"An Inconvenient Truth"

Discussion in 'Science and Nature' started by AK Infinity, Jun 11, 2006.

  1. i still say that's putting the cart before the horse.

    it is cooler because it's not emitting as much.

    it is not emiting less because it's cooler.

    well, thats how i'm translating my interpretation of it into words.

    i suppose its a matter of of which comes first, heat or light.

    but then... seeing the UV & Infrared colour adjusted images really tell us, what the fuck do we know?!

    ;):D

    ps, if there's anyone in it for the money they are in it for the wrong reason. that goes for any occupation though.
     
  2. wow Livingalife,

    I'm sorry but it sounds like your talking out your ass.

    Global warming is just propaganda??????? I'd like to see your source on that one. If you even watched "An Inconvenient Truth" you would know that that whole thought was just started within the media- and companies wanted to spread doubt on global warming.

    They did a study on articles published about climate change (they studied 10%) and not a single one expressed any doubt that global warming is infact happening.




    Who cares if the polar ice caps melt?????

    Maybe the people who live on the coast right now who will have 40ft of water above their heads.

    Maybe because when this happens we will not reflect back sunlight which helps keep temps cooler (ice reflects 90% of the heat, water absorbs 90% of heat).

    Maybe because when this happens methane (a greenhouse gas) trapped within the ice will be released and further heat our temps up.

    And don't forget about the penguins, seals and polar bears man- where will they live???
     
  3. Don't simply believe everything you hear on the television or in movies. Global warming could easily been made up for the promotion of environmentalism. Also there use to be global "cooling" now its "warming". ...... Yeah ok. Also lets remember it could just be a climate change in our atmosphere. Did you know that Antarctica use to be a rain forest and now its snow and ice. Interesting. The atmosphere could easily be warming due to the sun. Also realize that a simple volcanic eruption such could exhibit more dangerous gases and more gases than we could in a long time.http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/discoveries/2006-02-27-tambora-excavation_x.htm?POE=TECISVA
    http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm I believe Al Gore is trying to get some attention and more people to possibly reenlist in the 2008 U.S. presidential Election in November http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB114704312621046146-lkhKNtLxXyeMs8Oo1vlKOzOKlb0_20070507.html
    Could of made this movie to get people to vote for him if he joins the presidential election again, yet he hasn't and he surely wants everyone to follow his movie and whats supposively going on in the atmosphere and to have America more environmental so he could very well re-enlist in the presidential elections. Also they're are meteorologist who claim its false. Thats just some evidence on the fact that it could be a hoax. Forgot to add... I've seen the movie.
     
  4. Yup, Al Gore paid off thousands of scientist for years (climate change was mentioned in the 70's) in order to win the election in 2008.

    If anything it is the big oil and corperations that are trying to keep climate change in doubt.

    Who has more to loose- big oil and other corperations or Al Gore?

    I think it is rediculous to believe the enviormetalist are making this up rather than thinking big corperations are trying to create doubt about the subject- really what seems more likely?

    I mean- marijuana is still illegal why.... isn't it mainly due to corperations that would stand to loose millions of dollars? Hmmm the power big companies have.....
     
  5. Well, since the gas in the photosphere is not in radiative equilibrium with space (i.e., it gives off much more electromagnetic radiation into space that it receives from space), it's fair to say that there is a net energy flux out of the photosphere (or sunspot, in particular). That means that it must be supplied with energy (i.e., heat from below) to remain at a steady-state.

    I'd take that to mean that heat causes the gas (spot) it to emit light. It's not really that mysterious; actually there's a straightforward relationship between temperature and luminosity called the Stefan-Boltzmann law, if one is to model the ionized gas as a blackbody. Basically, an object's luminosity is proportional to the fourth-power of the absolute temperature.
     
  6. I get what your saying. I liked his idea of global warming as the amount of green house gases are capturing the heat from the sun, but its not proven true that green house gases are trapping in the heat. Also for my view if you wanted to really stop it. Our world would change big time. Many kitchen appliances would be gone and oil and coal refinery would be gone leaving alot of nations and areas without power. We would transfer to nuclear power probably and Bush would be shitting his pants and so would the U.N. about nuclear weapons. It'd be a big mess almost. Also I've studied propaganda and when people say "oh its the truth" or "this is the truth on whats going on" they're most likely lying. Instead of saying "this is the truth" they should say "heres whats going on" or "gases are trapping heat". An A"inconvient truth" should be named "Whats really going". Don't know how to explain that if you don't understand where I'm coming from, but saying this is the truth when theres no evidence is basically why alot of people and I myself won't believe it. Remember global cooling and now warming. Whatever "fear is stronger than love" -Tupac. Have fun trying to stop it :wave:
     
  7. funny... that's exactly what my tv tried to convince me off recently.
    yes, sorry, but, thats the type of thing we'd expect to see in a bushisms website.
    yes, the continents move. used to be all part of the same one.
    give the lad a gold star. yes. the sun is responsible, (see the sunsposts thing for a start), the possition of earth and the phase of it's orbital cycles, the amount of gasses that trap radiation, the effect soluble polutants have on water and particle size, freezing/boiling point, viscosity and other factors effecting clouds, cloud cover, ice cover, forrest cover, deforrestation, airline schedules, plane design, volcanic activity, combustion of materials on earth, algae & plankton health and well being, religious intolerance, nuclear tests, mirrors in space, extra terrestrial inteligence interference, transdimensional inteligence interference, the accuracy of thermostats, etcetcetc,
    it could be "just" one of any of these factors, but it's a safer bet, and far more probable, that it's a mix of all of them.

    not hoax. hype.

    there's a difference.

    anyways, it seems even bush is going greener.
    or was that just more PR spin?




    BuddaBob wrote:
    to the nuts n bolts of it, more heat, faster activity, more quanta releases of photons. gotcha. thnx for helpin clarify that.

    (further>>> bigger stars, more pressure, more heat, etc)


    spot on. very concise example of understanding motive.

    anyone seen the film "The Corporation"? or read the book of the same name?

    Corporations are shown to be akin to a psychopath, and bound by law to be so. Completely amoral, and with only one remit, to earn profit for the stockholders. When a corporation's power exceeds that of the legal powers of any sovereign state, whose normal role would include providing protection to society from the harm a psychopath could cause, the Corporation (the psycho) then has the power of immunity from those laws, and further, can change them to suit their needs (to some extent). Fortunately, and despite what some would like to think, "the law" is not the highest law of the land, as they say, and the corporation too must yeild to the completion of ethical construct. Anyways... I'll refrain from labouring on building the big picture and let you go see it for yourselves to comprehend.



    edit-
    it's writing posts like this that make me think i'm manic depressive.... well... manic anyways. :laughing:
     
  8. Al Gore Testifies Before Congress on Global Warming

    by Elizabeth Shogren

    Analysis
    Morning Edition, March 22, 2007 · Through several hours of testimony on Capitol Hill Wednesday, former Vice President Al Gore was sometimes a nerdy science teacher, sometimes a preacher and sometimes a furious grandfather. He told lawmakers if they don't act soon, they should expect their grandchildren to ask angry questions.

    "What in God's name were they doing," those grandchildren will demand, he said.

    "Didn't they see the evidence? Didn't they realize that four times in 15 years the entire scientific community of this world issued unanimous reports calling upon them to act?"

    Gore also played the role of historian. He reminded some long-serving members of Congress of the resolve it took to fight Nazism and Communism. He told them that climate change requires the same kind of commitment.

    "What we're facing now is a crisis that is by far the most serious we've ever faced," he said.

    He asked Congress to set an immediate freeze on emissions of carbon dioxide - that's the main pollutant responsible for trapping heat in the atmosphere. He said they should come up with a plan to slash those emissions 90 percent by 2050. He also called on Congress to ban incandescent light bulbs and require better gas mileage for cars.

    Some members of Congress hinted that Gore was assuming the role of Scrooge. Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO) pointed to a large photo of a child.

    "This little girl is cold because her family could not afford to pay their heating bills," Bond said.

    He said Gore's proposals will make heat too expensive for many Americans.

    "Would this little girl have to wear two coats inside?" he asked. "How many millions would suffer her fate of freezing through the winter?"
    Gore admitted that slashing emissions of greenhouse gases could cause price hikes. But when pressed on costs, Gore played the optimist.

    "It's going to save you money, and it's going to make the economy stronger," he said.
    He says that once Congress regulates greenhouse gas emissions, market forces will kick in and American ingenuity will come up with all sorts of cheap ways to slash emissions.

    To those who didn't buy the economic argument, he switched to preacher mode and offered a spiritual pitch.

    "I believe the purpose of life is to glorify God, and we can't do that if we're heaping contempt on the creation," he said.

    This was hardly the first time Gore tried to motivate Congress to respond to global warming. He first held a hearing on the topic more than 25 years ago, not long after he started in the House of Representatives. At that time, he served with another young idealist, Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA). Markey told Gore he was ahead of his time on climate change and other issues.

    "What you were saying about information technologies, what you were saying about environmental issues back then, now retrospectively really do make you look like a prophet," Markey said. "

    And I think that it would be wise for the Congress to listen to your warnings, because I think that history now has borne you out."
    If Gore is a prophet, he has a big following these days. Dozens of cameras captured his testimony. And Gore said he had letters from half a million people who want Congress to act.

    Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) promised to put the Senate Environment committee to work on many of the initiatives Gore advocates.


    Gore on Climate Change: Scientists Respond

    by Renee Montagne and Richard Harris

    [​IMG][​IMG]Enlarge

    Former Vice President Al Gore has claimed the national spotlight as a champion for climate change issues. Though many scientists appreciate his efforts to raise awareness of global warming, some take issue with his data and conclusions. Paramount Classics

    'An Inconveninent Truth'
    “The culture of Washington, D.C. is: 'Don't do anything unless there is a crisis.' And that's been the problem with global warming for all these years... Al Gore has realized that if you want to get attention, you really have to focus on the crisis.”
    <CITE>Richard Harris, NPR Science Correspondent</CITE>

    Gore and Climate Change:
    Morning Edition, March 21, 2007 · Former Vice President Al Gore goes to Capitol Hill on Wednesday to testify on climate change before a joint meeting of two house committees. Gore has championed the issue of global warming for decades; he has books and an Oscar-winning documentary to his credit.
    Now that he is firmly in the spotlight on this issue, so are his detractors. They include some scientists who are concerned about climate change, but have raised questions about Al Gore's data and some of his conclusions. NPR's Science Correspondent Richard Harris spoke with Renee Montagne to help sort through some of the questions.

    Would you say that Al Gore – given all of his history with this subject – is a credible voice on global climate change?

    Gore is a lay person, he is not a scientist, and he's careful to say that. But that said, he does get the big picture very well. Most scientists say he really can see the forest for the trees.

    Human activities are contributing to climate change, those changes will become more pronounced as the time goes on, and it is possible that those changes could be severe. But that said, scientists do quibble a little bit about some of the facts that he draws to make those arguments.

    Can you give us some examples of some of the concerns that scientists have?

    I saw Al Gore give a talk at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco last December. He was cheered by this enormous audience of scientists, who were really excited to hear his message that it's time to take global warming seriously.

    But after the talk, a couple of [the scientists] came up to me and said, you know, "He didn't exactly get the science right."

    Gore said that Arctic ice could be gone entirely in 34 years, and he made it seem like a really precise prediction. There are certainly scary predictions about what's going to happen to Arctic sea ice in the summertime, but no one can say "34 years." That just implies a degree of certainty that's not there. And that made a few scientists a bit uncomfortable to hear him making it sound so precise.

    There are also questions about Al Gore's estimates as to how much the sea levels will rise.

    Yes, in fact, in his documentary he talks about what the world will look like – Florida and New York – when the sea level rises by 20 feet. But he deftly avoids mentioning the time frame for which that might happen. When you look at the forecast of sea-level rise, no one's expecting 20 feet of sea-level rise in the next couple of centuries, at least. So that's another thing that makes scientists a little bit uneasy; true, we have to be worried about global sea-level rise, but it's probably not going to happen as fast as Gore implies in his movie.

    One other dramatic moment in the film has to do with Hurricane Katrina.

    Indeed. Gore implies – he never says, but he implies – that Katrina was due to human-induced global warming. And I think if a scientist were to talk about this, most scientists would say, "These are the kinds of things that we expect to see more of as a result of global warming," but people are careful not to attribute specific storms or events to global warming.

    Again, Gore doesn't do that exactly, but he sort of leaves the impression, and it's a very lawyerly way he does this. If you actually read it word for word, you can't say, "This he said wrong." But he leaves the impression that Katrina was [a result of] global warming and I think scientists don't go that far.

    Is this partly cultural in the sense that, by nature and by profession, scientists care about all of the details?

    I think it's partly cultural, and I think that in that sense, Al Gore is very well attuned to the culture of Washington, D.C. The culture of Washington, D.C. is: "Don't do anything unless there is a crisis." And that's been the problem with global warming for all these years: It's something serious to be worried about – the worst case scenarios are pretty scary – but Al Gore has realized that if you want to get attention, you really have to focus on the crisis. You have to make people worry about things maybe a little bit more than scientists would say.

    Is there some element of – if you will – professional jealousy here?

    Among the scientists? No. I think the scientists are actually pretty grateful by and large that Gore has succeeded in bringing their issue to the public's attention. But scientists do care very much about how precise the details are. And when it's not exactly right, they bristle a little bit. But, [that's] the difference between a popularizer, like Gore, and scientists, for whom the details really are what's most important.

    (NPR) National Pubic Radio
     
  9. - Al Gore


    fukkin a!


    a little bit of investment, and you have your own clean green non-finite energy supply. no obliged outgoings. no dependency on a corporate teet.

    empowerment and liberty.


    how much more money would you have if you had your own energy supply... enough to buy some more energy supply and hydroponics i'll bet. enough hydroponics you could grow your own food! so then, without paying for food nor fuel... what would you be left to spend money on?

    oh my... going green is a consumerists paradise!
     
  10. LOL now were gonna get a environmental tax and if the fucker was in presidency we would all be broke poor by putting out gay ass taxes that are high! Probably would fucking make smoking tobacco completely illegal because its trapping in the heat and melting the ice caps........................................................ OMG did you know that there other parts of the ice caps that are forming and growing. Wow. All he does is show you the problems he doesn't show any opposition and then he says "oh if someone says its bullshit" or whatever "he's wrong people". Basically what he said in the movie. Yeah ok bud lets go search for man bear pig ahahahahha
     
  11. After Bowling for Columbine..Everyone, including Americans, laughed at America's paranoia.
    After Supersize Me..Everyone verbalized how awful fast food is and how they would never eat at McDonald's again.
    After An Inconvenient Truth..Everyone moaned about Global Warming and how we're destroying our world.

    I see a pattern.
     
  12. I think it is a political move myself. Does anybody remember the Love Canal? Gore claims to have blown the lid off of it. Should have been easy to do since the Gore family was a big contributor to the problem in the 1st place. And I do not see how Gore is so much for the enviroment when his mansion in Tenn. uses 20 X's the power as the average Tenn. home. It is a great message, no doubt, but I don't trust the source. The good people of Tenn. did not vote for him when he ran for Pres. Why?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Free speechers who always talk about the things they're trying to do and they're just trying to get people to join them in their problems with society and such which leaves you unindependent, possibly stupid, and you never face the opposition of the theories and the things the videos want you to think and not want you to do. Look at all the 9/11 video conspiracy theories and how many people they've gotten on their side. http://mindprod.com/politics/bush911.html I like this. Just read it, don't need to see some stupid video where people says this is what happened "I know for sure". Gotta be independent and do what you think is right.
     
  14. I try and follow this very closely and I wish everyelse did also. We need awareness from all angles. So whatever exposure is possible is always good, just talk about it with others, don't try and scare them just inform them. But this is a very, very serious problem. Please watch this vid about global warming and global dimming.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgyne8jSUnw
     
  15. Panel: Warming Will End Some Species

    By The Associated Press

    (Part 1.)

    SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico Mar 31, 2007 (AP)— From the micro to the macro, from plankton in the oceans to polar bears in the far north and seals in the far south, global warming has begun changing life on Earth, international scientists will report next Friday.

    "Changes in climate are now affecting physical and biological systems on every continent," says a draft obtained by The Associated Press of a report on warming's impacts, to be issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the authoritative U.N. network of 2,000 scientists and more than 100 governments.

    In February the panel declared it "very likely" most global warming has been caused by manmade emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

    Animal and plant life in the Arctic and Antarctic is undergoing substantial change, scientists say. Rising sea levels elsewhere are damaging coastal wetlands. Warmer waters are bleaching and killing coral reefs, pushing marine species toward the poles, reducing fish populations in African lakes, research finds.

    "Hundreds of species have already changed their ranges, and ecosystems are being disrupted," said University of Michigan ecologist Rosina Bierbaum, former head of the U.S. IPCC delegation. "It is clear that a number of species are going to be lost."

    The IPCC draft estimates that if temperatures rise approximately 2 to 4 degrees Fahrenheit more, one-third of species will be lost from their current range, either moved elsewhere or vanished.

    From Associated Press bureaus around the world, here are snapshots of animals and plants the IPCC will identify as already affected by climate change:


    The Frogs Went Silent in the Night.

    (Part 2.)

    SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico (AP) Back in the Puerto Rican rain forest for the first time in five years, biologist Rafael Joglar sensed something was wrong. He wasn't hearing the frogs whose nocturnal calls he had long recorded in the misty highlands.

    It was as if a small orchestra had lost key players, he recalled.

    After that discovery in 1981, Joglar and wife Patricia Burrowes, a fellow University of Puerto Rico amphibian specialist, found that other populations of frogs in the genus Eleutherodactylus known locally as coquis for the distinctive co-kee sound made by two species were also mysteriously absent. Similar reports trickled in from frog specialists worldwide, particularly in Central and South America.

    Working their way through such suspected culprits as pollution and habitat loss, researchers here eventually zeroed in on climate change. The average minimum temperature had risen from 1970 to 2000 by 2 degrees Fahrenheit, a significant rise for climate-sensitive amphibians.

    Scientists believe higher temperatures lead to more dry periods and a chain reaction, at higher elevations, that leaves the frogs vulnerable to a devastating fungus, Burrowes said.

    In Puerto Rico and nearby islands, experts believe three of 17 known Eleutherodactylus species are extinct and seven or eight are declining. Loss of the frogs, scientists warn, could have disastrous consequences, depriving birds and other predators of a food source, eliminating a consumer of insects and disrupting the ecosystem in ways impossible to guess.


    Fragile, Sensitive Coral Sounds the Alarm.

    (Part 3.)

    SYDNEY, Australia (AP) The rainbow world of the Great Barrier Reef may fade away.

    Scientists say rising sea temperatures worldwide are causing more coral bleaching the draining of color when the fragile animals that form reefs become stressed and spew out the algae that give coral its color and energy to build massive reef structures.

    Oceans are also absorbing more carbon dioxide, increasing their acidity and eroding coral's ability to build reef skeletons.

    Because just a 2-degree-Fahrenheit shift can trigger a major bleaching event, the behavior of corals is an early sign that global warming is already changing our world, experts say.

    "We've got about 20 years to turn (greenhouse gas emissions) around or it's going to cost the world a lot environmentally but also economically," said Terry Hughes, a leading Australian coral specialist.

    The 1,250-mile-long Great Barrier Reef, off Australia's northeast coast, produces $4 billion a year in tourism revenues. Forecasts vary, but many experts say ocean temperature rises projected for the next 50 years could strip this natural wonder of most of its color. The changes will affect countless millions of fish and other marine organisms that depend on the reef.

    Many reefs worldwide will fare worse, since they don't have the protection against pollution and overfishing provided by the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area.


    Ticks Move North, Carrying Diseases with Them.

    (Part 4.)
    <O:p</O:p
    STOCKHOLM, Sweden (AP) A bloodthirsty parasite is popping up in parts of Sweden where deep winter chills used to make survival difficult, if not impossible.

    Ticks are spreading north along the Scandinavian country's shorelines, pestering pets and spreading infectious diseases to humans.

    "It probably has to do with the greenhouse effect," said Thomas Jaenson, professor in medical entomology at Uppsala University. "The fact that we've seen ticks in January indicates that there has been a major change."

    Swedish studies have shown that ticks have multiplied countrywide in recent decades, spreading north from traditional breeding grounds in the Stockholm archipelago. The pinhead-sized arachnids have even turned up near the Arctic Circle.

    "There are more of them now. And they show up earlier in the year," said Marja Lodin, 69, who has a summer house near the northern city of Umea. Two years ago she was infected with Lyme disease, which causes fever, headache, fatigue and skin rash, from a tick lodged in her navel.

    Sweden's disease control agency doesn't keep records on Lyme disease, but said the potentially deadly tick-borne encephalitis virus, known as TBE, is on the rise. Reported annual cases more than doubled from 60 in the late 1990s to 131 in the 2001-2005 period. In 2006, there were 155 cases, two of which turned fatal.

    "It is possible that these people would be alive if we had had a more stable climate," Jaenson said.


    White Giants Face Future of too Much Water, too Little Ice.

    (Part 5.)

    TORONTO (AP) Inuit hunters in Canada's Arctic say they have seen polar bears moving farther north as the polar ice cap recedes, or farther south in search of new sources of food.

    The northern people who have hunted these majestic marine mammals for thousands of years say they haven't seen a dramatic decline yet in their numbers. But scientists worry that the polar bear will be pushed steadily toward extinction by 2050, to be found only in zoos, as Arctic waters grow warmer.

    The bears depend on sea ice for survival. They have their pups and they hunt seal and walrus on ice floes. But the summer ice cap is about 20 percent smaller today than in 1978, the U.N. climate panel reported in February. And as sea ice shrinks, bears are forced to hunt and to fast for longer periods.

    Biologists believe 20,000 to 25,000 polar bears roam the frozen Arctic, about 60 percent in Canada. The research group Polar Bears International says one polar bear population, in Canada's western Hudson Bay, has dropped 22 percent since the 1980s, about the time Inuit hunters started noticing dramatic changes in wind and weather patterns.

    The trends are so troubling that the U.S. government has proposed listing polar bears as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. <O:p</O:p


    Changing Climate, Vanishing Plankton Threaten Cod.

    (Part 6.)<O:p</O:p
    <O:p</O:p

    LONDON (AP) Overfishing has cut deeply into the North Sea's cod population in recent decades, and scientists now say this important food fish faces a second challenge climate change.

    North Sea water temperatures have climbed 1 degree Fahrenheit over the past 100 years, and that has shifted currents, carrying a major food source, plankton, away from the cod, said scientist Chris Reid of the Partnership for Observation of the Global Oceans in Plymouth, England.

    "The only way that these increases can be explained is by greenhouse gas emissions," Reid said. In their larval stage, the cod feed on the minute plants and animals known as plankton. Chances of survival without them are slim. North Sea cod that do survive today are smaller and less successful at mating and reproducing, Reid explained. In addition, warmer temperatures increase cod metabolism and the larvae's need for nutrition, he and other marine scientists noted in a 2003 research paper.

    Because the European Union's 2003 cod recovery plan isn't working, scientists and fishing industry representatives met March 9-10 to discuss new ways to counter the threats and help the cod.


    The Dimb's Demise tells of African Climate Change.

    (Part 7.)

    DAKAR, Senegal (AP) It's getting harder for villagers in the north of this dry West African country to find a favored ingredient for a traditional couscous dish the fruit of the dimb tree.

    The once-prevalent tree with its meaty fruit has disappeared from all but one village in an area the size of Connecticut, as shifting rainfall patterns have made northern Senegal drier and hotter, research has found.

    Many tree species like the dimb are retreating from the Sahel, the arid region south of the Sahara Desert, losing ground to more arid species. In the zone that climate change scientist Patrick Gonzalez studied, the dimb's range decreased 96 percent between 1945 and 1994 from 27 villages to one.

    Gonzalez said he looked at many factors, including population shifts and tree cutting, but "precipitation and temperature explained most of the variance in the data."

    The greenhouse effect has warmed the southern Atlantic Ocean, source of the African monsoon, causing more rain to fall over the sea and less over the Sahel, said the Nature Conservancy's Gonzalez, who did the research while with the U.S. Geological Survey.

    Fig and firewood species also are dying, forcing women gatherers to range farther and spend more time hunting firewood. "Once you don't have that, people start burning cow dung. And that's when environmentally the area is in great trouble," Gonzalez said.

    This report was written by AP correspondents Charles J. Hanley, New York; Ben Fox, San Juan; Rohan Sullivan, Sydney; Karl Ritter, Stockholm; Beth Duff-Brown, Toronto; Courtney French, London; and Heidi Vogt, Dakar.

    Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
     
  16. Incredible, thanks for posting this. Its hard to relay this to people, sometimes its better that they read it themselves. Excellent post. Have a great week
     
  17. Thanks a lot for your posts bro, they are greatly appreciated. :)

    Stay green.
     

Share This Page