridge to handle car traffic. That would defeat the purpose! The purpose is to use the project’s $4.2 billion price tag to advance their agenda, which as Sam Adams told us, is to return to the transportation infrastructure of the 1930’s.

So on our side of the river they want light rail, a pedestrian lane, and probably an eco-roof. Oh – and hefty tolls to discourage cars from using it.

So we have a clash of world views, and it will be interesting to see how it plays out. On the one side of the river you have people who want to be competitive. They have a new university campus which is already exposing our sorry excuse for higher education – Portland State – as the Marxist bastion it is. They want roads so they can be productive.

On our side of the river? Sustainability, bikes, choo choo trains and traffic jams. Productivity bad.

So who will win? Well, Sam Adams said to The Funny Paper that all we have to do is “show folks up north that they can enjoy the benefits of a transit-oriented development approach."

Heck, can’t they just look across the river at that wonderful success called Cascade Station? Or South Waterfront? Or the Beaverton Round? How could they be so unable to see all the benefits?

After all, if your name is Homer Williams, or Walsh Construction, or Gerding Edlen, or Mackenzie Group, the benefits are obvious!

24 comments:

Anonymous said...

Rob,
Haven't you heard? The South Waterfront is a stunning success and is creating tons of biotech jobs.

Unfortunately, you have to go to Florida to apply for them.

Dave Lister

Anonymous said...

It's amazing that Adams and other pols are able to make the statements they do about transit and all its benefits, without being laughed out of the state. I mean, even with the raging hormones typical of teenagers, my high school student body president had a better grasp on reality then Adams. However, I'm sure that the quote from Randy Leonard in the article is accurate "it's inevitable." It doesn't matter how many times people vote against it, how it never lives up to its promises, how it makes things worse instead of better - that train is rollin' down the tracks.

Anonymous said...

I too could not believe the arrogance of Randy Leonard's "inevitable" tout. Sorta like the Interstate Max line. If I remember right, it was voted down twice by the public. Why wasn't there a public vote on the I-205 line or the Milwaukee line? I think they know the answer. Too bad light-rail and street cars are "inevitably" going to always be built.

As for the South Waterfront, how many of those cheap condos are still for sale? How many pay the full share of property taxes on the FMV?

David Appell said...

Yours is a backwards, out-of-date, and ultimately dumb point of view.

We are running out of oil. Production has peaked -- it will only go downward. Gasoline will only get more expensive. In 5 years it could well be $5/gal, in 15 years $10/gal. That will rip our economy and our standard of living apart. Mass transportation, like light-rail, could well be a savior.

Don't like that argument? Then let's talk about greenhouse gases. They will bring great difficulty to our snowpack and to the farming potential of the Williamette Valley.

Either way, we need to be cutting back drastically on fossil fuel energy production and living cleaner and more efficient lives. Light rail can be a big part of that. People will simply not be commuting in 2020 the way they did in 1975 -- it's time to wake up and realize that.

Anonymous said...

Ahhh...David Appell, the global warming shill who was drummed out of the NW Republican blog due to his lack of proof and logic.

David, your climate change fantasies aside, cars will never, ever go away. As much as you may hate them, we will find alternative sources of energy to power our vehicles. It's a fact. And maybe time you got over it.

As for light rail: it's an antiquated, 19th century technology with a perpetually negative ROI. It does nothing to reduce congestion and it doesn't reduce air pollution either -- what do you think it runs on? Wind power?

Global warming is turning out to be a complete farce and now you're reverting to 'peak oil' histrionics. Why don't you put your wasted energy into something useful, like keeping sea lions from eating all the salmon.

David Appell said...

Anonymous, care to actually back up your words by posting your real name?

I didn't think so. Anonymity is for cowards.

Every scientific body in this country, and around the world, has weighed in on the subject of anthropogenic global warming. They all agree it is taking place.

These are the same bodies that you rely on to verify the safety and efficacy of the prescription drugs you take, the software that controls your cars and airplanes, the tenets behind the people who manage your water distribution and bridge construction.

But it's only on climate science that you doubt their words?

Like I'm supposed to believe you, some midget somewhere who is afraid to even sign his name? Sure.

AnotherAnon said...

David Appell said...
"Anonymous, care to actually back up your words by posting your real name?"
----------

How does signing your real name (sorry, but I have to ASSUME that you are the REAL david appell, since you refused to provide hard evidence that you are really him) "actually back up your words"?

Can't you continue to spew nonsense, wtihout any factual back up, while signing your "real" name? Why, yes you can, and do regularly, if you are mr. appell.

"I didn't think so. Anonymity is for cowards."
=========

That is the reality of the internet. Some people use aliases such as "Anonymous", while others hide behind aliases such as "david appell", totally embarassing all of the many david appells in the world.

"Every scientific body in this country, and around the world, has weighed in on the subject of anthropogenic global warming. They all agree it is taking place."
=========

Every scientific body? ALL of them? As in 100%? 1000 out of 1000 bodies? They ALL agree it is taking place?

Poor david. His hyperbole has done him in.

The MSM has moved off of the Iraq War topic, since the surge has been in effect. It doesn't look like McCain is going to be toast running on "4 more yrs" of the War. Can you say 57% approval rating? His highest in 8 yrs? Polls show him beating BOTH Hillary and Obama by double digits.

Just as the MSM has found new talking points and are totally hiding from the War stories, so shall david appell have to find new talking points as more and more scientists express scepticism about AGW.

David Appell said...

AnotherAnon, so you're a pussy too, afraid to sign his own name?

Protest as much as you want -- we both know you're a coward.

Yes -- signing your real name makes a difference. You know that already.

I'm perfectly willing to sign my name. Here's my Web site:
http://www.nasw.org/users/appell

Yes, as far as I know, every legitimate scientific body on the planet has verified anthropogenic global warming.

Do you have evidence otherwise? Now is the time to present it. Even using your own name, if you have any guts.

Anonymous said...

Except for NASA.

I'd be interested in seeing a study on the amount the installation of light rail to Vancouver will reduce global warming.

Anonymous said...

Read very carefully,,,, all the way to the very bottom.

David,

You are extremely naive and lost in your impressionable world.
You will no doubt be one of the last alarmist nitwits to finally grasp the absurdity of the Global Warming charade. Perhaps never.

It's enough that the IPCC modeling is beyond flawed as their science has been hijacked by consensus fabricators and politicians lacking integrity, but alarmists who attribute today's oceanographic, geological and weather events as evidence of AGW are complete fools.
Why? Because the IPCC-AGW predictions are for the future when enough AGW occurs to cause them. There has not been enough measured warming YET, 1 degree in the past 100 years, to cause any of the observations currently being attributed to AGW.
So not only have we not really seen any abnormal weather changes, there hasn't been the AGW happen yet to cause it.

You make the exact same bone headed mistake with transportation. You, without any basis, claim "People will simply not be commuting in 2020 the way they did in 1975". Are you totally oblivious to the trend between 1975 and 2008? Commuting, traffic and congestion have soared in our region. Every sign points to more of the same as 1 million more people are expected to arrive here within the next 20 years.
2020 is only 12 years away. When does your trend of reduced car commuting begin? 2019?

Our rail transit hasn't even been able to retain the same percentage of commuters as transit had in 1980. So when does the trend of higher percentages of commuters riding transit begin? Also in 2019?

What's really going to happen in the next 20 years is more traffic.
Next year, the year after that, five years from now and a dozen from now too.
Technology will also continue to advance bringing more and more cars to the road with less energy.

Sorry pal, but you have some serious challenges rendering you a very poor analyst .

I suggest you back up and take on something far more simple.

You shot yourself in the foot by embellishing the already inflated and distorted IPCC report.

As shown here.

http://oneminute.rationalmind.net/global-warming/

Science writer David Appell, who has written for such publications as the New Scientist and Scientific American believes that global warming will “threaten fundamental food and water sources. It would lead to displacement of billions of people and huge waves of refugees, spawn terrorism and topple governments, spread disease across the globe.” It “would be chaos by any measure, far greater even than the sum total of chaos of the global wars of the 20th century.” This doomsday scenario hardly follows from the hesitant estimates of a 1.1 to 6.4°C temperature rise and 18 to 59 cm sea level rise by 2100 predicted in 2007 by the IPCC.

J said...

I'm surprised that you've touched on name-calling in this post.

I've seen similar arguments over being "anonymous" in comment sections over "livejournal," a popular blog familiar to many Jr. High and high school students.

Yuck.

Anonymous said...

"Glaciers have entirely disappeared"
From November 2nd, 1922

Long before the IPCC & Gore cooked up their Hoax.


http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/03/16/you-ask-i-provide-november-2nd-1922-arctic-ocean-getting-warm-seals-vanish-and-icebergs-melt/

The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway.

Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.

Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.

Jim Karklock said...

David Appell ,freelance science journalist.: We are running out of oil. Production has peaked -- it will only go downward. Gasoline will only get more expensive. In 5 years it could well be $5/gal, in 15 years $10/gal.
JK: I take it that you didn’t take a course in basic economics. Let me educate you:
The law of supply and demand says that when there is more supply than demand, the price goes down and production also goes down. When there is less supply than demand, the price goes up and so does production.

In the case of crude oil, as the price rises:
1. People start driving a bit less.
2. When they buy a new car they tend to get ones that are more efficient.
Since our current fleet is about 26 MPG, there is the potential to cut gas useage in HALF by going to hybrids. Of course, the next step is the plug-in hybrid which will cut this even more. As batteries improve, gas usage will evolve lower until the only time gas will be needed is for long trips. Eventually a high capacity, fast charge, battery will be developed which not require gas, even for long trips, as the range matches that of gas and the charge time matches the few minutes currently spent at a gas station.

At the same time the higher price brings in new supply:
1. Non-economic oil well become economic at the higher price. Uncapping low productivity wells is one example, oil sands in Canada, which is now ramping up, is another.
2. More money for exploration increases, bringing in new supply.
Even now oil sands are economically viable.
Another economically viable source is coal gasification (the process that Hitler ran his war machine on.).

David Appell ,freelance science journalist.: That will rip our economy and our standard of living apart.
JK: Only if the paranoids in government screw it up. They need to quit restricting supply as they are now doing.

David Appell ,freelance science journalist.: Mass transportation, like light-rail, could well be a savior.
JK: Tell us how energy usage of mass transit compares with hybrid cars and plug in hybrid cars. Real data please.
Then tell us how the cost of transit compares to the cost of driving a hybrid.

David Appell ,freelance science journalist.: Don't like that argument? Then let's talk about greenhouse gases.
JK: Ok, lets talk. Please get back to me with answers to the following questions:
1. Which gas IS responsible for the largest part of the greenhouse effect. Which is 2nd largest
2. What percentage of each gas’s emission is man caused.
3. According to the best available temperature record, the USHCN, what was the warmest year in the last 400 years?
4. What name is given to the climate 400 years ago.
5. We all remember Al Gore’s screen filling (15 foot wide?) Image of the temperature going up and down along with CO2 also going up and down. He mentioned a noticeable relationship, but didn’t say which increased first the temperature or the CO2. Which did rise first? (the chart is based on the Vostok ice cores.)

David Appell ,freelance science journalist.: They will bring great difficulty to our snowpack
JK: How does our present snow pack compare to the min/max over the last 100 years. Cite a credible source.

David Appell ,freelance science journalist.: and to the farming potential of the Williamette Valley.
JK: Please answer this:
1. Do plants grow better or worse in higher temperatures?
2. Do plants grow better of worse with more rain?
3. Do pants grow better or worse with increased CO2?

David Appell ,freelance science journalist.:Yes, as far as I know, every legitimate scientific body on the planet has verified anthropogenic global warming.
JK: Have you checked this list:
Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007 (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport)
Note that critics of this list point out a few non-scientist on the list then they have little else to say, suggesting that the report is substantially correct.
Thanks
JK

David Appell said...

JK wrote:
> Have you checked this list:
> Over 400 Prominent Scientists
> Disputed Man-Made Global Warming
> Claims in 2007
> (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

Yes I have. This list, which consists of a ragtag group of people -- some scientists, some not, not one of which has a theory that explains late-20th century warming -- comes from the office of a man (Inhofe) who receives hundreds of thousands of dollars from the fossil fuel interests in his backyard. Why should I believe him?

David Appell said...

JK wrote:
> 1. Which gas IS responsible for the > largest part of the greenhouse
> effect. Which is 2nd largest
> 2. What percentage of each gas’s
> emission is man caused.

These are profoundly unscientific questions and just show that you don't know what you're talking about. Percentages of GHGs don't matter -- what matters is their radiative forcings and warming potentials, and how changes in these quantities contribute to the atmosphere's state. It is not as simple as percentages, especially when some remain constant and some do not. Stop taking your talking points from Rush Limbaugh and try reading some actual science papers.

MAX Redline said...

Hi again, Davey! Boy, that "freelance science writing" gig of yours must really have gone to pot. All you seem to do is troll around through various blogs, spouting off the same old stuff. Hope you find work, someday.

I hate to be repetitive, but you've yet to answer the question, so I must ask again: in exactly which peer-reviewed scientific journals have examples of your vast knowledge and exemplary writing skills been published?

Take your time, Davey. I've been waiting for an answer to that question for at least six months. I've got plenty of time yet.

try reading some actual science papers.

Hmm...not only do I read them, sonny, I've written and reviewed a few. When it comes to atmospheric chemistry, I believe that I've already demonstrated greater understanding of the interactions than you have been able to demonstrate.

Explain again, if you will, how it happens to be that Global Warming has also been occurring on the planet Mars - and how you relate that to human activity. That's another question you never answered on the last blog I found you trolling.

And oh-oh - solar activity has been decreasing. That means we're entering into another cycle which is sometimes referred to as "cooling". It'll be interesting to see how you struggle to relate that to human activity.

Finally, if you really and truly believed that Global Warming Is All Your Fault - why are you still around? Why are you burning electricity in the course of trolling blogs? Why are you living in a heated home, and keeping food in a fridge? If human-related CO2 is such an issue, shouldn't you take the high road? Oh, of course you expel CO2 with every breath, so you might want to look into fixing that little problem. When you get all of those minor issues squared away, Davey, be sure to get right back to us.

I won't be holding my breath.

Jim Karklock said...

Blogger David Appell said... JK wrote:
> Have you checked this list:
Yes I have.
This list, ... comes from the office of a man (Inhofe) who receives hundreds of thousands of dollars from the fossil fuel interests in his backyard.
JK: That single statement shows that you are unfit to be in a science field, but if you want to do the adhomins, tell us how much research money has been given to the scare mongering branch of palaeoclimatology, that will go away if the chicken little act goes away? And how much Al Gore makes per speech, how much he has made off of scaring people and how much he stands to make. In case you haven’t bothered to open you eyes, he is involved with at lest two other money making ventures:
1. Generations Mutual fund: Hon. Al Gore is Chairman. see: generationim.com/about/team.html
2. After "a conversation that's gone on for a year and a half," according to Gore, he has decided to join his old pal John Doerr as an active, hands-on partner at Kleiner Perkins, Silicon Valley's preeminent venture firm.
See: money.cnn.com/2007/11/11/news/newsmakers/gore_kleiner.fortune/

Blogger David Appell said... This list, which consists of a ragtag group of people
JK: Here are some of your rag-tag people:

Dr. Edward J. Wegman, a professor at the Center for Computational Statistics at George Mason University and chair of the National Academy of Sciences' Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics,

Dr. George Kukla, a research scientist with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University

Dr. Ben Herman, past director of the Institute of Atmospheric Physics and former Head of the Department of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Arizona

Dr. John T. Everett, a former National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) senior manager and UN IPCC lead author and reviewer,

Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, the former director of both University of Alaska Fairbanks' Geophysical Institute and International Arctic Research Center who has twice been named in "1000 Most Cited Scientists,

Dr. Howard Hayden of the University of Connecticut and author of "The Solar Fraud: Why Solar Energy Won't Run the World,"

Sir Patrick Moore, a fellow of the UK's Royal Astronomical Society, host of the BBC's Sky at Night program since 1957 and author of over 60 books on astronomy

Dr. Norman Borlaug, known as the father of the "Green Revolution" for saving over a billion people from starvation by utilizing pioneering high yield farming techniques, is one of only five people in history who has been awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom ,and the Congressional Gold Medal

Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute,

Dr. Scott Armstrong of the Wharton School at the Ivy League University of Pennsylvania

Dr. Timothy Ball, formerly of the University of Winnipeg, who earned his PhD from the University of London,

Of course Al Gore & Michael Mann know more than all of the above.

Blogger David Appell said... not one of which has a theory that explains late-20th century warming

JK: Two part answer:
1. What late 20th century warming?
* Using the best data available, USHCN, 1998 was tied with 1934 as the warmest year in the 400 years since the little ice age. (You do know about the little ice age, don’t you? And the medieval warm period, etc.)
* The other high quality data set is from Satellite. It shows no Southern hemisphere warming and only slight Northern Hemisphere warming.
* Most climate data is not properly corrected for urban heat islands.
* Even the USHCN is seriously contaminated by heart island effect and when this if fully corrected, along with a few other problems, I think it highly likely that the late 20th century will turn out to be cooler than the 1930s. I hope that you noticed that the raw data shows “late 20th century” to be a lot cooler that the 1930s - it is only the adjustments that bring up the later times to match the 1930s. I assume that you recognize that such large adjustments to raw data are always suspect and frequently wrong.

2. Papers:
Shows climate models are crappy: “A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions” International Journal of Climatology, DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651

Shows that cosmic rays can link solar activity with climate “Variation of cosmic ray flux and global cloud coverage-a missing link in solar-climate relationships” Journal ,of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Vol. 59. No I I, pp. 1225-1232, 1997. From the abstract: The above relation between cosmic ray flux and cloud cover should also be of importance in an explanation of the correlation between solar cycle length and global temperature, that has been found.

Cosmic rays shown to affect cloud formation Experimental evidence for the role of ions in particle nucleation
under atmospheric conditions, Proc. R. Soc. A doi:10.1098/rspa.2006.1773

I have dozens of these, but I can only waste so much time on people who have not bothered to look at both sides of a question. Please remember that you do not get science from the multi- national environmental groups or from money grubbing politicians that specialize in scaring little children.

Blogger David Appell said... JK wrote:
> 1. Which gas IS responsible for the > largest part of the greenhouse
> effect. Which is 2nd largest
> 2. What percentage of each gas’s
> emission is man caused.

These are profoundly unscientific questions and just show that you don't know what you're talking about. Percentages of GHGs don't matter -- what matters is their radiative forcings and warming potentials, and how changes in these quantities contribute to the atmosphere's state. It is not as simple as percentages, especially when some remain constant and some do not.
JK: Please learn how to read before attacking me, I asked:
Which gas IS responsible for the largest part of the greenhouse effect. Which is 2nd largest. (bold added)
That is a question about effect, forcings, warming potential and the atmospheric state (if you prefer those terms - I tend to prefer terms that most people understand.). So why don’t you just answer the question?

End of Part 1.
Thanks
JK

Jim Karklock said...

Part 2:
Blogger David Appell said... Stop taking your talking points from Rush Limbaugh and try reading some actual science papers.
JK: I don’t. I actually check the facts before I open my mouth, unlike you. Why don’t you try reading some actual science papers LIKE I HAVE DONE, instead of relying on Sierra Klub handouts and Al Gore for your science.

BTW don’t miss the Wagman report where the chair of the National Academy of Sciences' Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics, tells us that the hockey stick that Al Gore loves is:
1. A misapplication of statistics.
2. The creator, Michael Mann didn’t even get the name of the process he used correct.
3. The university that employs Mann has an excellent statistics department which Mann didn’t bother to consult.
4. The peer review process fell apart in the case of palaeoclimatology.
5. Many of the peer reviewed papers are not, in fact, independent.

Of course the National Academy of Sciences report on Al Gore’s hockey stick said that the criticism was valid and that it used proxies that were previously known to be unappropriate for temperature. This raises the specture of fraud, especially as Mann was very reluctant to share his data and methods for others to check his work (as are a number of others in this little, inbred, group.)

Together, these two reports completely discredit Mann’s/Al Gore’s famous hockey stick temperature chart that they use to scare people. And they also throw suspicion on the whole field of climate alarmism.

BTW2 - I have copies of the above papers and many more.

So back to the original post:
1. Which gas IS responsible for the largest part of the greenhouse effect. Which is 2nd largest
2. What percentage of each gas’s emission is man caused.
3. According to the best available temperature record, the USHCN, what was the warmest year in the last 400 years?
4. What name is given to the climate of 400 years ago.
5. We all remember Al Gore’s screen filling (15 foot wide?) Image of the temperature going up and down along with CO2 also going up and down. He mentioned a noticeable relationship, but didn’t say which increased first the temperature or the CO2. Which did rise first? (the chart is based on the Vostok ice cores.)

1. Do plants grow better or worse in higher temperatures?
2. Do plants grow better of worse with more rain?
3. Do pants grow better or worse with increased CO2?

Of course if you really are a science writer and really have a basket of degrees, you should know the answers to the above and know that answering them would completely blow your attempt to tow the party line with respect to Al Gore’s crap. Shame on Al Gore for needlessly scaring little school children for his personal profit.

Why don’t you want to expose this charlatan?

PS: I am still appalled that anyone who calls themself a science writer has not looked at both sides and found AL Gore to be a big fat liar, at least when he says the science is settled. Surely you know that the science is not even settled on Newton’s laws of motion, so why would it be settled on a science something only a few years old?


Thanks
JK

Anonymous said...

From an email list:

It seems the data is in for 2007 from all four of the world's major
sources of climate tracking (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS). The
worldwide temperature drop from 2006 to 2007 was 0.65 - 0.75
centigrade. Apparently, that is the largest single year drop since
record keeping began.

Snow was reported in Baghdad and Argentina, we witnessed from afar the
fierce winter storms that enveloped China over this past Chinese New
Year which stranded millions, and record snow fall here in the United
States.

Here are the links:

http://www.fcpp.org/main/publication_detail.php?PubID=2114

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Widescale+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm

and a graph:

http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/7390_large_hadcrut.jpg
Neal

Rob Kremer said...

I, for one, don't believe I have ever witnessed a bigger intellectual ass-whuppin than what Jim Karlock is laying on David Appell.

Fun stuff!

Anonymous said...

Yeah, but it isn't really a fair fight. Rational thought trumps religious dogma every time.

Anonymous said...

Here's a good read on global warming.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html

Anonymous said...

If global warming is human caused, how come the Martian polar caps are receeding? Are they driving too many cars up there?

Dave Lister

Anonymous said...

turds smell!!!!!!!!!! GO CHUCK NORRIS!