What is Digg?130 Comments
- Cmonkey67, on 10/11/2007, -13/+34@compaction
Yeah, Global Warming means it gets more warm everywhere at once...
L.A. is currently entering a drought and the Hurricane season is gearing up to be pretty nasty, but hopefully not. Keep in mind Global Warming isn't as simple as "its more hot outside!"
Personally, I don't know or pretend to know the truth behind global climate change, but if you look at changes taking place in the World (such as lakes disappearing, desertification, rising sea levels) you can come to the conclusion that something is happening. I'm not saying it's man made and I'm definitely not claiming it's the result of "cosmic rays" or the Earth's core heating up, but something is obviously changing on this planet and I think people aren't really taking it seriously, because they're too busy squabbling over "who's right" about the causes. - Junkyarddawg, on 10/11/2007, -16/+34@wrongonce: The article you link to is tendentious sh!t. The poll it refers to is *15 years old*, and note what the question actually was.
Would you guys who deny that humans have any effect on climate please state your sources for your laughable claim? And please, DON'T refer to the known fraud "The Great Global Warming Swindle" and its mix of cherrypicked, misrepresented, and plain made-up claims. - Seraphym, on 10/11/2007, -2/+14Too many people seem to be under the delusion that the Earth reached some stable, unchanging state that mankind, or some other force (cosmic radiation, morlocks), is upsetting.
Let me say this clearly... there is no stable state. The Earth is ever-changing. ALL of its history shows this. The species on the Earth, from forests to bugs to humans, are always changing, adapting to their environment. The concept that there is some single "natural state" that we have to protect and prevent ever deviating from has led to countless "bad calls" in environmental laws and acts.
I am NOT saying that we shouldn't try to live with as small a long-term impact on the environment as possible. In the long run, for our grandchildren's grandchildren, and for our species, living as "green" as possible is in everyone's interest. But, that does NOT mean we should curb our own progress or that of developing countries out of some sense of guilt of changing our environment, when it is always changing of its own accord... especially considering the actual numbers on man-made hydrocarbon and "greenhouse gas" emissions versus those produced by nature.
Throw in the growing evidence that solar radiation and a whole host of other uncontrollable influences play a natural part in our planet's environmental changes over history, and the concept of jumping up and down screaming, "We broke it, we broke it, we have to FIX IT!" becomes ludicrous (do you hear me Goracle?). Exactly what are we going to "fix"... the natural evolution of our planet and its many species? Good luck with that... just don't screw up our economies or prevent developing nations from achieving our level of success, or greater, in the process. - johnhummel, on 10/11/2007, -4/+15Either that, or mankind will fail to adapt, and the world will go on without us.
- DrDragun, on 10/11/2007, -4/+14CO2 is a driver of temperature and is driven by temperature, hence a feedback cycle.
During ice ages, increased temperature causes ice to melt. The ice releases large amounts of carbon. Hence warmer temperatures release more CO2.
More CO2 causes a greenhouse effect, which drives the temperature even higher... thus melting more ice, and so the trend self-propagates. In addition, less ice on the earth's surface means more solar radiation, because ice is a natural reflector.
Basically if you ONLY track CO2, it is difficult to come up with a slam-dunk correlation because warming and cooling trends are caused by a variety of factors which EVERYBODY knows about (solar fluctuations, OTHER greenhouse gases besides CO2, etc). The fact of the matter is that the climatologist models show that there is an upward trend that wouldn't be there if the CO2 stayed at 280 ppm, taking all of those factors into account in the model. So anyway, CO2 isn't the one-and-only greenhouse gas. CFC, water vapor, methane, etc all can contribute as well. Our society has already cut out CFC's. The fact of the matter is that the whole system is moving upward, and CO2 is one of many factors driving it up. We could try to attack some of the other drivers (such as solar...) but everyone is pretty keen on attacking carbon emissions atm because it returns earth to this ficticious "natural state" before human industrialization.
Personally I like the idea of a solar blocker. You can make a disc shaped mirror in space (super thin mylar) which blocks a tiny 2% of incoming solar heat. Think of it like a tiny pinprick eclipse that is permanently there. 2% light blocking is enough to cancel all global warming, and at a fraction of the cost. Plus, if you're wrong then you can always just remove it (blow it up with a missile with a couple weeks notice). Also it is much more fast-acting than trying to change the whole atmosphere. Plus, if the reverse trend happens, they say you can twist it so it actually ADDS light to the earth if we start to get another mini ice age. Anyone like those apples? - LordJezo, on 10/11/2007, -6/+16When it was "discovered" Greenland was a lush warm place where the Vikings and other Scandinavians flourished with farming, hunting, and trading.
So now things are going back to how they were back when people first found the place. Why are we worried? Things didn't end back when the country froze over so why would things now are warming back up?
Greenland seems to fluctuate all the time. It also seems that the current warming period is a whole lot less than it was 90 years ago:
http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Chylek/greenland_warming.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland
http://www.personal.utulsa.edu/~marc-carlson/history/grontime.html
and so on.
It seems to me the media is just latching onto this story because its scaring people, even though its happened through out history and will most likely continue in its cycle in the future. - roosterjm2k2, on 10/11/2007, -8/+160xbaadf00d
CO2 Levels affects temperature, and Temperature affects CO2 levels. Higher CO2 Levels help hold the heat in our atmosphere, higher temperatures speed the natural release of CO2.
Junkyarddawg
Site your sources that we do. (I KNOW we do, but if you challenge someone to cite their sources, you have to be ready to cite yours). Frankly, common sense says we do, but as far as evidence...its tough. We have some correlation, but no clear causation.
The real question is "how much of an affect are we having". If we're speeding up GW by 1-3%. its not a big deal...if we're doing it by 90%, than it is. Lets look at some facts.
The other planets in our solar system (mars and mercury mainly) are heating up as well. Neither of them have much of an atmosphere, so that means that the sun itself is giving off more energy (which is a natural part of a star's life cycle).
Ice samples have shown great increases of CO2 levels over short time periods long before humans even existed.
The earth has a natural, non repetitive cycle of heating and cooling. We're not far out of the normal cycle, and honestly, we cant even really say what the normal cycle is, we've only been able to see 3 or 4 cycles...to assume a pattern or "normal limits" from such limited data is not possible.
There is no doubt that humans have an effect, the question is just how much of an effect. And since we have very little data, we honestly cant claim 1% or 100% ... thats why its such a debate.
Also, before you take peoples word so quickly, look at their motives. Does Al Gore really -CARE- about GW, or does he just care more about the millions hes invested in green energy? Alot of people stand to gain A LOT of money from the planet going green. - Cmonkey67, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8@roosterjm2k2
I agree with basically everything you said. I also agree that a lot of people have a lot to gain by supporting green companies, monetarily. The only thing I can respond with is, so what? Our entire economy is based off a system where society becomes better as the result of people following the personal interests. It's called capitalism.
Like I've said, I don't claim to know the causes of specifics of GW one way or the other. However, Green energy practices can't be bad for us, and actually can save us money, boost efficiency and create energy sources that can be generated domestically, rather then having to rely on importation.
So again, if Al Gore benefits from U.S. consumers buying and using green products, who cares?
...besides OPEC and Shell... - Cmonkey67, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7Seraphym:
I completely agree with what you just said. Nuclear power, while it poses possible long-term problems, is something that warrants research and development. - mesoed, on 10/11/2007, -3/+10There is evidence that the Vikings had dairy farms on Greenland.
- catalysis, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Any good scientist is a sceptic.
- Cmonkey67, on 10/11/2007, -5/+11I think the point is that we change our environment to the point that we can live in it...we then all die...or a lot of us die.
I don't think anyone claimed that the Earth was going to implode or anything, I think every scientist in the world are well aware that we cannot destroy the Earth. We can destroy the balance of our ecosystem, however, to the point that we can no longer live in it.
That's the point of Global Warming. - 0xbaadf00d, on 10/11/2007, -14/+20DrDragon, from your link.
"Houghton acknowledges that ice core samples show CO2 driven by temperature, but then writes that the programmes assertion that "this correlation has been presented as the main evidence for global warming by the IPCC [is] NOT TRUE. For instance, I often show that diagram in my lectures on climate change but always make the point that it gives no proof of global warming due to increased carbon dioxide."
Did it mention that in An Inconvenient Truth? Do they ever say that in the media? I have never heard that before... I am pretty sure that 95% of people think global warming is a result of CO2, rather than CO2 increases being a result of warming. Wonder why that isn't reported more. So, why are they telling us to carpool and turn off lights when they agree that CO2 doesn't cause warming? - DrDragun, on 10/11/2007, -13/+19http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle#Reception_and_criticism
before someone posts that godforsaken video laced with fallacies and inaccuracies - Cmonkey67, on 10/11/2007, -7/+12Right, the Atlantic Hurricane season was very mild last year, but the Pacific Typhoon/Hurricane season was pretty horrendous. The thing about Global Climate Change is that it's GLOBAL, which can give you sporadic weather patterns that jump around the globe. You get a drought one place one year and another place the other. Although most of these events are fairly common on the earth.
What isn't common is devastating changes to large bodies of water and glaciers.
This isn't a simple matter that you can make disappear with a couple quick remarks in a comment. This is something very complex that I believe hasn't been fully understood, by ANYONE. What we can all agree on is that natural resources in area of this planet are beginning to disappear, which can have repercussions on human life and safety (and U.S. National Defense: http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/an-abrupt-climate-change-scena.pdf ).
We should have less squabbling and devote more focus on how to cope with the POSSIBLE changes that face us. - SOS84, on 10/11/2007, -9/+14Magicjava, no they don't. You better find better sources because the ones you have are garbage, plain and simple.Shariv's research regarding the issue has not even been published in a peer reviewed journal. Why is that, because his work is garbage.
- bmurph83, on 10/11/2007, -7/+12What the hell did you think you were contributing to the discussion when submitting a comment like that?
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7Embrace change everyone. Time to go buy some prime Greenland real estate
- benjaoming, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7> There is evidence that the Vikings had dairy farms on Greenland.
Well, why not... there's always been fairly warm summers, and it would only be reasonable of the vikings to bring some animals up there, since that was one of their primary source of food (apart from the blood of anglo-saxons). But you don't see any natural cows runnin'round up there. - Seraphym, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6@ Cmonkey67:
My whole point is that the effect humans have is not understood at all, and while we might be contributing... that contribution might be like dumping a bucket of water in alongside a waterfall. It has not been defined, and it might be completely minimal. You could stop dumping that bucket into the waterfall, or even spend lots of effort and take 50 buckets OUT of the waterfall every minute... and what did you change in terms of the amount of water that fell to the valley below? Not much at all.
The state from which our climate is changing from was itself a change from the state before that.. and humans weren't even contributing to that one. To prove that humans actually are contributing to this one requires mountains of evidence, and currently there's a lot of evidence pointing both ways... reinforcing my point that we don't know what is causing the change. I am of the current opinion that it is completely natural - we just happen to be going in the same direction, but are not really affecting it. That is not to say that we shouldn't keep studying it... we should of course make every effort to learn as much about our environment as we can. But, to enact national or global policies that will cost trillions of dollars, cause drastic changes in our economical structure and prevent developing nations from continuing to develop (or even survive) is a gross jump to conclusions backed up by very inconclusive data. - Amoeba16, on 10/11/2007, -15/+19Scientific illiteracy == Global warming "sceptic" == Flat-earth advocate
- DrDragun, on 10/11/2007, -7/+11I would post a list of the scientists that support anthropological global warming beliefs, but 2,500 names exceeds the posting limit
- Cmonkey67, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4I'd like to also quickly point out that I understand that if the 3rd world continues to use cheap energy and we switch to green energy that it will effectively get us no where. However, I'd like to point out that if we don't switch to green energy the 3rd world is STILL going to use cheap energy. It's the natural course of action for them one way or the other, so I think the argument is a moot point.
- Cmonkey67, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Amen. I want to find you and hug you.
- Seraphym, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4"Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything... 14% of people know that."
~Homer Simpson - caution, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5haven't retreating glaciers yielded finds of rudimentary mining operations and settlements?
- knobtwiddler, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4ya serious!! thx
there are so many reasons to reduce emissions. i hate to see all the public's environmental efforts directed toward something that is shaky at best. i mean people look outside. is it really any warmer this year? seems ok to me.
there are so many things emitted by cars and planes that are KNOWN to be toxic. lets not put all our eggs in one basket. i ride a bike often and drive a 4-cylinder car. i limit my use of plastics. i do this for many reasons including reducing co2. lets step back and look at all the other toxic byproducts of petroleum, not just co2.
the media is using this global warming hype to sell global carbon tax. thats really what this huge media firestorm is about.
CHILL. - chaesar, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4"Look at my study indications http://www.myscientistssaidthis.org/iamright
No, look at my science study http://www.myscientistsaremoreright.com/douchebag"
If two groups are saying different things, than somebody is wrong, so maybe you should both chill the hell out. I think flaring tempers are fueling global warming. Even if we aren't causing global warming, does making scientific and personal steps towards using less energy and lessening the pollution of our air and rivers so bad? If you live on this planet (and you do) you have a ***** responsibility. ***** grow up already; if you leave the room, turn off the light, if you don't haul stones or work as a contractor, don't buy a goddamn pickup truck. Get some damn self-esteem. - phuzzy3d, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Bravo!!! Someone that thinks for himself. I have tried to explain this philosophy to my friends but get bashed and labeled a Bush lover. I just shake my head and sigh.
- Twango, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Most important part: "95 percent of scientists say we understand the process and we are convinced there is global warming. The media reports it, like a lot of other stories, as 50-50. They want to always show the other side. That's good, but I'm disappointed that the media does not reflect that there is a 95-5 percent discussion."
- Cmonkey67, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6@Seraphym
I'll definitely grant to you that a lot of activists are screaming like the sky is falling. I'll also grant you that our knowledge on the global environment and its cycles is very limited. I also think your argument is well put.
However, I have to say that to claim that there is no scientific basis for believing that humans may possibly be a factor in the changes to our environment is quite a bold statement. Further, I would point out that research groups organized the EU and the UN have made claims that there is a possible link. We can make all the political claims we want about EU and the UN and I agree that we shouldn't take any theory "as gospel", however, I believe your claims are just as ridiculous as the activists you berate.
Everyone "Cherry-picks" data, the question is who can make their data the most convincing. I think both sides are coming up pretty short and I further think that our understanding of what's really going on hasn't grown much. - vikingcoder, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3A scientist who doesn't know about paleoclimatology?
- Cmonkey67, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6THE SON!?!?
Wait, who's son?
(I had to, interesting point nonetheless) - Seraphym, on 10/11/2007, -5/+8Cmonkey67:
I think chrismgtis was simply pointing out that there is practically no empirical evidence that HUMANS are causing the change, but activists spout it out like the new Gospel. Furthermore, the change is not even defined... changing from WHAT? What it was around the time we started collecting data about 150 years ago? That's not a very good sample size if you're talking about processes that exist over millions of years with huge variations in average temperatures, never mind heat island effects and regional climate cycles...
The problem that he is pointing out is that there is very little "science" in the "Stop Global Warming!" movement. There are a lot of political activists with little scientific knowledge but big media machines and loud mouths (kinda like the Truthers) who have to keep everyone riled up to keep getting the funding they need to keep going, never mind that they don't actually have empirical data to support their wild conclusions beyond a few groups of scientists with very skeptical results as to our culpability, and other scientists with results that say we are very minimally, if at all, responsible. TO make up for these inadequacies of fact and proof, the biggest activists resort to the biggest lies, professing as irrefutable fact what is purely a theory, and a shaky one without much support at that. Read some of the books written about the FACTS behind the study of global climate change, and you'll see the lies spread by the "environmental activists" glaring in your face... they count on people taking their word for things and not doing any research, or only looking at their own cherry-picked (and often modified) research.
There probably is an increase going on in global temperature (some places of the Earth are actually getting cooler, and plenty of glaciers are actually growing... and Time Magazine, Newsweek and others ran stories on the upcoming drastic effects of global cooling in 1974 and 1975 - and what everyone had to do to fix it), but what degree of effect HUMANS have on that is certainly not even understood, never mind proved. To presume that we are having such immediate effect (in the terms of the Earth, 200 years of industry is but a nanosecond to us) that we must all forfeit our progress and economies to stopping the "damage" is to greatly overestimate our relevance to temperature. Stopping cutting down the rain forest? Yes. Controlling poisonous emissions for cleaner air to breathe? Absolutely. Developing cleaner, renewable energy and cleaner-burning fuel? Sign me up. Trying to stop a cycle that we don't understand, and most likely can't influence very much anyway, and spending trillions of dollars to do it... stupid and a waste of money. - Seraphym, on 10/11/2007, -5/+8I saw that... actually used real data... too bad you're getting dugg down for bringing it up, it was a good piece of work. Dugg you up for mentioning it.
- Seraphym, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4PopularTech and Cmonkey67:
THAT is why I oppose stupid lawmaking on this subject. Nothing is conclusive in any research, except possibly for the fact that, if we do have any impact or ability to affect the climate shift, it's a small one... but the Goracle wants to tax companies based on their "un-greeness" instead? This would kill industry in the US (what little is left after NAFTA and other outsourcing).
I'm all for going green as it makes sense to (re: my comment above at http://digg.com/environment/Global_warming_and_the_melting_of_Greenland#c7063703), but this crap the Goracle tries to shove down our throats is stupid.
Let's assume his plan wouldn't wreck industry and hurt company profits, in turn hurting investment, in turn hurting employee pay, in turn damaging the economy... what happens in 50 years, when everyone is "green?" They're going to suddenly impose new heavy taxes on employees again to regain government income? Yeah, good luck explaining that one to your grand-kids (wait, isn't that the comment the "Stop Global Warming Now" crowd shouts?).
Don't even get me started on the Kyoto treaty... that's one bit of legislature that will cost developed nations trillions and provide absolutely no benefit.
If industry can advance, maybe with little nudges from incentive laws, towards a green economy and culture, I'm all for it. Trying to shove it violently in that direction is stupid and dangerous - but that's what the street-pulpit scaremongers don't care about (they do, however, care about riding the latest trend to get you to buy their books, see their "documentaries" and attend their conferences, so they can tell you what to think). - mdollarsign, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Amen. You are voice of reason in this culture of fear.
- LeadOffMan, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6"The media reports it, like a lot of other stories, as 50-50. They want to always show the other side. That's good, but I'm disappointed that the media does not reflect that there is a 95-5 percent discussion. It sounds like it's 50-50. The public reads this and they can't make up their mind usually."
That's crap, you never hear anything from the scientists that don't subscribe to man-made global warming, they know if they speak out they can't get funding.
You know when politicians say the debate is over (Gore,Obama,etc.), then it's probably time to doubt the whole thing.... - jmchez, on 10/11/2007, -4/+7WE humans tend to think that we do much more than we really can.
When the Yellowstone Caldera blew up 100,000 years ago, the devastation of the North American continent was beyond our modern capacity to understand. When a glacier dam in Montana gave way, the resulting flood was so massive that the scablands in the present state of Washington were formed. The whirpools created by that flood were so powerful they drilled into solid rock! Vesuvius buried two major cities, and another volcano in the Mediterranean destroyed most of the Cretan civilization while probably causing the seven plagues of Egypt (fiery hail, red water, dead frogs, etc.). Another major collapse of a natural dam in the Black Sea north of Turkey probably caused many cultures to write about the Great Flood such as Noah's.
Nature can unleash a Yellowstone or Krakatoa or glacier dam flood or a solar cycle can gives us "a year without winter" as has happened in the past. That will happen and we must adapt. If that means growing corn in Greenland, then get ready to invest in agriculture up there. - cha0sFB, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4H2O (I'll assume you all took at least elementary chem ;) is much more relevant to the makeup of the greenhouse gases than CO2.
That said, I agree with dailyshowboy above me in the sense that, just because we aren't the ones causing warming, doesn't mean we should live like pigs and consume all the world's resources!!!
Don't just roll over and buy the green economy (buy CFLs!) though, because that's the "driving force" behind the Global Warming theory. I'm not saying CFLs aren't more efficient; they are. Until GE gets its head out of its ass and PROMISES us that it won't take away EVERY job right now currently making incandescent bulbs in America though, DON'T buy it. They want to ship it off to China and make 'em cheap, they don't give a ***** about America, only $$.
Do you really think I'm crazy? It's happening everywhere (seen a Motorola plant in the US recently? Thought not, they shipped out and SCREWED their employees, so they could make more money), only this one uses your very conscience against you to line their pockets! People gotta realize this. - phuzzy3d, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Bravo! Very well said. It's nice to see some individuals still think for themselves. I have tried to explain this philosophy to my friends, but get labeled as a Bush lover ( so far from the truth ). I just shake my head and sigh.
- knobtwiddler, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3it would be tremendously arrogant and foolish for us to deliberately block out sunlight, especially by atmospheric aerosol dispersal.
they're already dispersing stuff in commercial jet fuel for various purposes though. i'm not sure if their intention is to increase cloud cover to reflect sunlight, but it certainly has. does anyone see the gray haze or is it just me????
research "chemtrails" on your favorite search engine. especialyl google image search, especially check out some of those satellite photos. watch out the window as a chemtrail turns a blue day into a clouy day. i've seen it over and over. they're seeding clouds wiht metal nano-dust. - vikingcoder, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Yes. Erik the Red named it "Greenland" to attract settlers.
http://www.greenland-guide.gl/reg-south.htm
>>
During the summer, South Greenland fully lives up to its Danish name, Green Land, as this is the most fertile part of the country.
[...]
The abundant fertility of this region was also the reason why Eric the Red chose to live in South Greenland in around 985 AD, after he was outlawed from Iceland.
According to the sagas it was actually Eric the Red who called this country Greenland. After he had lived for three years in this region he returned to Iceland, and wanted to convince his fellow countrymen of the fine opportunities for starting a new life here in this 'Green Land'.
>> - graywolf323, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3now didn't the Vikings name it Greenland for a reason? wouldn't that show us just from history that its been warmer than it is now and humans survived just fine
- rholloway, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Of course, no one ever put together the need for the Vikings to push southwest in search of new farm land after Greenland ceased to be green.
Climate change and modern human existence is little more than a coincidence. - Cmonkey67, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2THAT'S THE SPIRIT!
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3so greenland is actually going to be green now?
- dogstylee, on 10/11/2007, -9/+11Anyone remember that Great Global Warming Swindle program from about 2 months ago?
"If you take CO2 as a percentage of all the gasses in the atmosphere - the oxygen, the nitrogen, the argon and so on - it's .054%, it's an incredibly small portion. Then of course you've got to take that portion that supposedly humans are adding, which is the focus of all the concern, and it gets even smaller."
"The atmosphere is made up of a multitude of gasses, a small percentage of them we call Greenhouse Gasses, and of that very small percentage of Greenhouse Gasses, 95% of it is water vapour, it's the most important greenhouse gas."
"Carbon Dioxide is a natural gas produced by all living things."
"Few things annoy me more than to hear people talking about Carbon Dioxide as being a pollutant. You're made of carbon dioxide, I'm made of carbon dioxide, carbon dioxide is how living things grow."
"Humans are not the main source of carbon dioxide. Humans produce a small fraction in the single digits of the CO2 that is produced into the atmosphere."
"Volcanoes produce more CO2 per year than all the factories and cars and aeroplanes and other human sources of carbon dioxide put together. More still comes from animals and bacteria. They produce about 150 gigatonnes of CO2 per year, compared to a mere 6.5 gigatonnes from humans. An even larger source of CO2 is dying vegetation, from falling leaves for example, in the autumn. But the biggest source of CO2 by far, is the oceans."
Yeah.... let's all rush out to replace our lightbulbs... (which are probably made in China and have to be shipped over here which pollutes etc.) - Avataren, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5Actually, the real scientific estimate is a sea level rise of 210 feet (64m) if Greenland and the Arctic melts.
- Avataren, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Hey ...
Overwhelmed as one would be, placed in my position.
Such a heavy burden now to be the One
Born to bear and bring to all the details of our ending,
To write it down for all the world to see. -
Show 51 - 100 of 130 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is