and right below that "Charlie Sheen Wanted Porn Star to Baby Sit Kids, Porn Star Says"Quote:
Originally Posted by sniper7
it derailed me completely
Printable View
and right below that "Charlie Sheen Wanted Porn Star to Baby Sit Kids, Porn Star Says"Quote:
Originally Posted by sniper7
it derailed me completely
I don't get some of the arguements and comments made on some of these posts... [ROFL1] For some of you I don't think anyone can change your mind on the topic because you apparently know everything, right? Once again like I see people say all the time, list a source other than some reporter that doesn't know a damn thing saying the same ignorant comment my 5 year old pops off with of "it's cold, so, there is no such thing as global warming/climate change" because that is completely ignorant. You might as well say that global warming/climate change doesn't exist because your mama said so. I could list countless studies done by NASA, Harvard, Stanford, numerous other legit scientific communities and way too many other credible sources that have had actual data on this subject. Like I said though, for many of you it wouldn't matter who or what came up with the data, you would blindly turn your head away and walk off. I guess everyone is out to get your "briliant" minds that don't need any actual information about a subject to know that what you think about it is right. I don't even know why some of you even post in threads like this. Your mind is set, and you just want to argue instead of trying to have an intelligent conversation. Some of you make retarded jack ass comments toward others because of the way they think. What's up with that? Pull your head out and stop trying to be pricks. Most of the time, those that attack others in these forums just sound really immature and stupid. I originally posted in this thread expecting an intellectual discussion, not a bunch of whiney butt hurt people talking about things that they don't appear to actually know anything about till they google it right before they post a comment. As amusing as some of the comments on here are, I would really like to see proof. Not because I don't believe you, well, I guess it is because I don't believe you, but if the actual study or science behind your comment makes more sense than what I have read or believe, I could make up my mind for myself on rather or not to change what it is that I believe in.
[quote=Aloha_Shooter;298991]They started calling it "climate change" because they got caught trying to say the Earth was warming when temperatures have visibly declined.
I learned back in school that the arguement of global warming was about what the warming affect in the warmer months does to the weather patterns, or climate. There was no mention of "climate change" back then. Also, I don't know where you have been, but it has also been noted globally that since the mid 90's, the temperature has gone up, in record numbers. Not new news on that one.
Nice try. Too bad for you that satellite observations show Antarctica's ice sheet is growing.
I would have to say here that you are wrong. I don't know where you are getting your information from, but if you are going to attack what it is that I said, you should get your info strait. Otherwise, you look like a jack ass. Here is a quote strait from NASA, you know, the people with the satellites lookin down: "Gravity data collected from space using NASA's Grace satellite show that Antarctica has been losing more than a hundred cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice each year since 2002. The latest data reveal that Antarctica is losing ice at an accelerating rate, too."
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fea...a_Melting.html
Arctic polar ice has been melting. Antarctic has been growing.
Again, not to point out that you are wrong, but, you are. They are both melting. Actual scientific data proves this.
I think that if you're going to engage in a discussion like this, you need to understand some basic science. Funny I posted a recent comment about how people shouldn't sound like morons by talking shit. I graduated from Worcester Polytechnic Institure with a degree in Biotechnology. You might be right though, maybe that doesn't make me a good candidate to talk about science... Pull your head out. Carbon is not an evil element -- it's the basis of life as we know it. In fact, carbon dioxide promotes plant growth which is the root of most food chains on Earth. Did I say Carbon was evil? I don't remember saying that...
Fact: The Earth has been much warmer in the past, even the recent past, than it is today. Fact: Your fact is wrong, don't post ignorant shit that is supposed to be used to debunk someone else or make them look stupid, otherwise, you look like the stupid one. Beyond the well-documented warm spells of the 1930s and 1910s, the "warming" often cited by unthinking environmentalists is part of several long term cycles including the recovery from a severe local minima during the Little Ice Age. Prior to the decline that resulted in the Little Ice Age, Great Britain and Greenland hosted vineyards (one of the reasons Michael Mann has been using "tricks" to try to "get rid" of the Medieval Warming Period.
Fact: While ten years is a period indicative of weather rather than climate, the General Circulation Models in use at the CRU still fail to predict the last ten years of cooling (if you listen to Gavin Schmidt and James Hansen, this was one of the warmest years on record -- good thing for them they get to cook the books before anyone else can see them!). The GCMs may have been updated this year to account for the feedback mechanism of cloud formation but as of last year they didn't.
Really? Where do you get your info from?
Fact: Carbon dioxide isn't even the most powerful greenhouse gas. Didn't say it was. Water vapor is far more powerful WRT heat retention. Greens target carbon dioxide because it gives them the leverage to control every aspect of an industrial economy. Yet another ignorant sentence...
IMO Anthropogenic Global Warming is the greatest scientific fraud in the history of science. and alligators are so angry because they have so many teeth and no tooth brush right? Because, mama said so![/quote]
Don't quote me again please unless you are going to try to be a little more intelligent about it. You guys can argue all you want, but if you are going to directly argue against something someone says, do it intelligently. If you have a good arguement, I would like to hear it. Really, I would, I didn't mean to come off with that last part sounding snide.
We should all remember what they taught us in school about trees eating up the co2 and how its gets absorbed into the Oceans. I don't know what they are teaching the children today but I'm sure the liberal dickheads in school are teaching the young all about the liberal agenda since there are more people going to college to make millions then to teach the young.
http://i716.photobucket.com/albums/w...gas_prices.jpg
They just hate cars and want to be the only ones that have them. I bet cha.
http://i716.photobucket.com/albums/w...enver/gore.jpg
I'll just leave this here;
http://www.sitewave.net/news/s49p1865.htm
Full in the knowledge that you will believe what you want to believe, and nothing that contradicts that belief will hold any merit in your opinion.
I do feel sorry for you..
I think its because it has become such a partisan issue. Some people are so hard-line on their party that everyone else is wrong, and worse, not even credible. Unless its coming from "their side", its completely wrong or some sort of secret agenda to undermine their way of life. So there is absolutely no way a discussion can take place.Quote:
Originally Posted by spyder
Instead of looking at facts, they look at the people reporting the facts, or the people that agree with one side. Claims that one side is only trying to make a profit seem to forget that the other side stands to make a profit if they get their way, too.
I think this sort of partisan division on important issues is what is destroying this country.
Apply previous statements to: Global warming, gun control, the economy, health care, etc.
It has been stated that climate change can take thousands, if not millions of years to come about naturally. The argument is that mankind is speeding up that process. I can sort of understand that thought. However, there is also a caveat inserted into the whole arguement that the world indeed does go through a heating and cooling cycles. Heck we even name periods of time after them, "Ice Age" anyone? These have been proven, time and time again. This is not what people argue about.
The real arguement is whether the amount of "helping along" of this process by mankind is anything to be worried about. I personally think not. But you are welcome to your own observations. It's hard to change people's minds, especially where one is trying to "prove something" that the other person just doesn't care about. Tell a farmer to turn in his dually for a smart car.... ain't going to happen.
Let's take a run at that fiasco, shall we:Quote:
Originally Posted by DeusExMachina
The eruption of Mt. St. Helens belched a huge amount of ozone depleting gases into the upper atmosphere. The elimination of R-12 led to its replacement with a vastly more toxic refrigerant, at a cost of BILLIONS to consumers. Ice cores seem to indicate that cyclical thinning of the Antarctic ozone layer has been going on for hundreds of thousands of years. So, did we do any good?
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for being a good steward of this planet, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking that exchanging one flawed technology for another is really benefiting anyone other than those selling the technology....
The global warming community lost most people because they were in the streets with "proof" that the overall temperature of the globe was rising because increased carbon emissions were insulating the earth from allowing surface heat to escape. Either it is or it isn't. Then they changed it to "climate change" but didn't change their definition of the cause. Then we add the issues of the strongest cases being full of fictional findings to make their case and the very next year they changed it from "global warming" to "climate change".Quote:
Originally Posted by spyder
The polar ice caps are reducing? The areas south of them are getting record low temperatures. Maybe it is something else? Maybe it is part of the natural flow of climate change that has been going on since the beginning? It doesn't instill confidence in their theories and until they can prove that it is something we are causing and can fix, I can't rationalize throwing the amount money at it that we are. I can't support carbon credits based on it, smart grids planned to be used as a control tool to tax people more rather than just efficient use of electricity.
Global Warming, Climate Change... whatever... same as a gun; how you use it determines on how people are going to perceive it. I see it more as a tool of control and making money than saving the planet.
You are, It still more or less the same size it was 35 years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeusExMachina
This, Prior to schools becoming the left wing indoctrnation centers, I learned that weather was a one day occurance and climate was an average of those one day occurances over a 25 year period. Now when you realize that weather records in thier current form, only go back about 150 years or so, That isn't that much data to be basing some of the GW claims off of. From what I learned the earth has cycles, sometimes it will be warm and dry., and, others it will be cold and wet.Quote:
Originally Posted by TFOGGER
My only real problem with the GW/CC crowd is they have turn it into a way of pushing their agenda. And, just to many of them have been caught fudging the numbers to acheive their goal. Which, to me, seems to be the fleecing of the flock. I can accept CC to a degree, just not the radical degree that they would want me too. Do I think that we, as humankind have an effect on it? Maybe, a small fraction of a fraction, compared to solar flares, and the gravatational pull of the moon.
When Albert the nerd is now running around stating the global warming is causing all the snow, Kind of loses a bunch of credibilty with me.
OK... their understanding of the basic propeties of physics are off a bit - just to try to fool the ignorant masses.Quote:
Originally Posted by spyder
Ice floats, even polar ice caps float.
When floating ice melts, it does not change the water level.
Put a block of ice in a glass of water and watch it.
It is called "displacement"... use the brain God gave you... look it up.
The ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica aren't floating, they're sitting on land, called Greenland and Antarctica.Quote:
Originally Posted by funkfool
Mother nature is capable of some surprises still: http://www.livescience.com/environme...nd-110117.html
I think what a lot of people fail to grasp is exactly how much greenhouse gas humans are putting out. In our head, we think of all the people we know, we think of all the places we've been, and that 100 miles of atmosphere above our head the entire time. We think there's no conceivable way humans can affect it. I've heard it said before that a single Volcano eruption puts out more greenhouse gasses than all of humankind...
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.phpQuote:
Do the Earth’s volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, “No.” Human activities, responsible for some 36,300 million metric tons of CO2 emissions in 2008 [Le Quéré et al., 2009], release at least a hundred times more CO2 annually than all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2010).
There is of course lots of "information" about the subject online now, and as polarized as the debate has become it's difficult to find unbiased sources. Of course, political rhetoric has entered into the realm of scientific inquiry, so the result is unlikely to be pretty.
H.
To make a further clarification about ice caps...ice caps are dome-shaped masses of ice of < 50K sq. km. Ice sheets are >50K sq km. Ice caps and ice sheets exist in Canada, Greenland, and Antarctica. Sea ice is water from the sea that freezes. Sea ice is not the same thing as icebergs. The term "polar ice cap" can include ice caps, ice sheets, and sea ice, although technically, it is only the sea ice portion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoosier
Source(s):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_shelf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_ice
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_cap
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_ice_p…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pack_ice
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceberg
The northern polar ice cap = ~100% floating...
Which ones are growing?
+1 Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoosier
Can we at least agree that funkfool says "Use the brain god gave you" far too much?
Yes. noted.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeusExMachina
[LOL][Beer][LOL]
It's actually not 100% floating. It is attached to land masses and resting on parts of the shallower ocean floor. I do understand science, very well in fact and displacement is a very easy concept to get as you know. Unfortunately, if you want to use the whole use your brain comment, I would suggest doing so yourself before attacking what someone else has said. If something is holding itself up, the displacement of the object isn't 100% is it? I will use the glass of ice thing with you also, imagine freezing a toothpick in the cube, and putting the picks on the edges of the glass holding most of the ice out of the water, displacement isn't 100% at that point is it? Can you go under the northern cap? Yep. Can you go around it in a boat? Nope. Why? Because it is attached to land, and below on the continental shelves.
Now, I didn't post on this to try to be some big advocate for the dumb ass known as Al Gore. That guy is a moron as are most of his supporters. Each side has it's dumb shits. If you are going to base your decision on who is on each side, you really need to look at some of the followers that don't believe that fossile fules are indeed bad for the atmosphere. That said, bringing up morons for each side really doesn't add to the arguement but to the ignorance.
Just so you know, wikipedia isn't always correct. Anyone, and I mean anyone can add to wikipedia. Most of its information is written by every day people that think that they know what the truth is.Quote:
Originally Posted by funkfool
Just used Wikiporkula for general definition...
Just fyi - the tilde (~) expresses approximate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeusExMachina
I'm not stipulating to anything.
Rather than get into an argument about whether the climate is changing and/or whether mankind is responsible for that change, I have a sincere question.
Other than not being wasteful, what am I, as the head of my household, supposed to do to keep the earth from burning to a cinder or becoming a huge popsicle?
I don't ask what the US should do, as I do not believe in a collective consciousness and I don't believe the federal government could manage a healthy bowel movement without making a colossal mess.
I don't believe I, or anyone else on this board has any real chance of convincing the Chinese, Indians, Russians, etc... of restraining their use of carbon based fuels. I certainly don't advocate that our society should unilaterally reduce our standard of living while watching those resources be used by others around the world when that use by anyone, anywhere will have the consequences espoused by those who are convinced by the climate change discussion.
Economics seems to drive the choice of fuels used by societies. If I choose to use "renewable" energy rather than fossil fuels, then I should pay for that choice. If I choose to use fossil fuels, then the choice is mine. I make that choice for myself and my family based on cost and my ability to pay for what makes the best sense to me.
Regardless of what you or I believe, I don't have the right to tell you how to live and what you can or can't buy. God help us when the government makes those choices for us because I hope we all can agree, those choices will almost universally be bad.
Well said, Chuck!
Also, just so you know, some "big oil" people also believe in the "hype" such as Rex Tillerson, CEO of EXXON Mobile, he has been quoted many times standing behind efforts to reduce carbon emmissions because of global warming and what their product does to further it along. He has been quoted saying:Quote:
Originally Posted by foxtrot
"We recognize that climate change is a serious issue," Mr. Tillerson said during a 50-minute interview last week, pointing to a recent company report that acknowledged the link between the consumption of fossil fuels and rising global temperatures. "We recognize that greenhouse gas emissions are one of the factors affecting climate change."
Why don't you find real evidence that supports your claims?
What they were originally trying to do was putting out the information of what one choice over the other's impact will have in the long run. Since no one believes what science actually has to say, not too many people have listened to them. The easiest way is this, if you knew that what your neighbor was doing was going to harmfully affect your family, would you say something to him? Do anything about it? Or just let it go? The people that believe in climate change and have the power to go about a change, are trying to "do something about it". However some people believe it is some kind of conspiracy and that all of the crap we pump into the air has absolutely no effect. Science is a lie! A lie I tell you! [ROFL1]Quote:
Originally Posted by cstone
i think everyone can agree that we should be good steward of our planet. the point to all this is that bankrupting society to do so is just dumb.
if our govt really wanted to get us off the oil teet they would have switched our vehicle to alcohol years ago when countries like brazil decided to ween themselves from oil dependency.
it is all about the dollar it always has been. the oil companies have too much influence politically
i for one am not willing to trade the oil companies for some new wave of carbon footprint centered agenda from our govt.
as i understand what i have read most of the cars built after 1981 could be easily converted to run on alcohol which would burn cleaner
the big 3 gm, cm. and fm, already produce the alcohol tuned motors for use in other countries. why not here.
Yeah, GM's "FlexFuel" is one, I've seen the badges around here and there. Apparently the ethanol setup has a small gasoline tank (2-3 gallon) under the hood, that's used to start the engine on very cold days, then once it's warm kicks over to ethanol. You can run the engine on Ethanol or Petrol, apparently you can even blend in the tank, ie: refill with either one.Quote:
Originally Posted by rockhound
It really is all about the money. I'd really like to see a move towards smart new nuclear technologies. Pickens plan for displacing energy use is also clever.
H.
There is a lot of different technology out there that most of the public doesn't know about. For example, a car that runs off of water: http://www.reuters.com/news/video?videoId=84561
I don't have any problem with people trying to convince me of what they believe. Sometimes I am swayed and I change my mind and other times I am unconvinced. Best arguments do not always win.Quote:
Originally Posted by spyder
When people begin using the coercive power of government to affect my ability to choose, I can get a little touchy. When you move from providing information to affecting my ability to make my own choices, you have moved from science to politics.
If I believed my neighbor was doing something that would harm my family? A bit too vague for me. Is he sitting in his window with a .308 and a good scope putting a bead on my kids? Is he smoking a cigarette in his garage (second hand smoke). Is he buying Chinese made products from Wal-mart?
Give me information. I will make my own choices.
I believe in science for what it is: A best possible explanation of the material world by observation and experimentation. I also believe that science has limitations and cannot explain all things and that some things in life can only be understood by faith.
The FlexFuel is nice to have, you can buy a kit that replaces some of the hoses, rings, bushing, ect and change over the vehicle you have now to run ethanol. I am not completely sure on what all is needed, I just know that my dealership offered it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoosier
Quote:
Originally Posted by cstone
I would love a water powered car. When will they be available? Last I heard, commercially viable hydrogen fuel cells are at least 10 years off.Quote:
Originally Posted by spyder
The link from Reuters is from 2008. In 2009, the Japanese company Genepax closed their web site. Here is what they posted:
Thank you for visiting our website.
We at GENEPAX have strived to develop new technologies to enable environment friendly energy systems, to mitigate environmental risks such as those posed by global warming. The systems that we have proposed have received warm words of support from many people. However, we have yet to overcome the many obstacles we face in the current world, to bring our systems to market. Moreover, the costs of development have become very large. As our resources are very limited, we need to retrench and reassess our resources and our development plans at this time, and we are accordingly closing our website.
We express our deep gratitude for the supportive messages we have received. We hope that you will continue to be supportive of efforts to develop cleaner and more environment friendly energies, and we will continue to strive to develop systems to preserve our environment.
February 10th, 2009
Yasuyuki Takahashi
Representative Director
GENEPAX
I get what you are saying:
"Say he was still using old methods and washing his back patio, big patio with amonia, and bleach (for some reason, just a "for instance") and your house was down wind."
Fortunately for me in that case, if he was dumb enough to make some chlorine gas along with some other very toxic gases, and I'm assuming he is not wearing any type of gas mask, he won't be my neighbor for very long.
This would be a great teaching point for the rest of the neighborhood not to repeat this dive into the shallow end of the pool.
To your point, what would prevent one of my current neighbors from doing this now? If they talked to me about their idea before, I would tell them that it was not a good idea and if they were going to do it anyway, please let me know first so that I can buy some life insurance for his family and then get my family to a safe place before hand.
I could tell the local code enforcement officers or the police, but I wouldn't count on them arriving before he starts as they would probably be more involved in arresting children with airsoft guns.
Here ya go stone, I didn't know the other company went out of business, it is Japan so who knows the real reason why... Anyway, here is an article of a guy here that is using HHO gas. http://www.mobilemag.com/2006/05/31/...water-as-fuel/
Apparently Mr. Klein has given up any claims to run an engine solely on water for fuel. His current claim is to use the gas he creates with water and electricity to enhance fuel efficiency and decreased emissions. http://hytechapps.com/products.html#Automotive
I am unconvinced that Mr. Klein has an economically feasible alternative fuel which will get millions of Americans back and forth to work every day and save the world from mankind's gluttonous consumption.
I wish him great luck in his future endeavors and also to all those very bright minds working on solving the problems we face.
When a water powered or even a hydrogen fuel cell car becomes available, and it is a better economic choice for me and my family, I will want to buy one. Sadly, I am getting old and I will probably be driving my Toyota Yaris into retirement.
It has been noted by the likes of Gavin Schmidt. On the other hand, if you look at the satellite records from the University of Alabama Huntsville and Dr. Roy Spencer, you'll find that overall trend this decade has been downward. Also check Lucia's Blackboard (Lucia by the way is in the middle of the road on the issue -- she believes the Earth is warming but seems to believe that Schmidt, Hansen, Jones, Mann et al have overstated the strength of their evidence, understated and downplayed evidence against their case and (at least with respect to the Climategate emails) perverted the scientific process. Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr. is another one like Lucia -- I highly recommend his book, "The Climate Fix." Dr. Robert Carter explains things even you might be able to understand in "Climate: The Counter-Consensus".Quote:
Originally Posted by spyder
You can say it all you want -- the facts are that you're incorrect. Just look at the overhead photos and you will see that the Antarctica ice cover has grown overall. The East Antarctica Ice Sheet has grown in mass every year from 1992-2003 (satellite radar measurements) presumably due to increased snowfall. Of course, the detailed situation is more complicated: The areas near the Antarctic Peninsula are warming slightly while the other side of the continent has generally cooled and while one ice shelf has collapsed, other ice shelves have grown. Lots of coverage on this at the Air Vent, Climate Audit, Watt's Up With That, etc. Oh and changes in the Greenland Ice Sheet appear to be due more to changes in the gulfstream flow.Quote:
Originally Posted by spyder
Not to point out that you are wrong but you are -- actual scientific data proves this. Again, see the satellite record from UAH.Quote:
Originally Posted by spyder
You should take your own advice. I'll see your BS in Biotech from WPI and raise you with a MS in Applied Physics from JHU and 20 years of scientific and engineering analysis. Of course, we're both trumped by Dr. Hal Lewis who is only Emeritus Professor of Physics at UCSB and resigned from the APS over their participation in the AGW fraud. You might get some support from Dr. Gavin Schmidt since he's the one who publishes the ivory tower pronouncements about "warmest year in XXXX" but I'll just have to point out his doctorate is in computer science, not physics.Quote:
Originally Posted by spyder
No but all you can quote are "decarbonization" schemes as if carbon was some evil little element. If you want to talk about a need for sustainable energy, I'll be with you as that's a genuine national security and economic need, but if you keep talking about decarbonization as some magic remedy like Al Gore then you're lumped in with the anti-science Greens in my book.Quote:
Originally Posted by spyder
Yeah, I guess looking at the geologic records would be ignorant to you. Archaeological evidence from the vineyards in Greenland and Great Britain would also be "ignorant shit". The Medieval Warming Period has been well-documented for centuries -- until Michael Mann tried to rewrite history. I'll leave it to you to try to grow grapes in Greenland now since you think things are SO warm.Quote:
Originally Posted by spyder
You keep talking about ignorance yet you know NOTHING about the geological or historical records? Just what the heck do they teach "biotechnology" majors these days? You want a good argument but you come into this without having actually looked into the science behind the crap you spout? Guys like you are why Mike Mann, Phil Jones and Gavin Schmidt have been able to get away with the massive fraud they've been spreading.
You can find copies of the historical record (before Gavin Schmidt "adjusted" it) documented at Climate Audit and The Air Vent.
As you say, if you're going to argue, try to do it intelligently. So far, all you do is spout "False!" "You're ignorant" and other ad hominems. I've given you sources -- now go use that WPI degree and look some of them up.
I can tell you why they went out of business. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states, "in all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state." Water-powered car indeed -- just how do you propose to get energy out of that water? Electrolysis to change the water into H2 and O2 for combination in a fuel cell will NOT generate more energy than you used. Now, you can TRANSFORM energy -- like using photonic energy to generate electricity from solar cells which is then used to make H2 and O2 instead of burning fossil fuels but you have to do SOMETHING to generate that electricity.Quote:
Originally Posted by spyder
In theory we could get more energy from water by using fusion but we have yet to build a portable fusion generator with energy efficiency greater than 1.0 (or even equalling 1.0). You HAVE heard of Pons and Fleischmann, haven't you?
Fraudsters have been pushing "water-powered cars" since the Oil Crisis of the 70s. They -- like Al Gore's "inconvenient truth" -- haven't held up to scrutiny.
HHO was debunked before the first time I ever even heard of it. I'll tell you something right now though, I'd rather run out of oil than I would water.
Good luck trying to convince everyone in China to start riding bicycles. ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aloha_Shooter