In Australia in the 1980s, there were regularly fewer than 10 extreme events a year, and never more than 27. Since 1998 there have been no fewer than 28, and regularly more than 40.
Sydneysiders are bracing for a hot week ahead with temperatures in the city's west exceeding 41 degrees Celsius this afternoon.
Interest rates have stayed on hold as expected, with the uncertainty over the economic impact of the floods weighing on the RBA's decision.
Rio Tinto says it has shut down its Hail Creek mine, west of Mackay in north Queensland, due to the threat from Cyclone Yasi
Killer cyclone hits category five
Severe Tropical Cyclone Yasi hit category five off north Queensland this morning as the weather bureau warned it was likely to be deadlier than any storm seen in Australia in living memory.
The weather bureau says Cyclone Yasi is a large and very powerful tropical cyclone and poses an "extremely serious threat" to life and property within the warning area, especially between Port Douglas and Townsville.
"This impact is likely to be more life threatening than any experienced during recent generations," the Bureau of Meteorology said this morning
The monster storm is expected to hit the coast between Cairns and Innisfail some time tonight.
The Garnaut Climate Change Review delivered in 2008 was a massive document – 630 pages – and possibly too much to digest, comment on and report on in one go. Professor Ross Garnaut clearly thinks Australia has been a slow learner, so he plans to deliver his 2010 update in installments, ensuring that the eight principal points he wishes to expand upon get due attention.
The update will be a crucial component of the public discussion that will surround the government’s proposals to introduce a carbon price, and Garnaut wants to raise the level of the debate, and to make sure the logic of his recommendations are well understood, even if people don’t like the conclusions.
The first instalment was delivered last night in Melbourne, at the Monash Sustainability Institute, and was entitled “Weighing the costs and benefits of climate change action.” Garnaut wants the logic of taking action to be understood. It’s been one of the sticking points: Why should people pay now when the benefits will not be realised for another generation? Why should Australia take action when others are not? Why take any action at all when there is so much uncertainty about the impacts? Should we spend on mitigation or adaptation?
To answer the first and most problematic of these issues, Garnaut invites us to consider a graph in the shape of a fish (see Figure 1), where the body represents the part of the graph where the cost of action taken is more than the benefits, and the tail, the point from where the gains outweigh the cost. It would be nice to think we can have a very small body and a very big tail, but it’s not quite so simple.
The tail has been made bigger by the realisation that the climate change impacts are at the higher end of predictions and, while the body has been made smaller by the unexpectedly steep fall in anticipated costs for clean energy, this has been countered by policy delays, which most models tell us will make the costs of action more expensive.
Part of the justification for determining the size of the body – and the tail for that matter – comes down to an assessment on how much the current generation should pay for the benefit of those that follow. In economic speak, this translates back into the discount rate. It is used by corporations to assess the future value of a dollar spent or saved now.
Garnaut argues that few older Australians would be willing to discount heavily the welfare of their grandchildren‘s generation relative to that of their own, and says the only justification for valuing the well being of those in the future less than our own is the belief that humans may suddenly become extinct. And while the Mayans have an apocalyptic vision for 2012, not many others do.
The second consideration is whether to impose costs on the current generation when it is generally assumed that future generations will be richer. The problem here, Garnaut suggests, is that there is no longer any certainty that future generations will be richer than us (and therefore more able to absorb the costs of climate action), because of the potential impacts of climate change – a lack of environmental services being one of them.
As for the uncertainty about climate change impacts, Garnaut argues that this increases the case of more spending rather than less. We are usually prepared to insure against the worst outcomes, he says. It strengthens the case for action.
To explain why Australia should do its fair share, he pointed to the decision to send troops to Afghanistan. Contributing such a small contingent was not likely to change the outcome, but it was part of Australia’s proportional effort.
Meanwhile, Australia remains one of the highest emitters per capita. “If one of the rich countries doesn’t do its part, then we’ve got Buckley's of getting the whole world to participate,” he said. “We should stop being a drag on the international effort.”
And on the question of whether to spend on mitigation or adaptation, Garnaut says it should be both. Adaptation investment is already occurring in the forms of desalination plants and the like, but Garnaut says it is cheaper to make investments in advance rather than trying to rescue the situation after catastrophes have occurred. “I can’t see the logic of saying there is choice between adaptation and mitigation.” If we don’t act, the adaptation costs will be huge.
Garnaut will likely expand upon these points in coming installments, and he gave an insight to some of his thinking in a briefing with journalists in Canberra on Thursday.
Instalment No 2 will be on international action. Garnaut says that, while it is clear that the world has not obtained the international agreement that many had been hoping for at Copenhagen, what has been obtained at Copenhagen and Cancun may lead to more substantial results. “Let’s not pretend that nothing is happening. Some parts of the world are doing more than I expected.”
No 3: Global emission trends. Garnaut noted that the IPCC, IEA and other organisations had grossly underestimated the emissions path of the major developing economies – not just China and India, but Africa too; their rate of growth, their energy intensity and their emissions intensity, even if the emissions growth of the developed world was stalled by the global financial crisis. “The international community has been kidding itself” on emissions growth, Garnaut says.
No 4: Rural land use. While the original review talked “speculatively” about the potential of bio-sequestration, Garnaut says the science has moved on rapidly and it’s worth an update to see what’s feasible. It’s a big issue for Australia, one identified by the government in its Carbon Farming initiative.
No 5: Climate science. Garnaut says the latest IPCC compendium was published in 2007, but effectively only included peer reviewed science up until about 2005, and he intends to look at what’s been added since that time. He says it’s a “pretty sad” story. Recent data and events have confirmed that the IPCC report, if anything, underestimated the climate change impacts on global temperatures, sea level rises, and the intensification of weather events. He says climate sceptics cannot draw any strength from the “real science” of the past five years. “I wish that were not so.”
No 6: Approach to carbon pricing. It is clear that the government is now favouring some sort of hybrid system, a fixed price that can then mutate into a cap-and-trade system if the circumstances allow. This was Garnaut’s original suggestion, and he says he has no reason to change his position. He did say that a cap-and-trade scheme would only be appropriate if there was sufficient depth in international markets, and that does not appear to the case at the moment.
No 7: Innovation policy. Garnaut is frustrated that many of his recommendations on the need to support innovation, R&D and commercialisation of new technologies, which he says could have been funded by the sale of permits, did not get much traction with the government. “There’s lots of opportunities for low emissions technology in Australia,” he said. “We can be world champion in low emissions, just like we are for fossil fuels.” This could be true for nuclear, solar, marine, wind and algae.
No 8: The electricity sector. This, Garnaut concedes, is the politically hardest corner of the debate, particularly with the recent focus on electricity prices. He says the price rises that were foreshadowed in the 2008 review have come to pass, and they have nothing to do with mitigation costs, but are the results of increased capital costs from the resources boom, the higher cost of skills, rising coal prices, the internationalisation of the gas market, and increased transmission costs. “We will look at how much of that (transmission investment) is necessary and how much is the result of poor policy.” And the review will also look at the case for structural adjustment, or compensation.
This fellow has an all around interesting website that I'm sure many here would enjoy.His take on Global Warming/Climate Change mirrors my own to a large degree - I've been a strong supporter of interrogating solar cycles for a probably casual relationship for a few years now and he has a few videos on the subject, too.
I haven't watched them all yet, but if anyone else is interested, it might be worth a few points of discussion.
Of course everyone has a right to their opinions and, with some spare time and their own blog, the right to express them, but I'm reminded of an article I read on Science of Doom:
Last 1M years of global temperatures
From "Holmes' Principles of Physical Geology" 4th Ed. 1993
The last million years are incredible. Sea levels – as best as we can tell – have moved up and down by at least 120m, possibly more.
There are two ways to think about these massive changes. Interesting how the same data can be interpreted in such different ways..
“The huge changes in past climate that we can see from temperature and sea level reconstructions demonstrates that climate always changes. It demonstrates that the 20th century temperature increases are nothing unusual. And it demonstrates that climate is way too unpredictable to be accurately modeled.”
“The huge changes in past climate demonstrate the sensitivity nature of our climate. Small changes in solar output and minor variations in the distribution of solar energy across seasons (from minor changes in the earth’s orbit) have created climate changes that would be catastrophic today. Climate models can explain these past changes. And if we compare the radiative forcing from anthropogenic CO2 with those minor variations we see what incredible danger we have created for our planet.”
But if a long-term variation in solar cycle output is the cause of the current warming trend, why is it:
Figure 1: Annual global temperature change (thin light red) with 11 year moving average of temperature (thick dark red). Temperature from NASA GISS. Annual Total Solar Irradiance (thin light blue) with 11 year moving average of TSI (thick dark blue). TSI from 1880 to 1978 from Solanki. TSI from 1979 to 2009 from PMOD.
It's true the above is from Skeptical Science – http://www.skepticalscience.com – so it may or may not be biased but the Permaculture blog seems to agree solar output is decreasing, which if true would be good news (less solar forcing):
I read the post by stocks321, and thought finally someone has come out and said it, "CO2 doesn't contribute to global warming."
I haven't read all the posts, but here's some tidbits for when you talk to your Kool-Aid friends. Come on, we all have them!
1. far and away the most significant "greenhouse gas" is water vapor, accounting for about 96%.
2. CO2 is not a pollutant, it is an essential gas to all life on this planet. Without it, plant life would die, and then so would we.
3. Average CO2 concentration is about 350-390 ppm. Inside your home, it rises to about 600-700 ppm. Commercial greenhouses regularly up their CO2 concentration to 1000 ppm and higher to improve plant growth. There is geochemical evidence that shows CO2 levels have been as high as 6,000 ppm in the distant past!
Hope you enjoyed,
1. Correct, I'm not sure about the specific number, but that sounds about right. And, the warmer the climate, the more water vapor is in the air. It's a feedback.
2. CO2 is, of course, a naturally occurring gas and necessary to the balance of life. But, there is no scientific debate that it is a "greenhouse" gas. And, at 390 ppm in the atmosphere, we are at the highest concentration by far in at least the last 800,000 years. IOW, the human species has never lived through a period with this high of concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
3. I don't know where you got your number, but see #2 about last 800K years. All kinds of climate and other conditions existed in geological time that we could not live with today. But, with above noted CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, we are in uncharted territory for our species. What happens in actual greenhouses and houses is irrelevant. In the winter my house is warmer than the outside, in the summer generally a little cooler. Has no relevance to the science of climate change.
All of this has been covered in detail in this thread. You got some reading to do.
There was a couple of German physicists that produced a study showing CO2 was NOT a greenhouse gas, but I cannot find it right now, so I won't try to lean on it.
The debate is not centered on the definition of CO2 as a greenhouse gas, but on whether a) it is significant and b) that significance is humanly influenced. That is the center of the debate, it seems. From the reading I've done (yes, I've read most of the data referenced in this thread), there does not seem to be much evidence in favor of anthropomorphic causation.
I am not the only one coming to this conclusion-
From a common sense perspective, the scientific method is clearly not being honored by those endorsing man-made warming. A REAL scientist invites his critics to examine his methods and evidence for reproof. He does not hide them in the hopes of proving a point. That's a strike against the credibility of those promoting this theory.
Also, it should be blantantly obvious that many of the loudest voices endorsing the theory stand to make large sums of money, and gain large amounts of control, including the CEOs of major power companies. That's strike two.
I have no vested interest in the matter one way or the other, I simply have a strong distaste for disinformation, especially when done for the purpose of controlling others lives. I am open to either conclusion, but as I said, so far the evidence is weak.
Seems like there is MUCH more money to be gained by just ignoring the problem and keeping the status quo.To REALLY tackle the problem, it is likely that almost everything business wise would become much smaller.
As Such, I dont think that the corporate world will ever choose to deal with the problem. And most people dont either, come to think of it.
As such, we will get the result that we will get.
I strongly advise you to read this thread from the beginning. There is much that has been discussed at length on this subject you've brought up, and although 850 posts appears quite a toil, I sense you'll draw something of a conclusion ...
Page One ...
~ VF ~
"We properly revere our forefathers for making material and mortal sacrifices for our benefit. One only hopes that our descendants will hold us in similar regard."
This thread has languished somewhat while science progresses. Even the skeptics are coming around to admitting the science is real and valid. The denialists probably never will.
A team of physicists and statisticians that set out to challenge the scientific consensus on global warming is finding that its data-crunching effort is producing results nearly identical to those underlying the prevailing view.
The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project at the University of California, Berkeley, was launched by physics professor Richard Muller, a longtime critic of government-led climate studies, to address what he called "the legitimate concerns" of skeptics who believe global warming is exaggerated.
But Muller unexpectedly told a congressional hearing last week that the work of the three principal groups that have analyzed the temperature trends underlying climate science is "excellent. ... We see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups."
The hearing was called by Republican leaders of the House Science and Technology committee, who have expressed doubts about the integrity of climate science. It was one of several inquiries in recent weeks as the Environmental Protection Agency's efforts to curb planetheating emissions from industrial plants and motor vehicles have come under attack in Congress. Muller said his group was surprised by its findings, but he cautioned that the initial assessment is based on only two per cent of the 1.6 billion measurements that will eventually be examined.
The Berkeley project's biggest private backer, at $150,000, is the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. Oil billionaires Charles and David Koch are the U.S.'s most prominent funders of efforts to prevent curbs on the burning of fossil fuels, the largest contributor to planetwarming greenhouse gases.
Ken Caldeira, an atmospheric scientist at the Carnegie Institution for Science, which contributed some funding to the Berkeley effort, said Muller's statement to Congress was "honourable" in recognizing that "previous temperature reconstructions basically got it right. ... Willingness to revise views in the face of empirical data is the hallmark of the good scientific process."
But conservative critics who had expected Muller's group to demonstrate a bias among climate scientists reacted with disappointment.
Anthony Watts, a former TV weatherman who runs the skeptic blog WattsUpWithThat.com, wrote that the Berkeley group is releasing results that are not "fully working and debugged yet. ... But, post-normal science political theatre is like that."
Over the years, Muller has praised Watts's efforts to show that weather station data in official studies are untrustworthy because of the urban heat island effect, which boosts temperature readings in areas that have been encroached on by cities and suburbs.
But leading climatologists said the previous studies accounted for the effect, and the Berkeley analysis is confirming that, Muller acknowledged. "Did such poor station quality exaggerate the estimates of global warming?" he asked in his written testimony. "We've studied this issue, and our preliminary answer is 'no.'"
Temperature data are gathered from tens of thousands of weather stations around the globe, many of which have incomplete records. Over the last two decades, three independent groups have used different combinations of stations and varying statistical methods and yet arrived at nearly identical conclusions: The planet's surface, on average, has warmed about 0.75 C since the beginning of the 20th century.
Temperature data were the focus of the so-called 2009 Climategate controversy, in which opponents of greenhouse gas regulation alleged that leaked emails from a British climate laboratory showed manipulation of weather station records. Five U.S. and British government and university investigations have refuted the charges.
"For those who wish to discredit the science, this (temperature) record is the holy grail," said Peter Thorne, a leading expert at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C.
"They figure if they can discredit this, then society would have significant doubts about all of climate science."
Ms. Klein is quite articulate in her viewpoint on the intersection of peak oil and climate change.
Sorry, can't seem to embed the video here, but it is worth the effort to watch.
Here is the video you wanted to embed, released onto cm.com user friendly You Tube : -
Naomi Klein: Addicted To Risk
Progression in global warming is becoming more clear as the data is crunched. My clear sense is that, as our economic demise appears to be happening slower than expected, climate change is happening faster than expected. At some point we have to start preparing for both eventualities. This site's single minded emphasis on the economic and resource parts of the three Es is becoming passe, threatening to marginalize its conclusions and recommendations. Climate change needs to be part of the equations.
Effects of this type, so-called feedback effects, are of major significance for how extensive global warming will be in the future. Margareta Johansson and her colleagues present nine different feedback effects in their report. One of the most important right now is the reduction of the Arctic's albedo. The decrease in the snow- and ice-covered surfaces means that less solar radiation is reflected back out into the atmosphere. It is absorbed instead, with temperatures rising as a result. Thus the Arctic has entered a stage where it is itself reinforcing climate change.
The future does not look brighter. Climate models show that temperatures will rise by a further 3 to 7 degrees. In Canada, the uppermost metres of permafrost will thaw on approximately one fifth of the surface currently covered by permafrost. The equivalent figure for Alaska is 57 per cent. The length of the winter season and the snow coverage in the Arctic will continue to decrease and the glaciers in the area will probably lose between 10 and 30 per cent of their total mass. All this within this century and with grave consequences for the ecosystems, existing infrastructure and human living conditions.
New estimates also show that by 2100, the sea level will have risen by between 0.9 and 1.6 metres, which is approximately twice the increase predicted by the UN's panel on climate change, IPCC, in its 2007 report. This is largely due to the rapid melting of the Arctic icecap. Between 2003 and 2008, the melting of the Arctic icecap accounted for 40 per cent of the global rise in sea level.
It's still forecast by models. Extrapolation based on the information collected over the last 20 years is insufficient to project what the climate will look like in 100 years.
It's the scientific tantamount to saying "When I woke up today, it was raining and as the morning went on, it rained harder. So, it will be raining between 15-25% harder 6 weeks from now.
The language here, again, is very unscientific. 3-7 degrees? Kelvin? Centegrade? Fahrenheit?
Not to minimize the message, but this information is still extremely speculative and suspect.
Centigrade is Kelvin, except with a different starting point. 1 degree kelvin = 1 degree centigrade.
They use the models to project, they use data to describe what is actually happening. What is actually happening in many different metrics is worse than what was projected in the 2007 IPCC report. Since what is actually happening is used to build the models, the projections are also becoming worse. Models aren't perfect, but they are reasonable tools for trying to figure out what our future is going to look like. One model may be way off, but they look at what clusters of models are telling us. When a number of models start clustering around certain outcomes, we're probably safe in rejecting the outliers and trying to figure out what the clusters are telling us.
If you are among those that reject everything models are telling us, your head is in the sand. We can't go on ignoring reality without consequences. You also can't blithely ignore the reality that our atmospheric CO2 (390 ppm) is a lot higher than at any time in the last 800,000 years. That's more than 100,000 times longer than all of written human history and four times as long as humans as a species have been around. In other words, we are into uncharted territory and ignoring what is happening to our environment.
Nonsense. And surely you know so? Your above analogy would only hold if the EVIDENCE showed that the increase in rain clouds was not abating but increasing. Which is exactly what is happening with emissions..... And furthermore, the models are using data that is way more than 20 years old. Furthermore, we have only been doing serious damage to the biosphere since WWII, and that's barely 70 years ago, so exactly how old do you think the data should be? The very point of this catastrophe is that we are making huge changes to our biosphere in a very very short time - even the 200 years since the start of the industrial revolution is a mere blink in geological timing........
PROPER scientists use CELSIUS degrees (which are identical to Kelvin bar the different zero point). And CENTIGRADE is spelled with an i. From what you have written here, I can only deduce your scientific knowledge is merely high school level. Fahrenheit? Who the hell still uses this?
You mean unlike all the speculation about gold/silver and inflation/deflation that's all over this site...?? For me, there's NO DOUBT things are warming up, there's so little doubt I am going to remove myself from all the work I have done here over the past 7 years to prepare for the inevitable and move 2,500 miles further away from the equator. You know what they say, if you can't stand the heat........
Here is an exchange of letters between Orin Hatch and Barry Bickmore, a geologist at BYU and a conservative LDS member. Dr. Bickmore illuminates the issues discussed above, particularly the efficacy of models. Sen. Hatch's letter first:
Dr. Bickmore's next:
It's always surprising to me when supposedly bright people like Sen. Hatch start spouting straw man arguments plucked without apparent scrutiny from the denialist blogosphere. It's discouraging that our politicians allow themselves to be so easily duped into positions contrary to objective evidence and a consensus of the leading authorities in the field. I guess we should all be used to it now, but it is still disillusioning.
Interesting data points. I was under the impression that car ownership was exploding in China. Encouraging that they are putting the emphasis on mass transit.
Well, a small country called the United States still largely uses Fahrenheit, for one. And in my engineering courses we had to get accustomed to using both Kelvin/Celsius and Fahrenheit measures in our work. And as much as I personally prefer the Celsius & Kelvin measures myself, I'm not so pompous to assume that's the ONLY way things are or should be done. Leave your cultural superiority biases (and the mudslinging) at home please.
And a spelling flame? As someone recently said, who the hell still uses this?
Well, a small country called the United States still largely uses Fahrenheit, for one.
In fact...... the USA is the ONLY country in the world to still use farenheit. Please explain?
How is it nonsense? It's fairly straightforward. While our data might be older than 20 years, our software is not. The software is the element in question. The data is largely inconsequential, if the software is to project, it's along a linear path with stochastic variables (such as the ensamble forecast model) and it's only mapping trends forward based on its impetus. The model is not meant to scrutinize the information, just chart where it may go. The amount of time you're talking about isn't even a terrestrial eye-blink.
And I do when I'm doing proper science. I can only deduce your response is a superficial attempt to attack my character rather than scrutinize the validity of the originating point - that Models are only accurate within guidelines - and we're way outside the capacity of the models to accurately project future data. Especially along a timeline measuring up to 100 years. Pure idiocy.
PS - I like saying centigrade. It has a cooler sound. If you don't like it, 'expletive you'. As a "real" scientist, I talk the way I want. Obviously the same applies to you, being someone at a keyboard with no practical knowledge of what he's talking about.
Ragging on me about Kelvin is a perfect example. The three were listed because in America, we routinely convert between the three. I'm sure you had a "Gotcha!" moment there, but it really just looks silly and immature. Telling me something I know as if it's "above" me is a pretty cheap trick.
Yeah, man-made markets and atmospheric science. Pretty similar.
Mike - your attitude is ridiculous.
How is it nonsense? Well, YOU are the one who compared rainy days with climate change, that's how..... Your analogy was very poor, in fact nonsensical. You show me logically how it is otherwise..
and "I can only deduce your response is a superficial attempt to attack my character" means what exactly? YOU attacked the validity of the scientific article by superficially attacking the lack of temperature units, whereas I always know (as you should) any climate scientist would deal only in degrees Celsius. And now we have a slanging match?
"Models are only accurate within guidelines - and we're way outside the capacity of the models to accurately project future data. Especially along a timeline measuring up to 100 years. Pure idiocy."
No one has ever said the models were "Accurate".... that's why when scientists make predictions (not a good word) those predictions are a RANGE of temperature rises, this range encompassing the inaccuracies of the models. And BTW, the models, just like all science, are constantly being revised as software and hardware and data quality constantly improves. What the scientists are saying is that the biosphere is changing, and the results will be ugly. How ugly? Who knows....... but we should all CARE!
Why should I explain? Pursuing it is just going to lead down a rabbit hole complete with "my way is better than your way" or "your country is stupid" belief arguments. You may as well ask why the citizens of any country would still use "stone" as a measure of their weight, or why others choose to eat Vegemite on toast instead of butter and jam. They're just cultural preferences... deal with it.
Either my point about making cultural value judgements was lost on you, or you're deliberately ignoring it.
Actually, it's Fahrenheit ... capitalized and with an 'h' in there.;-)
Once upon a time, in a land far, far away, a Mr. Fahrenheit met a Miss Mile. Miss Mile had 3 children from a previous marriage, Yard, Foot, and baby Inch. Mr. Fahrenheit took a liking to Miss Mile and she to him and eventually, the two wed. They established their domicile in a wondrous land called the USA and by their measure, made it the greatest country on earth. Other countries couldn't figure out their measures which is why they don't use them but they did figure out how to use Uncle Dollar, much to their everlasting dismay.
Measurement units a cultural choice...? Really? Australia used all those silly units too when I first came here from Europe, and I clearly remember how even as a child I found the entire thing really trying and stupid. Within two or three years of emigrating to Australia, we changed and joined the rest of the world in using the SI system.
And I clearly remember NASA crashing a mission on mars because half the engineers used feet and the other half metres! (NOT meters - meters are used to measure things, like a speedometer, pyrometer, altimeter....) Serves'em right.
Oh, and I hate vegemite.
Oh, and I hate Vegemite ...
Mike (Damnthematrix, not the doppelgänger with dilusions of grandeur - "Alpha" indeed!!!),
How bloody dare you dislike Vegimite(tm)!!! I thought we were on the same page??? I am offended!!! B*gger the semantic knitpicking that rages defending the futile abject moron' who constantly invades this joyous and deliciously excellent thread with childlike abandon with his brethren run amok!!! I'll never read another one of your posts!!!!!! Consider yourself blocked (Ignore User!!!)... ... Bhaaa Hummmbuuuggg!!!!
Without my f*cking Vegimite in the morning (For Americans, that's the stuff you use to fill in the gaps in roads ... ...), the World can spin into the sun for all I care ... ... !!!!!!!!!!!
I feel better now ... ...
[Moderator's note: This post is a violation of the forum rules. It does not pass the dinner table test. Corrective action with the user has been undertaken.]
Members to support one another in investing endeavors
Preparing those people on Ise Lodge (Kettering) Northants, interested in the future post fossil fuel.
A meeting place for all who are interested in building or sharing a resilient lifestyle up here in the North.
A group to form alliances for survival
Engaging and Preparing in Metro-West Boston