Can We Even Stop Global Warming?

Like I said before originally (late 80's early 90's) I doubted the whole global warming issue and since then I have read a lot on the subject. I personally think that Muaddib is wrong but i have never flat out claimed that he was or that I was right. I just object to him claiming that everyone else but him is flat out wrong.

Originally posted by Muaddib

Yes, but there are also signs that we could very well be heading towards another ice age, lets hope it would be a little ice age.

[edit on 8-2-2007 by Muaddib]

Now I really hope you are right on that one... I don't do hot and humid well at all. Give me the north lands any day... I need new england autumns and winter has etched itself like scrimshaw onto my soul.

You know its funny, I started this thread to be a discussion about if whether or not we would be able to reverse the effects of GW and it has spun into a 7+ page argument on whether or not man is the cause. There are other threads for those debates - that is why I started THIS thread to discuss a different topic. Personally I think GW is a combination of several factors both natural and man made. I think mankinds ACTIONS (not just co2 emmissions, but everything we do) contribute greatly to global warming. It wont matter how much I try to detail out the difference between actions and co2 emissions, some people have their minds made up and will come in and attack my post without really even reading it.

The worlds climate experts and the greater body of scientific minds all agree on one thing: Global Warming does exist, and mankind contributes to it. They also doubt whether or not our actions can now affect the outcome whether we try or not to reverse the damage we have caused. If you guys are going to continue to debate about hocky stick graphs and the like, please choose one of the other global warming threads.

I was hoping for people to post examples of how or why they think we can affect gw - examples might be thru environmental cleanup, new technologies, alternative energy sources, etc. We have wasted far too many years debating with closed minded people on just the existance of gw, let alone mankinds role in it. There are people that still today dont believe in GW. Some who didn't believe in it and were fiercly opposed to the idea now do believe in it but are now fiercly opposing the idea that mankind has a role in it. Bottom line, us GW believers are going to do everything in our power to reverse the effects. As our environment goes down the drain further, you can expect our efforts to grow in intensity until we start to see results. If you prefer to keep your head in the sand and debate the existance of gw or mankinds role, please do it in another thread.

Please post any ideas on how and why we can start to affect our planet and our climate for the better.
A few ideas that I have are:

-end our dependence of foreign oil

-promote mass transit systems

-promote hybrid vehicles and electric cars (yes the tech does exist)

-start paying for alternative sources of energy: wind, solar, hydro electric, etc. most of our electricity comes from burning coal!!! I live in oregon, and I pay extra on my bill to ensure that the energy I personally buy comes from renewable resources. Ask your power company if they have a similar program available.

-recycle

-force politicians to hold heavy industry accountable for the damage they cause, ie $$ to pay for the cleanup - it is called a cost of doing business.

-work with foreign governments to enact similar restrictions in their own countries and to promote the ideas listed above...


These are but a few ideas, I cant wait to see someone tear them apart in a following post, but we will see. I realize that many of these are idealistic, but we have to start somewhere. We made some great progress in the 90's, but it seems as though we have started going the opposite direction in recent years - pulling us out of the Kyoto proticol was the stupidest thing I had ever seen.

Please post your ideas, and links to sites where likeminded people are attempting to cause this change on their own. I am a big fan of the saying: Think globally, act locally. Together it is true we can make a change. One other morsel of thought, if noone bought cars or oil, then they wouldn't have any reason to keep manufacturing them would they? THis may seem like a pipe dream, but it really doesn't have to be.

My ideal city would ban personal cars in the down town areas. Cars should be for highway travel only, and some limited inner city traveling. If a downtown area had only mass transit and or electric vehicles, I think this would be a HUGE step in the right direction. But I am just some idealistic guy in the NW with a computer. What are all of your thoughts on these ideas??

Well I personally have said repeatedly that conservation and conversion to alternative fuels, solar power, wind, tides and geothermal (where possible) as well as environmental clean up, far from harming the economy would create an economic boom that could last well into the next century, if only from the sheer labor involved. For this to work on any warming however it would have a global effort, which of course if the scientists are right and the nay sayers are wrong, is what it will have to be anyway.

Originally posted by grover
Well I personally have said repeatedly that conservation and conversion to alternative fuels, solar power, wind, tides and geothermal (where possible) as well as environmental clean up, far from harming the economy would create an economic boom that could last well into the next century, if only from the sheer labor involved. For this to work on any warming however it would have a global effort, which of course if the scientists are right and the nay sayers are wrong, is what it will have to be anyway.

So true, better to start now! The thing I never understood was, that oil companies and huge entities could take some of their billions of profit and roll it into these new technologies. Could you imagine if GM were the first company to design an all electric car that the average person could afford?? They could patent this tech and make a mint off of it. Unfortunately, the reason the EV1 was scrapped - not becasue of efficiency issues, but they realized that there was little to no cost to maintain/ upkeep the vehicle - there is a lot more money made in the upkeep of cars than in the sale themselves. Sadly, this has helped to shape the opinions of big business into going for more profit. Dont they realize that eventually there will be a breaking point and they will HAVE to clean up their mess - spending FAR more than they ever would have had to in preventative measures...

Tesla motors have designed an all electric roadster that looks awesome. PRice tag is around $80k right now, but each run they do will improve the tech, make the manuf process more efficient, and drive the cost down for the average consumer. I want one!!

Above top Secret Thread - Tesla Motors New electric car

Check out this thread when you get a chance, it is a pretty car! Make sure to check out the stats too:

Tesla Motors Home Page

I personally grow as much of my own food as possible living in a moderate sized city, and until my knee started falling apart I bicycled everywhere I went. Now I use a scooter... the first time I have ever had an engine for transportation. I recycle when possible. Buy second hand from yard sales and thrift shops, support the local farmer's market and belong to the local co-op. It is not a lot but it is what I can do.

[edit on 8-2-2007 by grover]

Originally posted by LogansRun
You know its funny, I started this thread to be a discussion about if whether or not we would be able to reverse the effects of GW and it has spun into a 7+ page argument on whether or not man is the cause. There are other threads for those debates - that is why I started THIS thread to discuss a different topic. Personally I think GW is a combination of several factors both natural and man made.
.......................

Well, the problem is that it was you who said in the original thread, and i quote:

Originally posted by LogansRunI am interested to see how the nay sayers respond to this as there are still many skeptics out there who claim it is a natural warming. The only credible scientific reports to counter global warming seem to come from scientists on the payrolls of such corporations as Exxon and Shell.

Don't try to back off from your original claims, sorry but i call it as I see it, hence that's the reason I gave excerpts and evidence that prove your claims were not true.

As to whether or not we can stop it... What makes you think mankind can stop Climate Change? Can mankind stop the Earth from rotating?, or stop the Sun's flux and the cosmic rays form reaching Earth?...

I personally believe that anyone who thinks mankind can stop Climate Change, or Global Warming, is decieving themselves. Everything does not start and ends with mankind.

It depends on if we can change the warming of the sun.

Originally posted by LogansRun
So true, better to start now! The thing I never understood was, that oil companies and huge entities could take some of their billions of profit and roll it into these new technologies. Could you imagine if GM were the first company to design an all electric car that the average person could afford?? They could patent this tech and make a mint off of it.

New technologies take time to be implemented. It is not something that happens overnight. Those points you raised are good, if you want to cut down pollution, but sorry to tell you those things are not going to stop Climate Change, plain and simple. Man is not as Omnipotent as some think we are. Even the IPCC report says that nomatter what we do to try to cut down "pollution", it won't stop global warming.

Originally posted by LogansRun
Unfortunately, the reason the EV1 was scrapped - not becasue of efficiency issues, but they realized that there was little to no cost to maintain/ upkeep the vehicle - there is a lot more money made in the upkeep of cars than in the sale themselves. Sadly, this has helped to shape the opinions of big business into going for more profit. Dont they realize that eventually there will be a breaking point and they will HAVE to clean up their mess - spending FAR more than they ever would have had to in preventative measures...

Unfortunately yes, there are some owners of big companies that wouldn't want for new technology to come out and put them out of business, but I don't believe everyone is like that.

But there is another group of people out there that could most certainly open a new company where new technologies could be tested and implemented.

Those people i am talking about are the rich of Hollywood, and the same rich people who keep asking governments to do their job for them.

Could you tell me why is it that the "Hollywood crowd" and the die hard rich that always talk about "saving the world" don't get together and put their money for the development of new technologies?

They get a lot of coverage in their celebrity gatherings talking about global warming, but how much do they really spend?

If you put that same Hollywood crowd together, and they put only 50% of the money they make, they probably put together more money than the government of the U.S. has, and i am pretty certain I am not exagerating.

Even if most of the "Hollywood crowd" gave 99% of the money they make, many of them, if not most, probably still make a million dollars a year. I am pretty sure most people can live off from one million throughout their lives if they spend the money wisely, so one million a year on income should be more than enough for the "Hollywood crowd"....

So why do you think they do not get together to actually do something to "curb pollution"? and i am not talking about them "spending 1-10% of their money.... if they are so concerned, they can spent most of their money and still live more confortably than most people in the world...

All they do is get more publicity, spend maybe 1%-10% of their income in charities and then expect everyone else to put up most of the money to "save the world"...and not to mention that "celebrities make money for doing this"...

The Hollywood crowd, and the "rich libertarians, liberals, anarchists, etc, etc, are as guilty of not spending more money to "curb pollution" as the governments and corporations of the world...

Quite simply, hypocrisy at it's worse.

Originally posted by LogansRun
Tesla motors have designed an all electric roadster that looks awesome. PRice tag is around $80k right now, but each run they do will improve the tech, make the manuf process more efficient, and drive the cost down for the average consumer. I want one!!

Above top Secret Thread - Tesla Motors New electric car

Check out this thread when you get a chance, it is a pretty car! Make sure to check out the stats too:

Tesla Motors Home Page

Well, lets "make" the Hollywood crowd and the rich "libertarians, liberals, anarchists, etc, etc" gather most of their money to fund a company that would implement new technology and lower the prices of these cars so everyone can afford them, among some other things they can do.

Shall we "force the Hollywood and the rest of the rich crowd" to do it?...

[edit on 9-2-2007 by Muaddib]

Just to make a point as to what most people really are interested in, even if they claim they want to talk about "saving the world", you can see it in this same forum.

Right now the death of Nicole Smith, a thread which was started today, has had almost twice the amount of members reading it, than members who have read this thread, and it has the same amount of pages as this topic, when everyday at least 150,000 people die.

After all the "talk", very few people will do the "walk", and that goes for everyone.

Another very interesting fact is the response by the governments of those countries which seem to think that "mankind is to blame for global warming".

That fact is what the UN, and mostly European nations want to do.

They are proposing still to implement the Kyoto protocol, which meanwhile demanding some countries to cut their greenhouse emissions, and if they dont' do it they will be penalized for it, they are excerpting other countries such as China and India, and will allow them to not only continue, but increase their greenhouse emissions, even when China is about to surpass the U.S. in greenhouse emissions.

China to surpass U.S. emissions levels

The International Energy Agency says China will surpass the United States in carbon dioxide emissions by 2009, about a decade ahead of previous predictions.

www.physorg.com...

Not to mention that China is the country with one of the most, if it is not the most, polluted rivers, lakes and cities in the world.

A report released in 1998 by the World Health Organization (WHO) noted that of the ten most polluted cities in the world, seven can be found in China. Sulfur dioxide and soot caused by coal combustion are two major air pollutants, resulting in the formation of acid rain, which now falls on about 30% of China's total land area. Industrial boilers and furnaces consume almost half of China's coal and are the largest single point sources of urban air pollution.

en.chinafotopress.com...

Just do a search on google about "Pollution of rivers in China".....

Yet for some "unknown" reason the UN concensus is to allow China, India and other countries not only to continue their greenhouse emissions but they can increase them as much as they want?....

Wake up people...the Kyoto protocol, and what these "UN countries" want is not to "save mankind from pollution or Global Warming"....

[edit on 9-2-2007 by Muaddib]

All that is still assuming that you are right Muaddib and except in your mind, the jury is out.

Originally posted by Muaddib

Don't try to back off from your original claims, sorry but i call it as I see it, hence that's the reason I gave excerpts and evidence that prove your claims were not true.

I did no such thing. If you would please read it again, my opening post was completely neutral in opinion, except the portion where I give my persoanl opinion. I said it would be interesting to see the nay sayers try to counter this thread, I had no idea that it would turn into an 8 page debate on something other than the topic of the thread itself.

The purpose of this thread was to discuss the story I gave a link to, not to debate the existance of global warming or mans role. You may spin this however you choose, but this is another one of your attempts to dominate and derail a thread.

I am happy to see however, that you are at least contributing to the information being provided in this thread. I have looked at each of your links and your arguments, I just happen to be on the other end of the belief scale on this issue. Oh, and BTW, you in no way provided links that proved my claims untrue. You have an agenda, and that is fine. But dont think that posting links to a few quacks around the world is going to convince me that the thousands of climate experts who all agree on gw are wrong.

Originally posted by Muaddib
[New technologies take time to be implemented. It is not something that happens overnight. Those points you raised are good, if you want to cut down pollution, but sorry to tell you those things are not going to stop Climate Change, plain and simple. Man is not as Omnipotent as some think we are. Even the IPCC report says that nomatter what we do to try to cut down "pollution", it won't stop global warming.

Dude, seriously get off the pollution thing. How much clearer do I have to be???????????????????????

OUR ACTIONS are not limited to pollution.. Do I think pollution is the sole cause for gw?? NO!!!!!!!

Do I think mankind is the sole cause??

NO!!!!!!!! Read ALL of my posts before responding otherwise you are wasting our times in this thread

Originally posted by Muaddib
Could you tell me why is it that the "Hollywood crowd" and the die hard rich that always talk about "saving the world" don't get together and put their money for the development of new technologies?

They get a lot of coverage in their celebrity gatherings talking about global warming, but how much do they really spend?

LMAO, hollywood? You are grasping for straws here... Do you honestly think I give one ounce of crap what anyone in hollywood thinks?? What the hell do they have to do with this topic? So some celebreties have taken up some causes - SO WHAT?

Originally posted by Muaddib
If you put that same Hollywood crowd together, and they put only 50% of the money they make, they probably put together more money than the government of the U.S. has, and i am pretty certain I am not exagerating.

Now I KNOW you are off your rocker. You might want to retake some math classes. You worked on oil rigs?? Scary..

Originally posted by Muaddib
Even if most of the "Hollywood crowd" gave 99% of the money they make, many of them, if not most, probably still make a million dollars a year. I am pretty sure most people can live off from one million throughout their lives if they spend the money wisely, so one million a year on income should be more than enough for the "Hollywood crowd"....

Again with Hollywood - do you want to live there or something? Why dont you ask oil company executives and big business why they dont invest their hundreds of billions of dollars? You are quick to demonize the hollywood croud because they have money, but you fail to realize that millions of dollars would be nice, but billions would truly make a difference. BTW, there are many people in hollywood that donate money to causes

Originally posted by Muaddib
The Hollywood crowd, and the "rich libertarians, liberals, anarchists, etc, etc, are as guilty of not spending more money to "curb pollution" as the governments and corporations of the world...

Quite simply, hypocrisy at it's worse.

Ahh, hypocrisy at its worse indeed. Here your true motive comes out to blame liberals for all the evils of the world. You know there is a political debate forum here on ATS dont you? Why dont you take your hate filled rhetoric there rather than turning this thread into a political debate. Doyou think people living in Indonesia that no longer have homes due to rising sea levels are liberals????? Do you think they are on some secret Democratic payroll?????? What about the international body of climate experts?? Are they all democrats too????? Man, get a grip on reality.

Originally posted by Muaddib

Well, lets "make" the Hollywood crowd and the rich "libertarians, liberals, anarchists, etc, etc" gather most of their money to fund a company that would implement new technology and lower the prices of these cars so everyone can afford them, among some other things they can do.

Shall we "force the Hollywood and the rest of the rich crowd" to do it?...

[edit on 9-2-2007 by Muaddib]

We dont need to, tesla has already sold out their first run and they havent even rolled the first car off the line yet. The hollywood crowd need do nothing. There are wealthy people who aren't celebrities that are just as concerned about this as I am.

Originally posted by Muaddib
Just to make a point as to what most people really are interested in, even if they claim they want to talk about "saving the world", you can see it in this same forum.

Your point is flawed as the US makes up 5% of the worlds population. The us is addicted to pop culture and medial icons - disgusting yes - but there are plenty of people around the world who dont care about anna nicole dying. You do realize there are other people on this rock than Americans, right?

Originally posted by Muaddib

Well, the problem is that it was you who said in the original thread, and i quote:

Originally posted by LogansRunI am interested to see how the nay sayers respond to this as there are still many skeptics out there who claim it is a natural warming. The only credible scientific reports to counter global warming seem to come from scientists on the payrolls of such corporations as Exxon and Shell.

Don't try to back off from your original claims, sorry but i call it as I see it, hence that's the reason I gave excerpts and evidence that prove your claims were not true.

As to whether or not we can stop it... What makes you think mankind can stop Climate Change? Can mankind stop the Earth from rotating?, or stop the Sun's flux and the cosmic rays form reaching Earth?...

I personally believe that anyone who thinks mankind can stop Climate Change, or Global Warming, is decieving themselves. Everything does not start and ends with mankind.

Well! Even Exxon is now admitting that there is a problem and that something needs to be done:

Link to ATSNN submission

I suppose Even Exxon are now part of the evil liberal agenda to push global warming agendas? Wow, with so many liberals running amok in the world, it is amazing that we are all still here!

Originally posted by LogansRun
I did no such thing. If you would please read it again, my opening post was completely neutral in opinion, except the portion where I give my persoanl opinion.

It is your opinion, but your opinion is wrong.

Originally posted by LogansRun
I said it would be interesting to see the nay sayers try to counter this thread, I had no idea that it would turn into an 8 page debate on something other than the topic of the thread itself.

Well, that happens when you try to make a claim you obviously don't know much about.

BTW, how are you going to debate the topic of "Can we even Stop Global Warming"? if you don't debate, or understand what could be the causes of global warming?

Originally posted by LogansRun
The purpose of this thread was to discuss the story I gave a link to, not to debate the existance of global warming or mans role. You may spin this however you choose, but this is another one of your attempts to dominate and derail a thread.

Well, even according to the UN report we can't do anything to stop it, so your thread would have died with one response quoting that part of the UN assesment..

Originally posted by LogansRun
Oh, and BTW, you in no way provided links that proved my claims untrue. You have an agenda, and that is fine. But dont think that posting links to a few quacks around the world is going to convince me that the thousands of climate experts who all agree on gw are wrong.

Really? First thing first, the UN report at least agrees with most scientists around the world, and that is.

Hotter temperatures and rises in sea level "would continue for centuries" — no matter how much humans control their pollution.

www.npr.org...

So much for "let's stop global warming"....

Second of all, most of the scientist who disagree with the view that mankind is not the cause for global warming are "not being paid by Exxon, Shell, or any other company to say this."

Third of all, there were 2500 scientists from around the world who partook in the UN report, but in the U.S. alone there are more than 2500 climatoligists who disagree with many part of the UN report, not to mention the concensus from the Russian scientists, who do number in the "thousands", at least 60 if not more from Canada, and elsewhere.

Not to mention the fact that the 2007 UN report doesn't tell you in it's summary.

The IPCC Web site claims an impressive number of participants: 450 lead authors, 800 contributors and 2,500 expert reviewers (of which I was one). But it would be a mistake to assume all these experts endorse everything in summary, including its bottom-line assessment: "Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations." Many disagree with the conclusion itself or the claimed level of certainty, but the fact is, we were never asked. Most participants worked only on small portions of the report, handed in final materials last summer and never ventured an opinion on claims made in the summary.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

Nomatter the fact that we don't know exactly how many of the 2,500 scientists were asked if they agree with the entire report, but the fact is that there are more than 2,500 scientists in Russia, and even in the U.S. alone who disagree with the claims of the IPCC that man is the cause for global warming.

www.oism.org...


And again, the previous assesments from the UN scientists that Global warming is caused mainly by man was based entirely from the Hockey Stick Graph, a graph which is proven to be flawed, and which contradicts the evidence from the geological record, such as the HSG not showing the Roman warming period, nor the Medieval warming period, nor the Little Ice age which followed.

Yet some people want to blindly believe what the UN report claims?... good luck with that, more so when the UN proposed plan for "curbing pollution is to follow up with the Kyoto protocol, a protocol which will allow countries like China to continue and to increase as much as they want greenhouse emissions....but i guess that fact doesn't matter huh?....



[edit on 9-2-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by LogansRun
I did no such thing. If you would please read it again, my opening post was completely neutral in opinion, except the portion where I give my persoanl opinion.

It is your opinion, but your opinion is wrong.

In all fairness to him, a personal opinion cant really be wrong...facts can be, an opinion can't really be wrong

Originally posted by Muaddib
BTW, how are you going to debate the topic of "Can we even Stop Global Warming"? if you don't debate, or understand what could be the causes of global warming?

Well, again, in fairness to Logan, anyone CAN debate a topic, whether their debate has veracity in it's conclusions is another thing.

Originally posted by Muaddib
Well, even according to the UN report we can't do anything to stop it, so your thread would have died with one response quoting that part of the UN assesment..

That's a good point.

Originally posted by LogansRun
Oh, and BTW, you in no way provided links that proved my claims untrue. You have an agenda, and that is fine. But dont think that posting links to a few quacks around the world is going to convince me that the thousands of climate experts who all agree on gw are wrong.

It's more than just some "quacks" my friend.


AB1

Originally posted by LogansRun

Dude, seriously get off the pollution thing. How much clearer do I have to be???????????????????????

Is your argument so weak that you can't even debate the topic?....

Originally posted by LogansRun
OUR ACTIONS are not limited to pollution.. Do I think pollution is the sole cause for gw?? NO!!!!!!!

Do I think mankind is the sole cause??

NO!!!!!!!! Read ALL of my posts before responding otherwise you are wasting our times in this thread

That's not what you said in your original thread, hence the argument.....

Originally posted by LogansRun
LMAO, hollywood? You are grasping for straws here... Do you honestly think I give one ounce of crap what anyone in hollywood thinks?? What the hell do they have to do with this topic? So some celebreties have taken up some causes - SO WHAT?

I am not grabbing at straws, I am trying to make a point. Do you know at the end who is going to be paying, and who is paying, for the billions of dollars that has been used, and will continue to be used to claim that mankind is responsible for global warming, so people accept a global income tax?.... You, me, and everyone else. The rich from Hollywood, the rich coorporations, and the rich in general are not going to suffer much.

Originally posted by Muaddib
Now I KNOW you are off your rocker. You might want to retake some math classes. You worked on oil rigs?? Scary..

I actually didn't give any equations, i gave an overall argument trying to point out that "Global Warming being caused by mankind" is just a hype, and it is being used to make money. Yes there are people who are genuinely interested in curbing pollution, but on the overall nobody wants to take the burden of making any big changes, at the end regular Jane and Joe will have to pay for it, and it won't stop Global Warming or the Climate Shift.

Originally posted by LogansRun
Again with Hollywood - do you want to live there or something? Why dont you ask oil company executives and big business why they dont invest their hundreds of billions of dollars? You are quick to demonize the hollywood croud because they have money, but you fail to realize that millions of dollars would be nice, but billions would truly make a difference. BTW, there are many people in hollywood that donate money to causes

Again.... as i said, the point i was trying to make is that "noone wants to take the burden to pay for curbing pollution", and in reality it can't be done overnight and it will have no effect on stopping or delaying a climate shift...and btw, you do know that several billion dollars have been used to pay for data which has been proven to be wrong right?....

Originally posted by LogansRun
Ahh, hypocrisy at its worse indeed. Here your true motive comes out to blame liberals for all the evils of the world.
........
Do you think they are on some secret Democratic payroll?????? What about the international body of climate experts?? Are they all democrats too????? Man, get a grip on reality.

Not really...my motive was simple, meanwhile people like yourself want to blame the governments of the world and corporations of the world, you want to vindicate the other rich who don't do enough to curb pollution. They do the talk a lot, but they don't do the walk.

It is funny that you are writting about "secret democratic payroll" when one of your claims was that the people who disagree with the "mankind is at fault crowd" according to you, are paid by Exxon, Shell, and other oil companies to say this"....

Do I think the people who agree that mankind is at fault for Global warming are being paid to say this? Some are, others are just happy to go along with the data from those who want to blame mankind, but most just don't know enough to understand it...

BTW, yes, you should follow your own advice, do "take a grip on reality"....

[edit on 9-2-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by LogansRun
Your point is flawed as the US makes up 5% of the worlds population. The us is addicted to pop culture and medial icons - disgusting yes - but there are plenty of people around the world who dont care about anna nicole dying. You do realize there are other people on this rock than Americans, right?

That's fine and dandy, but first, this is an international website, and second you do realize that since this is an "international website" that there are more than just "Americans here", right?...

You see, the point is, most people will not take the time to make their own research, they will just follow the new "en vogue", and in this day-and-age, the new "en-vogue" is going along with the "it's all mankind's fault crowd", which is one of my points.

[edit on 9-2-2007 by Muaddib]