yo, fix this shit, ffs!

[Digit]

http://www.unfpa.org/swp/2001/english/figures/

check out figure 7.


all the charts on that page play down the urgency of our environmental survival dilema. if only they showed the 1000 year, or 100,000 year or million year graph.... then you'd see that the gentle climb on the lines of figure 1 are actually a very sharp spike leading up, up up higher than any other spike on the graph. repeat, HIGHER THAN ANY OTHER SPIKE ON THE GRAPH! yes, even higher than the ones after giant volcano erruptions anf higher than the CO2 levels that always preceed an Ice age.

we're fucked. once the climactic changes we're begging to notice start to catch up with the CO2 levels... well... i'll leave that to your imagination. for those of you without the imaginative abilities to get a picture of the upcoming eccological hell, sit tight, it's coming, it's damn near enevitable. Kyoto? HA! the Kyoto accord was little more than a publicity stunt to convince the world that the rich and polluteful were on the case. even if ALL the world's nations reduced emmissions to below the standards set by the kyoto "agreement" we'd still be "up shit creek".

DRASTIC AND RADICAL CHANGE IS NECESSARY FOR SURVIVAL OF LIFE AS WE KNOW IT ON PLANET EARTH!

Don't leave it to the cockroaches, amoebas, ginkgo trees, and bottom feeders! Don't let your offspring suffer humanity's last moments with planet earth. Let us carry on. Let us be sustained!

love gaia.

[Gilligan]

Climate changes have been happening for a long, long time. I think any major diaster, such as an ice age, will take thousands of years to happen. Natural causes play a more importent factor in a climate change than emissions. I will say our waste isnt helping, and certianlly things need to be done to curb them, but i think its more of you overplaying the facts than the charts underplaying them.

What are some ideas you have for the solution of the problem showed in your figure 7? The only thing i see is that humans have to slow down reproducing.

I think all of this global warming and whatnot is based on....not 100% fact. It takes faith to believe it all, because there is alot of evidence pointing both ways.

[Grim Bongmaster]

Is this why we shouldn't have gone in iraq? Cause saddam would have lowered the population of the earth....yeah I guess if you look at him in that light he was a visionary! ..I guess hitler was too....

[adamBC]

read the Life and Death of Planet Earth.



great read. documents earth from the start till its projected end. its written like a story almost, its not too.. sciency? anyways, i strongly recommend it, even to people who dont think they are overly interested in the topic.


ecological footprint? im not sure i understand it... population of people per square kilometer?

[Gilligan]

Originally Posted by adamBC

ecological footprint? im not sure i understand it... population of people per square kilometer?

I wasnt sure what it was eather, but i had it explained to me as something like the impact the citizens have on the land and resources or something along those lines. Still not sure exactly what it is myself.

[Digit]

Originally Posted by Gilligan

Climate changes have been happening for a long, long time.

no shit. Earth was once hot ball of rock and fire, devoid of much atmosphere, at the mercy of constant asteroid impacts. we might be again if the core does its inverting polarity thing that apparantly, we're overdue for.... just like ice ages.

Originally Posted by Gilligan

I think any major diaster, such as an ice age, will take thousands of years to happen.

You can think that all you want but the reality is, all the evidence shows that they come fast. a handfull of years, not thousands. if an iceage came, we'd get to see it.

Originally Posted by Gilligan

Natural causes play a more importent factor in a climate change than emissions.

upon what have you based this??? go find some more graphs. graphs are good. find yourself a graph for Carbon Dioxide levels as derived from ice core and tree rings readings. The modern industrial age has had a far more massive effect than you seem willing to accept.

Originally Posted by Gilligan

I will say our waste isnt helping, and certianlly things need to be done to curb them, but i think its more of you overplaying the facts than the charts underplaying them.

yep, could be. just the same it could be that you are burrying your head in the sand over the issue.

Originally Posted by Gilligan

What are some ideas you have for the solution of the problem showed in your figure 7?

some of my ideas hmmm..... well for a start, it would be good if everyone (or at least a large majority) could be made aware of how dangerously close we lie to extinction, rather than being fed the lines of spin to play down and misdirect attention away from the severity and nature of the problem. If PEOPLE were made aware, more may be willing to make a small change in their lifestyle (and probably find more benefits to doing so than i could give you in a sales pitch). PEOPLE (as in us, the regular janes and joes) aren't the biggest polluters... the meta entitys we call Companys and Corporations are more often, more likely to blame... not just in direct action of pollution, but because many use their power to use "PR" to hide how much they pollute, how bad their pollution is, and more importantly, how bad the effects this has had on the environment and what that means for us. they're not likely to change, they have responsabilities to consider, cashflow, profits and projections to consider, etc etc.

Originally Posted by Gilligan

The only thing i see is that humans have to slow down reproducing.

YAY! contraception for all! heh, an increase in homosexuality might help too... so no worries there as there is evidence which suggested that homosexuality in mamilian and bird life increases as a result of pollution. from a capitalist point of view, this is good news. homosexuals have a much larger expendable income! Population control needn't be done by preventing or discouraging breeding though.... no, i'm not about to suggest we cull a few of the humans allready here (you might kill someone who woulda really contributed something cool you would have liked), i'm going to suggest....... SPACE TRAVEL! its not such a far fetched idea. why are we as humans keeping all our eggs in one basket? why are we intent to keep sitting in the womb or craddle? we need to step on out into the playground!

Originally Posted by Gilligan

I think all of this global warming and whatnot is based on....not 100% fact.

it would seem that all these scientists and environmentalists, eccologists, geologists, meteorologists and so on make their claims based on a little more evidence than you do. so fair enough, say it's not 100% fact, that can certainly be said for my sensationalist method of passing on the message, but "based on our findings" is considerably more convincing than your "i think"

Originally Posted by Gilligan

It takes faith to believe it all, because there is alot of evidence pointing both ways.

[quote=Gilligan]

well, at the risk of delving deap into philosophy... I don't have beliefs, nor do i even comprehend "faith" or can satisfactorily derive any meaning from it at all beyond that of willful avoidance of honest open-minded learning.

i just try to stay aware of the possabilitys, keep an eye on cause and effect, and i'd rather have a painful truth than a comfortable lie.

evidence pointing both ways? i'm not entirely sure what that means. that there's evidence that everything is hunkydory? I've seen reports pointing to ice age and i've seen reports pointing to "global warming"... and the only time i heard of any scientific body claiming there wasn't an issue were the ones hired by the bush administration. hmmmm.

hey... polliticians lie. get it?

a rather amusing point is that we've almost become like Mr Burns from the Simpsons... so many diseases that he is held together by them, and if you were to remove one, the whole thing might collapse. why do i say this? because there was supposedly a noticeable change (a couple degrees i think) in GLOBAL temperature when the planes were grounded after the 11th of November 2001. our pollution is acting like an artificial ozone layer!

thats a DANGEROUS addiction to have.
can't keep doing it or we'll perish, can't go "cold turkey" or we'll perish. tightrope.



Eccological footprint...

what does it mean?! it means how much of a mark we leave on the environment.

how they derived at these figures, i'm entirely unsure. but the general trend cannot reasonably be denied. only the accuracy or validity of their methods.


a question...

Do American school children not get taught about environmental food chains and the environment and global warming? is this why you guys hold the opinion that environmental devastation is to be ignored or ridiculed?


ps, thnx for the oppertunity to beat out some frustration onto my keyboard gilligan.

[Gilligan]

A climate changes takes a long time, not a few years.

Events like the ice age happened before pollution. I never said people and polution didnt have an effect eather. Cutting down the rainforrest, polluting the air and water has devistating effects on our planet. These things make the process of a climate change happen faster.

Originally Posted by Gilligan

I think any major diaster, such as an ice age, will take thousands of years to happen

Originally Posted by Digit

You can think that all you want but the reality is, all the evidence shows that they come fast. a handfull of years, not thousands. if an iceage came, we'd get to see it.

Originally Posted by digit

if only they showed the 1000 year, or 100,000 year or million year graph.... then you'd see that the gentle climb on the lines of figure 1 are actually a very sharp spike leading up, up up higher than any other spike on the graph. repeat,

....

Look at the graph and tell me the first evidence of a climate change. Im not talking about a thousand years from today.

People factors speed it up, but it will take more than a handfull of years.

Originally Posted by Gilligan

I will say our waste isnt helping, and certianlly things need to be done to curb them, but i think its more of you overplaying the facts than the charts underplaying them.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by gilligan

I think all of this global warming and whatnot is based on....not 100% fact.

Originally Posted by Digit

it would seem that all these scientists and environmentalists, eccologists, geologists, meteorologists and so on make their claims based on a little more evidence than you do. so fair enough, say it's not 100% fact, that can certainly be said for my sensationalist method of passing on the message, but "based on our findings" is considerably more convincing than your "i think"

My above statement was misleading. I ment to say evidence that humans are the cause of "global warming" is not based on 100% fact. By that, i mean we are only factors speeding up natural climate change.


I dont think anyone is ignoring it, but i will say it isnt on the top of my list of priorities. I just laugh at the people who blame every tidal wave, every natural disaster on people and humans. Many natural disasters and major climate changes have taken place without any human help.


Basicly all i mean is we can slow it down, but we cant stop it. We are factors.



The chart i uploaded shows very dramatic NATURAL CLIMATE CHANGES. Only ment to show nature can change, rapidly, without any human interaction. Im not an enviromentalist, i dont know to much so maybe you can change my mind on the issue. I know you have to crack a few eggs to make an omlet, maybe weve cracked a few too many.

EDIT:

Originally Posted by Digit

i'm going to suggest....... SPACE TRAVEL! its not such a far fetched idea. why are we as humans keeping all our eggs in one basket? why are we intent to keep sitting in the womb or craddle? we need to step on out into the playground!

No other planet has the oxygen we need to live. It will take billions and billions of dollars, IMO a really long time to develop this. We havent even been to mars yet.

Humans are overpopulating the planet which will cause our failures. This is happening at a rapid rate, look at China and India. We are gonna have to do something.....The gene pool needs some chlorine.

[InferiorWang]

we should extract some of the CO2 and other green house gasses for shipment to mars and make a second earth so we can dick around some more!

[Gilligan]

"These criticisms led to The Economist declaring the IPCC scenarios "dangerously incompetent." Almost a year later, the IPCC has yet to respond to its critics with anything beyond anger and contempt."

"In 2003, more and more people realized alarmism over climate change is based on uncertain science and bad economics. If that trend continues in 2004, it could be a very good year indeed."


http://www.cei.org/gencon/019,03790.cfm

For some reason, when i try to copy and paste this article it adds alot of smilys... Its a good article, i suggest everyone read it eventhough i couldt post it.

[Gilligan]

<center>Questions and Answers on Global Warming

</center> <center> </center> 1. Is global warming occurring? Have the forecasts of global warming been confirmed by actual measurements?

There is no serious evidence that man-made global warming is taking place. The computer models used in U.N. studies say the first area to heat under the "greenhouse gas effect" should be the lower atmosphere - known as the troposphere.1 Highly accurate, carefully checked satellite data have shown absolutely no such tropospheric warming. There has been surface warming of about half a degree Celsius, but this is far below the customary natural swings in surface temperatures.2




2. Are carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels the primary cause of climate change? Can the Earth's temperature be expected to rise between 2.5 and 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit in this century as has been reported?

There are many indications that carbon dioxide does not play a significant role in global warming. Richard Lindzen, Ph.D., professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and one of the 11 scientists who prepared a 2001 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report on climate change, estimates that a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would produce a temperature increase of only one degree Celsius.3 In fact, clouds and water vapor appear to be far more important factors related to global temperature. According to Dr. Lindzen and NASA scientists, clouds and water vapor may play a significant role in regulating the Earth's temperature to keep it more constant.4




3. Under the Berlin Mandate, developing nations are to be exempt from any emission reduction requirements agreed to in Kyoto. What effect will this have on overall greenhouse gas emissions over the next thirty years?

Undeveloped countries such as China, India and Brazil are included in this exemption. However, they are projected to produce 16 percent more carbon dioxide by the year 2020 than the United States, even if the Kyoto Protocol is not in place.5



4. Would a modest increase in the temperature of the planet necessarily be bad? Are there any potential benefits?

According to the World Bank, one-third of the world's population already suffers from chronic water shortages. The Worldwatch Institute predicts that this situation will be exacerbated further by the addition of an estimated 2.6 billion people to the world's population over the next 30 years. By 2025, the group claims, some three billion people -- or 40% of the world's population -- could be living in countries without sufficient water supplies, leading to crop failures, diminished economic development and even to regional conflicts as nations find it necessary to fight for control over scarce water resources.

While the scientific community is divided over many aspects of the global warming theory, the effect of global warming on precipitation levels is not one of them: Global warming would mean more condensation and more evaporation, producing more and/or heavier rains. Global warming, therefore, could offer the answer to the water scarcity problem that the Worldwatch Institute has been seeking.

If history is any indication, greater precipitation may be only one of many benefits of global warming. For example, between the 10th and 12th Centuries, when the temperature of the planet was roughly 0.5 degrees Celsius warmer than it is today, agriculture in North America and Europe flourished and the southern regions of Greenland were free of ice, allowing cultivation by Norse settlers. Evidence of this was found in 1993 when scientists from the National Science Foundation-sponsored Greenland Ice Sheet Project II extracted an ice core from Greenland's ice sheet that spanned more than 100,000 years of climate history. Samplings from the core suggest that a Little Ice Age began between 1400 and 1420, blanketing the Vikings' farms in ice and forcing them to abandon their farms in search of more hospitable climates. Prior to the onset of this Little Ice Age, temperatures were comparable to the temperatures general circulation models used by the U.N.-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have projected for 2030-2050. Yet, the world's leaders stand poised to take dramatic steps to curb the risks of this kind of climate change.

Global warming could also mean greater agricultural productivity and greater water conservation. CO2 acts as a fertilizer on plant life while reducing plant transpiration (the passage of water from the roots through the plant's vascular system to the atmosphere). Thus, with global warming, agricultural output could be expected to increase while making less demands on the water supply.6



5. What would be the economic impact of reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions to meet the standards of the Kyoto Protocol?

If the Kyoto Protocol had been ratified by the U.S., the U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates gasoline prices would rise 14 to 66 cents per gallon by the year 2010, electricity prices would go up 20 to 86 percent7 and compliance with the treaty would cost the United States economy $400 billion per year.8



6. If the United States can meet the targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions with little or no costs, why haven't corporations done so on their own?

This question is irrelevant, since abiding by the Kyoto Protocol would be devastating to our economy. However, supposing it was economically responsible to adopt it, we still must never base environmental actions on anything but sound science. We have ample experience of doing more harm than good with environmental regulations based on unsure science. For example, the Clean Air Act mandated oxygenates in gasoline and we ended up with no improvement in air quality but now have the oxygenate MTBE polluting wells in 31 states.9,10,11

We should not take actions that may not be necessary but will certainly increase the level of poverty in this. As economist Walter Williams of George Mason University has observed, "As you look around the world, it is poverty, as opposed to dirty air, that has implications for health."12



7. Are the burdens of meeting the demands of the Kyoto Protocol are distributed fairly?

No, the burdens of meeting the demands of the Kyoto Protocol would fall most heavily on minorities. A study commissioned by six African-American and Hispanic organizations found that the increased costs forced by the treaty would cut minority income in the United States by 10 percent (in contrast, white incomes would go down only 4.5 percent) and 864,000 black Americans and 511,000 Hispanics would lose their jobs.13



8. Is there scientific consensus that global warming is underway? If so, how was this consensus determined?

Dr. Lindzen has said there were a wide variety of scientific views presented in the NAS report and "that the full report did, [express a wide variety of views] making clear that there is no consensus, unanimous or otherwise, about long-term climate trends and what causes them."14 The same is true of the all of the U.N.'s International Panel on Climate Change's studies on which the notion of global warming is based.

Claims that scientific opinion is nearly unanimous on the subject of global warming are wrong. The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine received signatures from over 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, to a document saying, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."15


<hr align="left">

<center>Footnotes</center> 1 James K. Glassman and Sallie Baliunas, The Weekly Standard, June 25, 2001.
2 Ibid.
3 Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences, "Scientists' Report Doesn't Support The Kyoto Treaty," The Wall Street Journal, June 11, 2001.
4 Glassman and Baliunas.
5 Heritage Foundation calculations, based on data from U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Agency Administration, International Energy Outlook 2001, Table A10.
6 David Ridenour, "Cure to Global Warming Could Be Worse Than the Disease," National Policy Analysis #165, The National Center for Public Policy Research, February 2001, available on the Internet at http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA165.html.
7 Jay E. Hakes, Administrator, Energy Information Administration, Testimony before the Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives, October 9, 1998.
8 John Carlisle, "President Bush must kill the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty and Oppose Efforts to Regulate Carbon Dioxide," National Policy Analysis #328, The National Center for Public Policy Research, February 2001, available on the Internet at http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA328.html.
9 1990 Clean Air Act, as amended.
10 Ozone-Forming Potential of Reformulated Gasoline, the National Research Council, May 11, 1999.
11 MTBE, "The Biggest Environmental Crisis of the Next Decade," Chicago Life Magazine, Summer 2000.
12 Interview with Walter Williams, Ph.D., Environment and Climate News, The Heartland Institute, February 2000.
13 "Study Says Global Warming Treaty Will Hurt U.S. Minorities," Associated Press, July 6, 2000, cited by John Carlisle, "Treaty to Combat Unproven Global Warming Threat Would Hurt Americans' Standard of Living," National Policy Analysis #309, The National Center for Public Policy Research, September 2000, available on the Internet at http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA309.html.
14 Richard Lindzen, "Scientists' Report Doesn't Support The Kyoto Treaty," The Wall Street Journal, June 11, 2001.
15 The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, "Petition Project," available on the Internet at http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm.


http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoQ...nsAnswers.html

[Digit]

interesting.....

interesting to follow the money trails.

interesting to see how they claim on one hand that we're not effecting it much, then in the other, the rapid changes being instigated could be viewed as a good thing. melting of ice for example.

interesting that this is the rationalisation for not going for kyoto... "we'd loose money"... even though other research i've read suggests that if ALL environmental problems were fully tackled, it would only mean a two year delay to get the ecconomys to the same place. but please note, i personally never liked kyoto.... it doesn't go anywhere near far enough.



gilligan....

do you ever get your information from a source not ratified by the US Wallstreet bankers in government and oil/energy industry?

heehee.



pollution IS a major problem. no amount of "PR" like this will convince me otherwise.

picture this...
every drop of rain that falls on planet earth contains a known cancer causing chemical comonly found in nearly all toiletrys. it isn't biodegradable, it won't go away for milions of years, and we keep adding more of it with every bar of soap, every bottle of conditioner, every can of deoderant... imagine that eh?

we kill off all other predators who compete for our food, most heartrenchingly, whales. we eat so many fish, our processes for catching fish are so effective, that we now seek to kill off whales so they don't eat "our" fish!?

would a 1 deg rise in temp be bad? SHIT YEAH! we're talking an increase in the places that can experience life threatning drought, we're talking about melting off a big ring of ice around both poles, we're talking a rise in sea levels (some say as much as 80 meters... picture that), we're talking about delecate global climate systems (like the reliable "gulf stream" that warms the coast of europe, like monsoon rains, etc) being reversed, stopped, moved, we're talking about entire eccosystems dependant on critical timing being lost forever (like bees becoming active when the flowers have come and gone or even failed to come, like birds flying north/south at different times of year... all these things we're already seeing), we're talking about irreversable damage to so many more aspects of our environment.... its only a matter of time before we ourselves take it up the bracket.



i know you'd like to think that we can all carry on burning our oil, spraying ourselves with parfum, and chopping down forrests for the packaging around our junk food.... but we can't. not without changing the oil we burn to something closer to alcohol or hydrogen, not without swapping parfum for something less cancerous and more biodegradable, not without growing feilds of hemp for the packaging around our junkfood.

i'm not pointing my finger at anyone. i'm pointing my finger at EVERYONE. myself included.


plenty to look into. http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourc...caps+antartica

don't just take my word for it. if i expected that, i'd be no better than those who try to decieve you into thinking the way that is most profitable for themselves.

[Gilligan]

Whatever bro.

You overexagerate, i under exagerate. The real truth is in the middle. I stress a side, u stress a side, both emphisizing points and facts to stress our beliefs.

Discredit me, my sources, dont make a fuck, you stress things to prove your point, i do the same.

I guess the evil paid scientist lied about their findings, any evidence of that, or are you just flapping your gums? dont disprove, discredit, right? They dont support your view, so they are wrong, paid off, etc.... Its evil propaganda put there by Bush and Rove so they can destroy the planet while we sit around like sheep, right?

There are many indications that carbon dioxide does not play a significant role in global warming. Richard Lindzen, Ph.D., professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and one of the 11 scientists who prepared a 2001 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report on climate change, estimates that a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would produce a temperature increase of only one degree Celsius.3 In fact, clouds and water vapor appear to be far more important factors related to global temperature. According to Dr. Lindzen and NASA scientists, clouds and water vapor may play a significant role in regulating the Earth's temperature to keep it more constant

Heres my view on the pure science. We had maleria (sp??) all but gone off the planet with the use of DDT. The environmentalist used false and exagerated science to pass legislation to ban DDT, and since then maleria has killed millions of people.

Lets kill people, lets hurt business, all to save a fucking tree or a fucking bird.

If history is any indication, greater precipitation may be only one of many benefits of global warming. For example, between the 10th and 12th Centuries, when the temperature of the planet was roughly 0.5 degrees Celsius warmer than it is today

I guess all the co2 our horses were letting off in the 12th century caused that increase too? Maybe it was natural......just maybe......our planet changed on its own......like it has for a long time......

I got it, i bet that didnt really happen, just more propaganda, right?

There is no serious evidence that man-made global warming is taking place. The computer models used in U.N. studies say the first area to heat under the "greenhouse gas effect" should be the lower atmosphere - known as the troposphere.1 Highly accurate, carefully checked satellite data have shown absolutely no such tropospheric warming. There has been surface warming of about half a degree Celsius, but this is far below the customary natural swings in surface temperatures.2

Just another lie by bush and his cronies i guess?? Bush spread his evil ways to the UN! Get real man, everything that you dont agree with isnt propaganda or false.

Claims that scientific opinion is nearly unanimous on the subject of global warming are wrong. The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine received signatures from over 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, to a document saying, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."

The americans are lieing!!! The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine is paid off!!

[Digit]

Originally Posted by Gilligan

Whatever bro.

You overexagerate, i under exagerate. The real truth is in the middle. I stress a side, u stress a side, both emphisizing points and facts to stress our beliefs.

Discredit me, my sources, dont make a fuck, you stress things to prove your point, i do the same.

yup, i'll go with that.

Originally Posted by Gilligan

I guess the evil paid scientist lied about their findings, any evidence of that, or are you just flapping your gums? dont disprove, discredit, right? They dont support your view, so they are wrong, paid off, etc.... Its evil propaganda put there by Bush and Rove so they can destroy the planet while we sit around like sheep, right?

yup. thats exactly it.

Originally Posted by Gilligan

Heres my view on the pure science. We had maleria (sp??) all but gone off the planet with the use of DDT. The environmentalist used false and exagerated science to pass legislation to ban DDT, and since then maleria has killed millions of people.

Lets kill people, lets hurt business, all to save a fucking tree or a fucking bird.

it works both ways. "lets kill people, lets hurt the environment, all to make an honest buck"

Originally Posted by Gilligan