Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

    Originally posted by Mal View Post
    Everyone needs to leave the insults someplace else. I don't want to close a thread over it, but to get to this point is crossing a line on PD. Thanks.
    OK. That was my nicer way of saying DROP IT. Talk about the issue, not about each other. If that doesn't happen, this thread is closed. You've both had your chance to say "it's not my fault", now leave it alone.

    Comment


    • Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

      Personal attacks aside, I'd be interested in hearing how one in-season hurricane proves global warming, or (even better) somebody debunking the hurricane experts who say there's no proven link between hurricanes and global warming. This is a consensus statement by the recent Sixth International Workshop on Tropical Cyclones held by the World Meteorological Organization. So it's not exactly Exxon.

      1. Though there is evidence both for and against the existence of a detectable anthropogenic signal in the tropical cyclone climate record to date, no firm conclusion can be made on this point.

      2. No individual tropical cyclone can be directly attributed to climate change.
      ...
      And here's the link again.

      http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.co...icane-experts/
      Last edited by Anthem; 08-20-2007, 12:48 PM. Reason: Trimmed a too-long post. Want more, follow the link.
      This space for rent.

      Comment


      • Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

        I just read this Reuters report-
        http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070821/...orm_dean_dc_65
        -that mainly was talking about preparations in Mexico for Dean. Then Reuters felt it necessary to add this to the piece:

        Category 5 hurricanes are rare but in 2005 there were four, including Katrina which devastated New Orleans. The number of high power storms is reinforcing research that suggests global warming may increase the strength of tropical cyclones.
        Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

        ------

        "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

        -John Wooden

        Comment


        • Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

          The American Indian is to blame for all of this. All those peace pipes melted the glaciers and formed the Great Lakes many years ago. BTW, I get to say this because I'm Indian ;<)

          Comment


          • Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

            Originally posted by Bball View Post
            I just read this Reuters report-
            http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070821/...orm_dean_dc_65
            -that mainly was talking about preparations in Mexico for Dean. Then Reuters felt it necessary to add this to the piece:

            Category 5 hurricanes are rare but in 2005 there were four, including Katrina which devastated New Orleans. The number of high power storms is reinforcing research that suggests global warming may increase the strength of tropical cyclones.
            in general a category 5 storm makes landfall every decade or so.

            Dean is the first hurricane to make landfall as a cat 5 since Andrew in 1998

            http://www.accuweather.com/news-bio....ategory5storms

            A caveat to all of this is that prior to the 70s, if a storm did not make landfall it probably never would have been noted as a cat 5 since hurricane monitoring planes and satelittle monitoring wan't available back then.

            The number storms reaching land as cat 5 storms seems pretty steady over the past 80 years, except for the appent global warming back in the late 1920s and 30s.
            The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

            Comment


            • Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

              And in other weather news... Global Warming strikes again:

              Summer's Fall: NYC Faces Record-Breaking Cold
              Central Park High Of 59 Would Tie Record For Coldest August High Ever; Shatter Record For Coldest Aug. 21 High

              (CBS) NEW YORK Don't forget to bundle up if you're headed out in New York City today. After all, it is August 21.

              The city along with the rest of the tri-state region is feeling the chilly effect of a cold front sweeping through the region, accompanied by cool rain showers.

              As of 3 p.m., the high temperature for the day in Central Park was just 59 degrees.

              The normal high for today is 82 degrees. The normal low is 67, still well above what the city is expected to see today. Forecasters say temperatures could warm up to only around 61, which would break a city record, though the high fell back again to 58 degrees at 3 o'clock.

              "If this high holds up, it will smash the previous record for the coldest high temperature for the day, which is 64 degrees, set back in 1999," CBS 2 meteorologist Jason Cali told wcbstv.com.

              In fact, if it doesn't warm up at all for the rest of the day, the 59-degree high would tie the record for the coldest high temperature ever for the month of August in New York City, when it reached just 59 degrees in 1911.

              Today's highs are more common in the city for the final days of October, when the average high ranges from 59 degrees to 61 degrees.

              The unusually cold air mass has come down from Canada, colliding with the moisture from the remnants of Tropical Storm Erin.

              "The good news is the cold air is not going to stick around. We'll get back to more seasonal levels later this week and we may even sneak a few more final hot weekends of the summer," Cali said.

              Temperatures are expected to climb back into the 90s by Friday.

              http://wcbstv.com/topstories/local_story_233143509.html
              Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

              ------

              "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

              -John Wooden

              Comment


              • Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

                I wish we could get some of that colder air here in NC today. Its 96 here.

                Comment


                • Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

                  Just as one violent hurricane doesn't prove global warming, one frigid afternoon doesn't disprove it. You can't have it both ways.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

                    Originally posted by LoneGranger33 View Post
                    Just as one violent hurricane doesn't prove global warming, one frigid afternoon doesn't disprove it. You can't have it both ways.
                    I'm not asking for it both ways. I'm just pointing out that extremes happen in the weather and they are in fact 'normal'.

                    Also, while it's extra cool in New York it's extra hot somewhere else. There's usually a balance (or counterbalance) if anyone bothers to look. You can't just look at the one event and draw some kind of conclusion from it by itself. ....And that is what the latest turn in this thread seemed to be trying to do.

                    -Bball
                    Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                    ------

                    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                    -John Wooden

                    Comment


                    • Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

                      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                      Nothing we can do can save the earth. Nothing we can do can destroy the earth. Thinking otherwise is extremely arrogant if you ask me. Man just isn't that powerful

                      I liked this quote UB, this was always my thoughts on global warming as well. The earth goes through incredible climate changes every 25k years or so. Global warming doesn't have much on that.

                      The real challenge to the planet is more human overpopulation and depleting all the earths resources and keeping other animal lifeforms around. The earth will survive, but it might be just insects and plant life enjoying it.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

                        I'm pretty sure if we set off all of our nuclear weapons all life on the planet (save microscopic ones perhaps) go bye-bye.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

                          Originally posted by Mal View Post
                          I'm pretty sure if we set off all of our nuclear weapons all life on the planet (save microscopic ones perhaps) go bye-bye.
                          Maybe - maybe not. There's a good chance some deep sea life will survive. There are also insects, reptiles and amphibians with the ability to go into long-term dormancy/hibernation. There will also be seeds left from surface plants.

                          What would likely happen is we'd kill off all mammals (though again, there are some burrowers that MIGHT make it - moles, field mice, etc) virtually all surface plant life and almost all surface animals & insects except for those who burrow deep into mud with the advent of nuclear winter. But in 5-10 years some scattered, isolated locations (mountain valleys and other small areas sheltered from fallout by random atmospheric factors, etc.) would become "clean" enough where seeds could sprout and some life would return.

                          But people, dogs, cats, cattle, pigs, birds, etc. would be gone and these scattered locations, with offspring prone to much wider genetic variation due to radioactive effects, would evolve in very strange ways. And simply because of the volume of water we haven't reached the point where we could sterilize the oceans yet so some life would survive there.

                          We'd pretty much drive life in the world back to where it was about a billion years ago. But unless there are some caves where people could hide for a couple of decades (and where life's necessities were stored to enable that), we'd end our existence.

                          Hopefully this won't hijack this thread - I just find conjecturing on this kind of stuff interesting - part of why I like to read Sci-Fi I guess.
                          Last edited by DisplacedKnick; 08-25-2007, 10:19 AM.
                          The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                          Comment


                          • Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

                            Just for fun....I'm gonna post this......

                            I make no claims on accuracy of this article or the source. Just thought it would fun to stir it up again....The comments posted with this article are fun too.....

                            http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/004883.html

                            December 25, 2007
                            Has Earth Climate Warming Trend Stopped? Former BBC science journalist and astrophysicist Dr. David Whitehouse says in spite of rising atmospheric CO2 the average temperate on planet Earth is not rising.
                            With only few days remaining in 2007, the indications are the global temperature for this year is the same as that for 2006 – there has been no warming over the 12 months.
                            But is this just a blip in the ever upward trend you may ask? No.
                            The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 as well as every year since 2001. Global warming has, temporarily or permanently, ceased. Temperatures across the world are not increasing as they should according to the fundamental theory behind global warming – the greenhouse effect. Something else is happening and it is vital that we find out what or else we may spend hundreds of billions of pounds needlessly.
                            Whitehouse is not making a radical claim. He's just not putting the same spin on the facts that you'll find in most media reports about temperature trends. A recent BBC report (not by Whitehouse) has a chart showing 1998 was warmer than any year since and 6 years in that period were slightly warmer than 2007. Their spin is that the 2007 temperature shows that global warming is a confirmed trend. Um, well, on one hand 2007 didn't return the world to cooler temperature levels from earlier decades. But on the other hand the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has gone up a lot since 1998. So why hasn't the average global temperature for 2007 easily beat the 1998 number? (not trying to imply an answer btw - I'm just full of questions)
                            Dr. Whitehouse says the world might be cooling due to reduced solar energy output.
                            Something is happening to our Sun. It has to do with sunspots, or rather the activity cycle their coming and going signifies. After a period of exceptionally high activity in the 20th century, our Sun has suddenly gone exceptionally quiet. Months have passed with no spots visible on its disc. We are at the end of one cycle of activity and astronomers are waiting for the sunspots to return and mark the start of the next, the so-called cycle 24. They have been waiting for a while now with no sign it's on its way any time soon.
                            So maybe atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) buildup really has a warming effect. But that warming effect is getting offset by a cooling effect caused by less solar radiation.
                            But recently the Sun's internal circulation has been failing. In May 2006 this conveyor belt had slowed to a crawl – a record low. Nasa scientist David Hathaway said: "It's off the bottom of the charts... this has important repercussions for future solar activity." What's more, it's not the only indicator that the Sun is up to something.
                            Back during the Little Ice Age era (starting perhaps as early as the 13th century and ending in the 19th century) the Earth experienced periods of reduced sunspot activity including during the Sporer Minimum (1450–1540) and Maunder Minimum (1645-1715). That period featured a Thames River that froze over in winters and lots of hunger and death from food shortages in Europe. Another Little Ice Age would cause problems on a scale rivaling or exceeding some of the problems predicted from global warming.
                            Reduced sunspot activity isn't necessarily a reason for complaisance about atmospheric CO2 buildup. Even if our pollution is buffering the effects of reduced solar output at some point the sun will probably kick back up again and the CO2 will still be there. Though if the Sun causes huge climate changes (and that appears to be the case) then we need to develop the means to rapidly dial up and down the greenhouse effect in order to reduce the size of climate swings caused by solar output fluctuations.
                            Another possibility: Maybe increased sulfur aerosol pollution from China burning more coal is generating a cooling effect that is partially canceling the warming effect of CO2 buildup. This seems plausible at least. China's rate of expansion has caused a huge increase in a wide range of emissions and not just CO2 emissions.
                            Along with aluminum and cement, steel is the biggest reason China added 90 gigawatts of power generation capacity this year, the third year in a row in which it will increase its power output by more than the total capacity of Britain. About 85 percent of those new power plants burn coal.
                            The International Energy Agency, an energy policy and research group in Paris, had predicted as recently as a few years ago that China's carbon emissions would not reach those of the United States until 2020. But industrial production and coal use have grown so much faster than estimated that the agency now thinks China took the lead this year.
                            Production which has been shifted from the West to China (many economists call this "free trade") is cheaper in China in part because China tolerates far more pollution per unit of production.
                            A study by researchers at Carnegie Mellon University found that if all the goods that the United States imported between 1997 and 2004 had been produced domestically, America's carbon emissions would have been 30 percent higher.
                            A separate study for the European Parliament examined the transfer of steel production to China from Germany. It found that China's less efficient steel mills, and its greater reliance on coal, meant that it emitted three times as much carbon dioxide per ton of steel as German steel producers.
                            Pollution has not only shifted to China, in other words, but intensified even faster than the country's rapidly expanding output.
                            So types of pollutants that reflect away the sun's energy are another possible explanation for the seeming end of the warming trend in Earth average temperature.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

                              Until I get an explanation of why the glaciers receded prior to the industrial revolution, Al Gore can go hug a tree.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

                                Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                                Until I get an explanation of why the glaciers receded prior to the industrial revolution, Al Gore can go hug a tree.
                                He will do that while he is banking all of that money he is going to rake in from those"carbon offsets" or what ever that racket called he drummed this whole thing up to sell.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X