View Full Version : The answer to Global warming
SPfloppy
12-12-2006, 01:13 PM
The University of Claifornia los Angeles released a study about how a small scale nuclear war could effect a major global climate change.
SAN FRANCISCO — A small-scale, regional nuclear war could disrupt the global climate for a decade or more, with environmental effects that could be devastating for everyone on Earth, researchers have concluded.
The scientists said about 40 countries possess enough plutonium or uranium to construct substantial nuclear arsenals. Setting off a Hiroshima-size weapon could cause as many direct fatalities as all of World War II.
"Considering the relatively small number and size of the weapons, the effects are surprisingly large," said one of the researchers, Richard Turco of the University of California, Los Angeles. "The potential devastation would be catastrophic and long-term."
"The lingering effects could re-shape the environment in ways never conceived. In terms of climate, a nuclear blast could plunge temperatures across large swaths of the globe."
Check out foxnews.com for the whole story, but in a nut shell if we exchange nukes with North korea it could help global warming by cooling us down for a few decades.
TailgateNut
12-12-2006, 01:49 PM
To the Butt with this ..............!
SPfloppy
12-12-2006, 06:12 PM
Hey to be fair Kim Jong Ill is trying to encourage preventing global warming. He should be considered for a nobel prize
mhgaffney
12-12-2006, 06:42 PM
Al Gore was on target in his film. If you haven't seen it I suggest you do.
It's very possible -- even likely -- that if the global warming continues, the Greenland ice cap will break up. It could happen rather suddenly. Imagine a chunk of ice the size of New Jersey sliding into the Atlantic.
That would create a wall of water who knows how high -- maybe 1,000 feet high. Sea water would be sloshing around the Atlantic like water in a bathtub.
If it happens you can kiss London and Holland and Norway and Denmark and Boston and New York City good bye. Probably Paris as well.
I suspect that David ray Griffin is probably correct when he prophecies that within another century most people on this planet will be dead -- if not from nuclear winter then from natural cataclysms and/or climate change.
When you consider how easily the American people are duped by our current crop of leaders -- criminals -- then it becomes clear that humanity will not be abe to act intelligently to prevent the worst...
Jefferson had it right -- we are desperately in need of a second American revolution. Long overdue in fact.
OrangeShadow
12-12-2006, 06:46 PM
if it gives me warm weather im all for it. id move to florida but its against my religion(the red sox)
mhgaffney
12-12-2006, 06:51 PM
if it gives me warm weather im all for it. id move to florida but its against my religion(the red sox)
I suggest you learn to do the back stroke - because Florida will be about 6 feet under water.
It's very possible -- even likely -- that if the global warming continues, the Greenland ice cap will break up. It could happen rather suddenly. Imagine a chunk of ice the size of New Jersey sliding into the Atlantic.
This scenario is not "likely". Greenland's ice will not suddenly plop into the Atlantic.
BTW, Greenland is way bigger than Jersey - 2.1 million km^2 versus 22,000 km^2.
I suspect that David ray Griffin is probably correct when he prophecies that within another century most people on this planet will be dead -- if not from nuclear winter then from natural cataclysms and/or climate change.
Great. Another apocalyptist. All this world needs. If you believe the world will end, what's to keep you from doing things that will hurt and kill others? You've got the same mindset as the homicide bombers and the 9/11 hijackers - pessimistic to the core, and convinced of imminent doom. That makes you a dangerous person.
You got any kids?
bcbronc
12-13-2006, 11:24 PM
[QUOTE=W*GS;1401385]This scenario is not "likely". Greenland's ice will not suddenly plop into the Atlantic.
BTW, Greenland is way bigger than Jersey - 2.1 million km^2 versus 22,000 km^2.
He didn't say Greenland was as big as Jersey, he said a piece of ice from the Greenland icecap <--that is the size of Jersey--> could fall into the ocean.
and what makes you say this is "unlikely"? They also thought it would take years for the Antartic ice shelf to disappear, but it happened basically over night. Since scientists are now predicting that ALL artic ice will be gone during summers by 2040-2050, a large chunk falling off of Greenland doesn't seem like that big a stretch.
Great. Another apocalyptist. All this world needs. If you believe the world will end, what's to keep you from doing things that will hurt and kill others? You've got the same mindset as the homicide bombers and the 9/11 hijackers - pessimistic to the core, and convinced of imminent doom. That makes you a dangerous person.
You got any kids?
Wow, that's some logic you follow. Trying to bring to peoples attention the dangers of global warming is on par with terrorists? and why would believing the world is going to end change ones morals? that's idiotic.
as far as being a dangerous person, those that still swallow the no global warming BS of the oil industry are the ones that are dangerous.
He didn't say Greenland was as big as Jersey, he said a piece of ice from the Greenland icecap <--that is the size of Jersey--> could fall into the ocean.
Considering the relative area, while NJ sounds big, it's only 1.3% of the area of the ice cap - and supposing a one kilometer thick piece the size of NJ "fell into the ocean" (how would it do so?) that's only ~0.8% of the total ice cap volume. Not a lot of it.
and what makes you say this is "unlikely"?
20+ years experience in research on anthropogenic climate change.
They also thought it would take years for the Antartic ice shelf to disappear, but it happened basically over night.
You're probably referring to the Larsen B ice shelf, which isn't the "Antartic ice shelf" - just a very tiny fraction of all the ice shelves around Antarctica.
Since scientists are now predicting that ALL artic ice will be gone during summers by 2040-2050, a large chunk falling off of Greenland doesn't seem like that big a stretch.
The melting of all the Arctic sea ice will not change sea level. There's a big difference between sea ice and Greenland's (and Antarctica's too, for that matter) ice caps.
I happen to know one ice-sheet modeller, and no experiment that he's done of which I'm aware has shown the Greenland ice cap catastrophically failing. Of course, his model isn't perfect - but no climate model is. gaffney's claim that such an event is "likely" is just plain wrong.
and why would believing the world is going to end change ones morals? that's idiotic.
If person X has nothing to live for (the world is going to end, right?) then there's no reason for them to live - perhaps in their anger (assuming they care at all and aren't 100% a nihilist) they'll take out as many of the rest of us on their way down.
as far as being a dangerous person, those that still swallow the no global warming BS of the oil industry are the ones that are dangerous.
Indeed.
As I've argued here before, there's no reason to posit catastrophic scenarios to take the risks posed by global warming quite seriously.
bcbronc
12-15-2006, 02:54 AM
[QUOTE]Considering the relative area, while NJ sounds big, it's only 1.3% of the area of the ice cap - and supposing a one kilometer thick piece the size of NJ "fell into the ocean" (how would it do so?) that's only ~0.8% of the total ice cap volume. Not a lot of it.
To me what he posted read as if he was predicting possible tsunamis from the ice "sliding abruptly" into the Atlantic. I could be wrong, but I don't think he was saying anything about overall sea levels.
20+ years experience in research on anthropogenic climate change.
I don't have any formal training in the field, but I find it interesting and important. If you have some peer reviewed papers published or on line, I'd be interested in reading them.
I'm curious, you say Greenland losing over 1% of its total ice mass in one swell swoop is no big deal. Do loses of that size regulary occur?
as a researcher in climate change, what's your take on this article:
Some 10,000 US researchers have signed a statement protesting about political interference in the scientific process.
The statement, which includes the backing of 52 Nobel Laureates, demands a restoration of scientific integrity in government policy.
According to the American Union of Concerned Scientists, data is being misrepresented for political reasons.
It claims scientists working for federal agencies have been asked to change data to fit policy initiatives.
The Union has released an "A to Z" guide that it says documents dozens of recent allegations involving censorship and political interference in federal science, covering issues ranging from global warming to sex education.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6178213.stm
You're probably referring to the Larsen B ice shelf, which isn't the "Antartic ice shelf" - just a very tiny fraction of all the ice shelves around Antarctica.
I don't know, how many times has it happened?
The melting of all the Arctic sea ice will not change sea level. There's a big difference between sea ice and Greenland's (and Antarctica's too, for that matter) ice caps.
I happen to know one ice-sheet modeller, and no experiment that he's done of which I'm aware has shown the Greenland ice cap catastrophically failing. Of course, his model isn't perfect - but no climate model is. gaffney's claim that such an event is "likely" is just plain wrong.
So his tests don't show the ice cap is catastrophically failing, but you concede that his tests do show it is failing at least to some degree?
If person X has nothing to live for (the world is going to end, right?) then there's no reason for them to live - perhaps in their anger (assuming they care at all and aren't 100% a nihilist) they'll take out as many of the rest of us on their way down.
I doubt it. I wouldn't; would you? If you wouldn't, why do you figure anyone else would.
Maybe in a situation like learning a comet is going to hit the earth in 7 days people might snap, but I don't think we're talking about anything that...instant.
Indeed.
As I've argued here before, there's no reason to posit catastrophic scenarios to take the risks posed by global warming quite seriously.
It's just as dangerous to understate the situation. Too many people are willing to write it off as "bad sciene". I think it's important to hear the worst case scenerios, even if they probably aren't the most "likely" scenerios.
To me what he posted read as if he was predicting possible tsunamis from the ice "sliding abruptly" into the Atlantic. I could be wrong, but I don't think he was saying anything about overall sea levels.
There's no indication that a piece of the Greenland ice cap of sufficient size sliding off and causing a major tsunami in the Atlantic is any sort of reasonable scenario. It's just gaffney indulging his catastrophist thinking.
I don't have any formal training in the field, but I find it interesting and important. If you have some peer reviewed papers published or on line, I'd be interested in reading them.
I'm not going to tell you my real name, here or in a PM. Period. Not after what happened to Tensi.
I'm curious, you say Greenland losing over 1% of its total ice mass in one swell swoop is no big deal. Do loses of that size regulary occur?
Not what I said. Re-read it. AFAIK, there are no instances of any of the Greenland ice cap "falling off", or "sliding into the ocean" ever occurring. And no, I don't mean just observed by people.
as a researcher in climate change, what's your take on this article:
That's part and parcel of what happens when scientists make a deal with the devil and accept government funding. I don't like it, but them's the breaks. Once science becomes dependent on the State for money, it becomes vulnerable to manipulation for political reasons. Some folks in science would like to think they're above the tawdry, irrational world of politics, but that's not realistic.
I don't know, how many times has it happened?
Breakups of ice shelves in Antarctica are hardly unknown, and while I think it likely that the breakup of Larsen B is at least partially due to changes in the Antarctic climate, I'd be very hesitant to claim that such a cause is proven, or that we're the cause of that specific event.
So his tests don't show the ice cap is catastrophically failing, but you concede that his tests do show it is failing at least to some degree?
Define "failing". Increased melting is one thing, what gaffney supposes is something else entirely.
I think it's important to hear the worst case scenerios, even if they probably aren't the most "likely" scenerios.
That's a trap too many climate change scientists have fallen into. Personally, I'd stick with what's most likely, rather than what's most extreme, because the latter costs credibility.
SPfloppy
12-15-2006, 03:13 PM
Holy crap I posted this in jest. Good points though.
mhgaffney
12-19-2006, 02:28 PM
The possibility that the Greenland ice cap will break up becomes more likely as global warming continues. We have already seen the retreat of glaciers in most parts of the planet. Evidently New Zealand is one of the few places where glaciers are holding their own or advancing.
There are historical precedents for massive cataclysms. Don't be fooled by W*gs. There is plenty of evidence. I recommend Paul LaViolette's fine book Earth Under Fire, in which he coins the expression "glacier wave."
The huge ice caps don't necessarily melt gradually and uniformly. They can break up very quickly. Huge amounts of water can build up inside these ice fields -- and flow under them, like a lubricant. When it finally breaks loose, the forces unleashed are titanic.
When I used the example of New Jersey I was trying to be conservative. You could have a piece of ice the size of Ireland slipping down off of Greenland into the sea -- causing a tsunami beyond comprehension.
When Ohio and Illinois were settled at the start of America farmers dug wells and found a forest buried at a depth of 40 feet. Something deposited mud over a vast region up to 40 feet deep.
The vast muck beds of Siberia and Alaska give evidence of vast destruction -- probably caused when the last ice shelf melted. Scientists have uncovered whole herds of mastodons, entire forests, boulders, ice all in pieces, the animals literally torn apart, everything mixed up together - vast burial fields.
LaViolette's book is sobering. We are like ants compared with Nature's power. Usually she is restrained and friendly. But the forces of chaos are always there as well.
The possibility that the Greenland ice cap will break up becomes more likely as global warming continues.
The chances of a significant (in terms of the effects on us and the climate) "break up" (whatever that means) is still very very small, even as climate change continues.
There are historical precedents for massive cataclysms. Don't be fooled by W*gs. There is plenty of evidence. I recommend Paul LaViolette's fine book Earth Under Fire, in which he coins the expression "glacier wave."
Not "glacier wave", but "galactic wave", based on LaViolette's very speculative (and quite odd) Velikovskian "theories". It doesn't surprise me that you'd find his book "fine", in that it squares with your overall mindset. Stuff about decoding the zodiac and the Sphinx, myths from other cultures, and so forth, just fits with you. Suffice to say that one need not go into whack-land to appreciate the likely potential problems we're creating by changing the climate.
The huge ice caps don't necessarily melt gradually and uniformly. They can break up very quickly. Huge amounts of water can build up inside these ice fields -- and flow under them, like a lubricant. When it finally breaks loose, the forces unleashed are titanic.
It's more complicated than that.
When I used the example of New Jersey I was trying to be conservative. You could have a piece of ice the size of Ireland slipping down off of Greenland into the sea -- causing a tsunami beyond comprehension.
Not at all likely, not at all remotely likely. For one thing, the energy created by the friction of such a large piece "slipping down" would melt a lot of the ice. Perhaps you can do the math...
LaViolette's book is sobering. We are like ants compared with Nature's power. Usually she is restrained and friendly. But the forces of chaos are always there as well.
LaViolette's book is much less useful than real scientific work.
OrangeShadow
04-08-2007, 08:53 PM
I suggest you learn to do the back stroke - because Florida will be about 6 feet under water.
thats what they said would happen 7 years ago
Bronco Bob
04-08-2007, 09:00 PM
thats what they said would happen 7 years ago
You think something changed in the meantime? Don't look now, but scientists
are still saying it could happen. In fact it is even more likely it will happen
as the rate of global warming is increasing.
Swedish Extrovert
04-08-2007, 09:09 PM
I'm sorry... is this a joke?
I know it seems obvious, but I just wanted to be sure...
yavoon
04-08-2007, 10:34 PM
[QUOTE]
He didn't say Greenland was as big as Jersey, he said a piece of ice from the Greenland icecap <--that is the size of Jersey--> could fall into the ocean.
and what makes you say this is "unlikely"? They also thought it would take years for the Antartic ice shelf to disappear, but it happened basically over night. Since scientists are now predicting that ALL artic ice will be gone during summers by 2040-2050, a large chunk falling off of Greenland doesn't seem like that big a stretch.
Wow, that's some logic you follow. Trying to bring to peoples attention the dangers of global warming is on par with terrorists? and why would believing the world is going to end change ones morals? that's idiotic.
as far as being a dangerous person, those that still swallow the no global warming BS of the oil industry are the ones that are dangerous.
ghaff's is beyond "concern over global warming." he is a definite "rapture is nigh" person.
as for belief in the imminent end of the world not impacting ur value structure, u just dont know what ur talking about.
yavoon
04-08-2007, 10:35 PM
thats what they said would happen 7 years ago
always a problem w/ end of days ppl. picking a date.
Spider
04-08-2007, 10:56 PM
This hasnt been my week, i would like to blame this on Gaff forcing me to agree with W*GS yet again ......... every one knows how me and W*GS argue , but when it comes to climate , the S.O.B. knows his shít ........... Just kick back and read what the jerkoff post , you will earn a thing or 2 ..........
ant1999e
04-08-2007, 11:55 PM
if it gives me warm weather im all for it. id move to florida but its against my religion(the red sox)
That's what I'm talking about. I've just about had it with all this cold weather. Plus, if nebraska inherits a beach, what's there to complain about.
Spider
04-08-2007, 11:58 PM
That's what I'm talking about. I've just about had it with all this cold weather. Plus, if nebraska inherits a beach, what's there to complain about.
flatness and Grand Island ;D
ant1999e
04-09-2007, 12:04 AM
flatness and Grand Island ;D
Just think, you all would be like the hawiian islands. It would be awsome.
Spider
04-09-2007, 12:13 AM
Just think, you all would be like the hawiian islands. It would be awsome.
LOL , this is wyoming , we would find away to screw it up
alkemical
04-24-2007, 11:28 PM
Russian Scientist Blames Global Warming on Tunguska Meteorite (http://www.mosnews.com/news/2006/03/15/tunguska.shtml)
A new theory to explain global warming was revealed at a meeting at the UK University of Leicester. The controversial theory has nothing to do with burning fossil fuels and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels but blames the warming on the Tunguska Event of 1908 that happened in a remote part of Siberia, the Science Blog reported Wednesday.
According to Vladimir Shaidurov of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the global warming of the past 100 years could be due to atmospheric changes that are not connected to human emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of natural gas and oil.
Shaidurov explains that there was a slight decrease in temperature until the early twentieth century, which flies in the face of current global warming theories that blame a rise in temperature on rising carbon dioxide emissions since the start of the industrial revolution. Shaidurov, however, suggests that the rise, which began between 1906 and 1909, could have had a very different cause, which he believes was the massive Tunguska Event, which rocked a remote part of Siberia, northwest of Lake Baikal on the 30th June 1908.
The Tunguska Event, sometimes known as the Tungus Meteorite is thought to have resulted from an asteroid or comet entering the earth’s atmosphere and exploding. The event released as much energy as fifteen one-megaton atomic bombs. As well as blasting an enormous amount of dust into the atmosphere, felling 60 million trees over an area of more than 2000 square kilometres. Shaidurov suggests that this explosion would have caused “considerable stirring of the high layers of atmosphere and change its structure.” Such meteoric disruption was the trigger for the subsequent rise in global temperatures.
Global warming is thought to be caused by the “greenhouse effect”. Energy from the sun reaches the earth’s surface and warms it, without the greenhouse effect most of this energy is then lost as the heat radiates back into space. However, the presence of so-called greenhouse gases at high altitude absorb much of this energy and then radiate a proportion back towards the earth’s surface, causing temperatures to rise.
Many natural gases and some of those released by conventional power stations, vehicle and aircraft exhausts act as greenhouse gases. Attempts to reverse global warming, such as the Kyoto Protocol, have centered on controlling and even reducing CO2 emissions.
However, the most potent greenhouse gas is water, explains Shaidurov. Only small changes in the atmospheric levels of water, in the form of vapor and ice crystals can contribute to significant changes to the temperature of the earth’s surface, which far outweighs the effects of carbon dioxide and other gases released by human activities.
Just a rise of 1% of water vapour could raise the global average temperature of Earth’s surface more then 4 degrees Celsius.
Water vapour levels are even less within human control than CO2 levels. According to Andrew E. Dessler of the Texas A & M University, “Human activities have little direct control over its atmospheric abundance, which is controlled instead by the worldwide balance between evaporation from the oceans and precipitation.”
As such, Shaidurov has concluded that only an enormous natural phenomenon, such as an asteroid or comet impact or airburst, could seriously disturb atmospheric water levels, destroying persistent so-called ’silver’, or noctilucent, clouds composed of ice crystals in the high altitude mesosphere (50 to 85km). The Tunguska Event was just such an event, and coincides with the period of time during which global temperatures appear to have been rising the most steadily — the twentieth century. There are many hypothetical mechanisms of how this mesosphere catastrophe might have occurred, and future research is needed to provide a definitive answer.
defenseman
04-25-2007, 09:18 AM
Al Gore was on target in his film. If you haven't seen it I suggest you do.
It's very possible -- even likely -- that if the global warming continues, the Greenland ice cap will break up. It could happen rather suddenly. Imagine a chunk of ice the size of New Jersey sliding into the Atlantic.
That would create a wall of water who knows how high -- maybe 1,000 feet high. Sea water would be sloshing around the Atlantic like water in a bathtub.
If it happens you can kiss London and Holland and Norway and Denmark and Boston and New York City good bye. Probably Paris as well.
I suspect that David ray Griffin is probably correct when he prophecies that within another century most people on this planet will be dead -- if not from nuclear winter then from natural cataclysms and/or climate change.
When you consider how easily the American people are duped by our current crop of leaders -- criminals -- then it becomes clear that humanity will not be abe to act intelligently to prevent the worst...
Jefferson had it right -- we are desperately in need of a second American revolution. Long overdue in fact.
Whatever you say ghaff boy...dman
It's called anarchy SFB's, and the quickest way to stop anarchy, pull ALL federal funding from the anarchists, for example, San Francisco. They'll get back on board if their pockets have to buckolas in them...dman
alkemical
04-25-2007, 09:36 AM
Whatever you say ghaff boy...dman
It's called anarchy SFB's, and the quickest way to stop anarchy, pull ALL federal funding from the anarchists, for example, San Francisco. They'll get back on board if their pockets have to buckolas in them...dman
LOL that's the funniest comment i've read outside of mock in a while. Perfected irony!
defenseman
04-25-2007, 10:13 AM
LOL that's the funniest comment i've read outside of mock in a while. Perfected irony!
I'm glad you enjoyed it. I would look forward to SF's federal funding getting pulled with great pleasure. Overtly breaking federal law should solicit an overt response by the federal government...dman
alkemical
04-25-2007, 10:23 AM
I'm glad you enjoyed it. I would look forward to SF's federal funding getting pulled with great pleasure. Overtly breaking federal law should solicit an overt response by the federal government...dman
Yeah and i'd side with the States on this one. Why are you for removing funding for everyone else, but not when it applies to your POV, eh? You aren't a conservative, you are a Republican.
defenseman
04-25-2007, 11:32 AM
Yeah and i'd side with the States on this one. Why are you for removing funding for everyone else, but not when it applies to your POV, eh? You aren't a conservative, you are a Republican.
Explain POV and I may get around to answering your question...dman
*And you are correct, I am NOT a true conservative. There are some areas I flat out disagree with the conservative right on. Especially the religious right.
alkemical
04-25-2007, 11:56 AM
Explain POV and I may get around to answering your question...dman
*And you are correct, I am NOT a true conservative. There are some areas I flat out disagree with the conservative right on. Especially the religious right.
You only want funding removed for something that doesn't apply to your own agenda - but when applying the same reasoning and logic - you are against it.
So while you don't want military spending cut - you want federal funding cut for a state that should have it's own right to set their own rules.
There's no need to answer my question, you already have.
defenseman
04-25-2007, 12:16 PM
You only want funding removed for something that doesn't apply to your own agenda - but when applying the same reasoning and logic - you are against it.
So while you don't want military spending cut - you want federal funding cut for a state that should have it's own right to set their own rules.
There's no need to answer my question, you already have.
Illegal immigrants is a federal law, not state law. the "state" is part of the union, the city is in the state. Comply or lose. No different than high schools that recieve federal funding req'd to supply school lists wrt seniors for the upcoming school year. They don't supply the list, they can have their freaking funding pullled. Keep in mind, privately funded high schools do not apply to this, ONLY federally funded schools no matter who they are, must comply. If not they run the risk of losing federal funding , it's happened more than once...dman
* In fact, the high school juniors right now turn into seniors sometime the beginning of june this year.
alkemical
04-25-2007, 12:26 PM
exactly my point dman - thanks!
Bronco Bob
04-26-2007, 12:51 AM
I'm glad you enjoyed it. I would look forward to SF's federal funding getting pulled with great pleasure. Overtly breaking federal law should solicit an overt response by the federal government...dman
And in turn the residents of SF should then no longer be required to pay Federal
income tax, or any other Federal tax. If the people of SF no longer are getting
any benefit from their tax dollars, why should they have to spend their money
on the Federal government. Then we'll see who comes out on the short
end of the stick, SF or the Federal government.
Russian Scientist Blames Global Warming on Tunguska Meteorite (http://www.mosnews.com/news/2006/03/15/tunguska.shtml)
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=271
alkemical
04-26-2007, 08:36 AM
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=271
http://www2.le.ac.uk/ebulletin/news/press-releases/2000-2009/2006/03/nparticle-bxh-khs-ykd
The link you sent is mostly GHG are the sole cause of global warming - i was interested in the metor story because of how he notes the change in the ice crystals in the atmosphere can really alter temperature. It's plausible, and can be a contributor; however, not the sole cause/reason IMO.
ant1999e
04-26-2007, 09:47 AM
And in turn the residents of SF should then no longer be required to pay Federal
income tax, or any other Federal tax. If the people of SF no longer are getting
any benefit from their tax dollars, why should they have to spend their money
on the Federal government. Then we'll see who comes out on the short
end of the stick, SF or the Federal government.
I'm sure the Federal Gov. would be just fine without S.F.
Hogan11
04-26-2007, 11:06 AM
Check out foxnews.com for the whole story.
Instant dismissal.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
05-10-2007, 05:16 AM
http://www.slowpokecomics.com/strips/repubglobal.gif