PDA

View Full Version : Climate Change--Welcome To The Rest of Our Lives



DiabloViejo
07-26-2012, 12:23 PM
Why The Recent Extreme Heat Wave Is About To Become Permanent

The growing mountain of evidence of the direct consequences of climate change is becoming impossible to ignore. What will the world of climate change look like? It's already here.

Welcome To The Rest Of Our Lives (http://youtu.be/b0NrS2L6KcE)

Yes Virginia, Sea Level Really Is Rising. (http://youtu.be/OmW_EQzU_qI)

http://c1planetsavecom.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2012/07/global-warming-hell.jpg

Sev
07-26-2012, 12:49 PM
Maybe we will get lucky and North America's inland see will return.

DiabloViejo
07-26-2012, 08:15 PM
Scientists say there has been a freak event in Greenland this month: Nearly every part of the massive ice sheet that blankets the island suddenly started melting.

The ice melted so fast that scientists at NASA first thought it was a computer error or some other malfunction.

For several days this month, Greenland's surface ice cover melted over a larger area than at any time in more than 30 years of satellite observations, according to a statement released along with satellite images on Tuesday.

Published on Wednesday, July 25, 2012 by Common Dreams
'Not a Mistake': NASA in Disbelief over Area of Melting Ice
Greenland ice sheet melted an unprecedented area during July
LINK (http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/07/25-0)

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/564500_402137189842622_1080449145_n.jpg

LWW
07-27-2012, 12:08 PM
Who would have guessed that ice woud melt in the summer heat?

Soflasnapper
07-27-2012, 02:54 PM
Paraphrasing Churchill who said, some chicken! some neck! I'll say, some melt! some heat!

Of COURSE the surface of the ice on Greenland tends to melt during summertime. A LITTLE BIT.

This is not only at an unprecedented extant over the entire top surface (since satellites allowed such imagery for the prior 30 years), but over a very short amount of time as well.

So again it is how MUCH, and how LONG, not the melting, per se.

You appear to have forgotten that Greenland sits at a high latitude, AND ALTITUDE (for the top of its ice shelf cover). It's very northerly, and that surface is 10,000 feet above sea level.

DiabloViejo
07-28-2012, 03:40 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Who would have guessed that ice woud melt in the summer heat? </div></div>

And who would have guessed that you have no idea that Greenland has an arctic climate? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Here's a fun fact for you Iceland has warmer average temps and less ice than Greenland.

LWW
07-28-2012, 04:04 AM
Iceland sits atop a volcano ...

LWW
07-28-2012, 04:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Paraphrasing Churchill who said, some chicken! some neck! I'll say, some melt! some heat!

Of COURSE the surface of the ice on Greenland tends to melt during summertime. A LITTLE BIT.

This is not only at an unprecedented extant over the entire top surface (since satellites allowed such imagery for the prior 30 years), but over a very short amount of time as well.

So again it is how MUCH, and how LONG, not the melting, per se.

You appear to have forgotten that Greenland sits at a high latitude, AND ALTITUDE (for the top of its ice shelf cover). It's very northerly, and that surface is 10,000 feet above sea level.



</div></div>

Here's a quiz ... figure out what percentafe 30 years represents in the history of a 6,000,000,000 year old planet.

To get beyond yourspoon fed 30 year window ... why was it named "<span style='font-size: 14pt'>GREEN</span>LAND" in the first place?

Does it hurt your noggin to consider that ... when viewed in a truly historic length of time, believe it or not this planet existed before we were born ... Greenland is returning to it's past climate with ths warming?

Do you even bother to contempate that "GREENLAND" was far more conducive to both flora and fauna in comparison with being a barren ice covered wasteland?

Or, do you still prefer to be spoon fed your "OPINION" ... even when it's junk science jibba jabba?

DiabloViejo
07-28-2012, 02:31 PM
Please provide you credentials as a Geo-Scientist, Climatologist, and Meteorologist. Oh, what's that? You don't know Jack? Hmmmm, okay... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

DiabloViejo
07-28-2012, 03:19 PM
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Weather Extremes Leave Parts of U.S. Grid Buckling</span>
By MATTHEW L. WALD and JOHN SCHWARTZ
Published: July 25, 2012
New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/26/us/rise-in-weather-extremes-threatens-infrastructure.html)

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/07/26/us/EXTREME-1/EXTREME-1-articleLarge.jpg
<span style='font-size: 8pt'>Emergency repairs on a highway that buckled in triple-digit temperatures last month near Cary, N.C.</span>

WASHINGTON — From highways in Texas to nuclear power plants in Illinois, the concrete, steel and sophisticated engineering that undergird the nation’s infrastructure are being taxed to worrisome degrees by heat, drought and vicious storms.

On a single day this month here, a US Airways regional jet became stuck in asphalt that had softened in 100-degree temperatures, and a subway train derailed after the heat stretched the track so far that it kinked — inserting a sharp angle into a stretch that was supposed to be straight. In East Texas, heat and drought have had a startling effect on the clay-rich soils under highways, which “just shrink like crazy,” leading to “horrendous cracking,” said Tom Scullion, senior research engineer with the Texas Transportation Institute at Texas A&M University. In Northeastern and Midwestern states, he said, unusually high heat is causing highway sections to expand beyond their design limits, press against each other and “pop up,” creating jarring and even hazardous speed bumps.

Excessive warmth and dryness are threatening other parts of the grid as well. In the Chicago area, a twin-unit nuclear plant had to get special permission to keep operating this month because the pond it uses for cooling water rose to 102 degrees; its license to operate allows it to go only to 100. According to the Midwest Independent System Operator, the grid operator for the region, a different power plant had had to shut because the body of water from which it draws its cooling water had dropped so low that the intake pipe became high and dry; another had to cut back generation because cooling water was too warm.

The frequency of extreme weather is up over the past few years, and people who deal with infrastructure expect that to continue. Leading climate models suggest that weather-sensitive parts of the infrastructure will be seeing many more extreme episodes, along with shifts in weather patterns and rising maximum (and minimum) temperatures.

“We’ve got the ‘storm of the century’ every year now,” said Bill Gausman, a senior vice president and a 38-year veteran at the Potomac Electric Power Company, which took eight days to recover from the June 29 “derecho” storm that raced from the Midwest to the Eastern Seaboard and knocked out power for 4.3 million people in 10 states and the District of Columbia.

In general, nobody in charge of anything made of steel and concrete can plan based on past trends, said Vicki Arroyo, who heads the Georgetown Climate Center at Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, a clearinghouse on climate-change adaptation strategies.

Highways, Mr. Scullion noted, are designed for the local climate, taking into account things like temperature and rainfall. “When you get outside of those things, man, all bets are off.” As weather patterns shift, he said, “we could have some very dramatic failures of highway systems.”

Adaptation efforts are taking place nationwide. Some are as huge as the multibillion-dollar effort to increase the height of levees and flood walls in New Orleans because of projections of rising sea levels and stronger storms to come; others as mundane as resizing drainage culverts in Vermont, where Hurricane Irene damaged about 2,000 culverts. “They just got blown out,” said Sue Minter, the Irene recovery officer for the state.

In Washington, the subway system, which opened in 1976, has revised its operating procedures. Authorities will now watch the rail temperature and order trains to slow down if it gets too hot. When railroads install tracks in cold weather, they heat the metal to a “neutral” temperature so it reaches a moderate length, and will withstand the shrinkage and growth typical for that climate. But if the heat historically seen in the South becomes normal farther north, the rails will be too long for that weather, and will have an increased tendency to kink. So railroad officials say they will begin to undertake much more frequent inspection.

Some utilities are re-examining long-held views on the economics of protecting against the weather. Pepco, the utility serving the area around Washington, has repeatedly studied the idea of burying more power lines, and the company and its regulators have always decided that the cost outweighed the benefit. But the company has had five storms in the last two and a half years for which recovery took at least five days, and after the derecho last month, the consensus has changed. Both the District of Columbia and Montgomery County, Md., have held hearings to discuss the option — though in the District alone, the cost would be $1.1 billion to $5.8 billion, depending on how many of the power lines were put underground.

Even without storms, heat waves are changing the pattern of electricity use, raising peak demand higher than ever. That implies the need for new investment in generating stations, transmission lines and local distribution lines that will be used at full capacity for only a few hundred hours a year. “We build the system for the 10 percent of the time we need it,” said Mark Gabriel, a senior vice president of Black & Veatch, an engineering firm. And that 10 percent is “getting more extreme.”

Even as the effects of weather extremes become more evident, precisely how to react is still largely an open question, said David Behar, the climate program director for the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. “We’re living in an era of assessment, not yet in an area of adaptation,” he said.

He says that violent storms and forest fires can be expected to affect water quality and water use: runoff from major storms and falling ash could temporarily shut down reservoirs. Deciding how to address such issues is the work of groups like the Water Utility Climate Alliance, of which he is a member. “In some ways, the science is still catching up with the need of water managers for high-quality projection,” he said.

Some needs are already known. San Francisco will spend as much as $40 million to modify discharge pipes for treated wastewater to prevent bay water from flowing back into the system.

Even when state and local officials know what they want to do, they say they do not always get the cooperation they would like from the federal government. Many agencies have officially expressed a commitment to plan for climate change, but sometimes the results on the ground can be frustrating, said Ms. Minter of Vermont. For instance, she said, Vermont officials want to replace the old culverts with bigger ones. “We think it’s an opportunity to build back in a more robust way,” she said. But the Federal Emergency Management Agency wants to reuse the old culverts that washed out, or replace them with similar ones, she said.

Ms. Arroyo of Georgetown said the federal government must do more. “They are not acknowledging that the future will look different from the past,” she said, “and so we keep putting people and infrastructure in harm’s way.”

Matthew L. Wald reported from Washington, and John Schwartz from New York.

A version of this article appeared in print on July 26, 2012, on page A4 of the New York edition with the headline: Rise in Weather Extremes Threatens Infrastructure.

LWW wil be here soon to explain how it's all just a bunch of delusional, left wing B.S. and to encourage you to...

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/066/016/keep-calm-and-carry-on-original.jpg

cushioncrawler
07-28-2012, 04:45 PM
That broken concrete road duznt hav any reo in it. I havnt heard of that -- must be a new thing.

The pix shows another 2 lanes heading east. How kum?????

And thats a newizh roadway, hardly uzed.

The inside edgeline iz yellow. How kum?????

The centerline-reflector haz red reflectors facing east. How kum?????

There are 4 guys in the pix and only 2 are wearing a hat. So it must be the morning.

If morning, then it aint a pop-up problem, its a cracking-ground problem.

There a corrugations in the gravel next to the yellow line. So cars hav been going off the asphalt here for a while, obviously to avoid a bump that haz been developing there for a while. This casts a shadow over the maintenance department.

Lots of cars going east, few west. So the city bizness district must be east.

But the cars are not upmarket. So it iz not a Class A bizness district.

There are 4 shovels lying on the road, and 4 guys in the pix, so praps the backhoe operator took the pix.

Hundred year storms hav allways occurred allmost every year. It might sound wrong, but that iz the way that statistix works.
mac.

LWW
07-28-2012, 06:01 PM
Don't hate me because I have a clue.

LWW
07-28-2012, 06:05 PM
If the point of the article was that it's been hot and you are scared because people fear what they don't understand ... I concur.

DiabloViejo
07-29-2012, 12:03 AM
Tell me again about how you know all there is to know on the subject and how you really understand the science. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

Read 'em and weep chump! http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/

DiabloViejo
07-29-2012, 12:17 AM
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic</span>
By RICHARD A. MULLER
Published: July 28, 2012
The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=all)

Call me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project (http://berkeleyearth.org/) , which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.

These findings are stronger than those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations group that defines the scientific and diplomatic consensus on global warming. In its 2007 report, the I.P.C.C. concluded only that most of the warming of the prior 50 years could be attributed to humans. It was possible, according to the I.P.C.C. consensus statement, that the warming before 1956 could be because of changes in solar activity, and that even a substantial part of the more recent warming could be natural.

Our Berkeley Earth approach used sophisticated statistical methods developed largely by our lead scientist, Robert Rohde, which allowed us to determine earth land temperature much further back in time. We carefully studied issues raised by skeptics: biases from urban heating (we duplicated our results using rural data alone), from data selection (prior groups selected fewer than 20 percent of the available temperature stations; we used virtually 100 percent), from poor station quality (we separately analyzed good stations and poor ones) and from human intervention and data adjustment (our work is completely automated and hands-off). In our papers we demonstrate that none of these potentially troublesome effects unduly biased our conclusions.

The historic temperature pattern we observed has abrupt dips that match the emissions of known explosive volcanic eruptions; the particulates from such events reflect sunlight, make for beautiful sunsets and cool the earth’s surface for a few years. There are small, rapid variations attributable to El Nińo and other ocean currents such as the Gulf Stream; because of such oscillations, the “flattening” of the recent temperature rise that some people claim is not, in our view, statistically significant. What has caused the gradual but systematic rise of two and a half degrees? We tried fitting the shape to simple math functions (exponentials, polynomials), to solar activity and even to rising functions like world population. By far the best match was to the record of atmospheric carbon dioxide, measured from atmospheric samples and air trapped in polar ice.

Just as important, our record is long enough that we could search for the fingerprint of solar variability, based on the historical record of sunspots. That fingerprint is absent. Although the I.P.C.C. allowed for the possibility that variations in sunlight could have ended the “Little Ice Age,” a period of cooling from the 14th century to about 1850, our data argues strongly that the temperature rise of the past 250 years cannot be attributed to solar changes. This conclusion is, in retrospect, not too surprising; we’ve learned from satellite measurements that solar activity changes the brightness of the sun very little.

How definite is the attribution to humans? The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else we’ve tried. Its magnitude is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect — extra warming from trapped heat radiation. These facts don’t prove causality and they shouldn’t end skepticism, but they raise the bar: to be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as carbon dioxide does. Adding methane, a second greenhouse gas, to our analysis doesn’t change the results. Moreover, our analysis does not depend on large, complex global climate models, the huge computer programs that are notorious for their hidden assumptions and adjustable parameters. Our result is based simply on the close agreement between the shape of the observed temperature rise and the known greenhouse gas increase.

It’s a scientist’s duty to be properly skeptical. I still find that much, if not most, of what is attributed to climate change is speculative, exaggerated or just plain wrong. I’ve analyzed some of the most alarmist claims, and my skepticism about them hasn’t changed.

Hurricane Katrina cannot be attributed to global warming. The number of hurricanes hitting the United States has been going down, not up; likewise for intense tornadoes. Polar bears aren’t dying from receding ice, and the Himalayan glaciers aren’t going to melt by 2035. And it’s possible that we are currently no warmer than we were a thousand years ago, during the “Medieval Warm Period” or “Medieval Optimum,” an interval of warm conditions known from historical records and indirect evidence like tree rings. And the recent warm spell in the United States happens to be more than offset by cooling elsewhere in the world, so its link to “global” warming is weaker than tenuous.

The careful analysis by our team is laid out in five scientific papers now online at http://berkeleyearth.org/ . That site also shows our chart of temperature from 1753 to the present, with its clear fingerprint of volcanoes and carbon dioxide, but containing no component that matches solar activity. Four of our papers have undergone extensive scrutiny by the scientific community, and the newest, a paper with the analysis of the human component, is now posted, along with the data and computer programs used. Such transparency is the heart of the scientific method; if you find our conclusions implausible, tell us of any errors of data or analysis.

What about the future? As carbon dioxide emissions increase, the temperature should continue to rise. I expect the rate of warming to proceed at a steady pace, about one and a half degrees over land in the next 50 years, less if the oceans are included. But if China continues its rapid economic growth (it has averaged 10 percent per year over the last 20 years) and its vast use of coal (it typically adds one new gigawatt per month), then that same warming could take place in less than 20 years.

Science is that narrow realm of knowledge that, in principle, is universally accepted. I embarked on this analysis to answer questions that, to my mind, had not been answered. I hope that the Berkeley Earth analysis will help settle the scientific debate regarding global warming and its human causes. Then comes the difficult part: agreeing across the political and diplomatic spectrum about what can and should be done.


Richard A. Muller, a professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley, and a former MacArthur Foundation fellow, is the author, most recently, of “Energy for Future Presidents: The Science Behind the Headlines.”

<span style="color: #000099">OK, Dub will be around soon to respond in his usual manner. He won't let any facts or data get in the way or faze him!:</span> http://youtu.be/dcHWeAzoXd4 /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Cg_8knBHEyw/0.jpg

LWW
07-29-2012, 12:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DiabloViejo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Tell me again about how you know all there is to know on the subject and how you really understand the science. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

Read 'em and weep chump! http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/

</div></div>

Nobody understands all there is to know, and I don't need a report to know that it's bern hot.

Now ... did you read the report you linked to? We both know you didn't.

That being said, what are you asuming that this all means?

Qtec
07-29-2012, 01:58 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Etymology

The name Greenland comes from the early Scandinavian settlers. In the Icelandic sagas, it is said that Norwegian-born Erik the Red was exiled from Iceland for murder. He, along with his extended family and thralls, set out in ships to find a land rumored to lie to the northwest. After settling there, he named the land Grśnland ("Greenland"), <span style='font-size: 14pt'>supposedly in the hope that the pleasant name would attract settlers</span> </div></div>

ie, not true.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Greenland is, by area, the world's largest island.[7] With a population of 56,615 (January 2011 estimate) it is the least densely populated dependency or country in the world.[8] </div></div>

Why is that do you think. maybe because most of it is covered in ice?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/98/Greenland_ice_sheet_AMSL_thickness_map-en.png/351px-Greenland_ice_sheet_AMSL_thickness_map-en.png


Iceland has less ice!


Q



Q

Soflasnapper
07-29-2012, 12:12 PM
Does it hurt your noggin to consider that ... when viewed in a truly historic length of time, believe it or not this planet existed before we were born ... Greenland is returning to it's past climate with ths warming?


If Greenland were ice free, the two-mile thick ice atop it would be in the oceans, making the oceans about 30 feet higher, grossly flooding all coastal areas, and perhaps returning the inland sea to the heartland of America up the Mississippi River channel.

Considering that would destroy where some 80% of the population currently lives, and put a sizable fraction of the currently dry land well underwater, yes, actually, that does hurt my noggin.

Such a 'return to normal' would be catastrophic, as you appear to not understand in the slightest.

Just as you missed class the day it was explained that 'Greenland' was a trick used to name a frozen wasteland, to get people to go there.

If you want to see the results of this melt, google Greenland and roads washed out. Large torrents of water have blown out roads and bridges from this widespread melting's runoff.

LWW
07-29-2012, 12:53 PM
And what if this ice did melt?

You seem to be agreeing with me.

Now, if you see that as a bad thing ... how do you you propose that it be stopped?

Soflasnapper
07-29-2012, 02:50 PM
I am not agreeing with you.

This current surface melt is not the melting of all the ice, but the top layer, due to 42 degrees F temps there instead of the below freezing temps that are typical.

What would happen is what Gore's film showed as a worst case example, which he was pilloried for as fear-mongering, since at the time nobody was projecting that entire huge amount of ice in Greenland would melt in any near-term time frame.

What is frightening is that this worst case projection appears actually to be on its way, with far greater melt and resulting sea level rise than expected. In fact, that was one way 'critics' of the 'consensus' differed-- they thought that for political reasons, the projections were watered down (so to speak, LOL), lessened, and that they likely vastly understated what was happening.

Frankly, it is probably quite too late to stop this process, unless new methods of sequestering carbon, either natural methods (huge new growth of biomass to contain it), or artificial, are created, or other methods (particulate material in the air, or engineering a far higher albedo) can be brought to bear.

I think even if the embargoed new energy technologies were immediately brought into the market, and swiftly replaced all the older hydrocarbon burning (CO2 releasing) energy sources, that still wouldn't prevent a continuing overshoot of temps based on things already set in motion. Especially the methane releases from the ocean, and releases from the permafrost which turned out not so permanently frozen given that the polar regions are showing the largest heat increases over historical averages of any global areas.

cushioncrawler
07-29-2012, 03:54 PM
And, more importantly praps.
We kood all go veggy, and hav zero animals that farted methane.
Simple az that.
mac.

Grapenut
07-29-2012, 05:22 PM
Dinosaur farts never dissipate.

Kind of like government funded science projects.

Nut

llotter
07-29-2012, 06:46 PM
The answer to the post-warming flooding 'problem' is more gov. flood insurance. Problem solved.

LWW
07-30-2012, 02:20 AM
You are actually lose to figuring this out.

The global warming machinery started in motion about 100,000 years ago ... and nobody knws when it ends.

The only solution we have is our technology ... which the Goremons wish to strangle to death.

Qtec
07-30-2012, 02:41 AM
After whining about 'too much Govt', now you want Govt to step in?

Just go to your local friendly insurance Co, they will help you out at the lowest cost possible.

Q

LWW
07-30-2012, 04:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">After whining about 'too much Govt', now you want Govt to step in?

Just go to your local friendly insurance Co, they will help you out at the lowest cost possible.

Q </div></div>

You have no idea what the word "SARCASM" means, do you?

Sev
07-30-2012, 02:38 PM
I live over 1000 feet about sea level.
I'm not really concerned about a little low land flooding.
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

LWW
07-31-2012, 02:13 AM
People who believe their salvation can only come from fleets of coal and corn powered cars will cower in fear of whatever they are tod to cower in fear of.

Qtec
07-31-2012, 03:02 AM
Its you guys that are afraid. You are even afraid of your own democratically elected Govt!

"We need our guns because the British still might invade!"

Q......LOL

LWW
07-31-2012, 05:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Its you guys that are afraid. You are even afraid of your own democratically elected Govt!

"We need our guns because the British still might invade!"

Q......LOL </div></div>

We don't fear the Brits ... we fear the purpleshirts and other fascists.

Qtec
07-31-2012, 06:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> we fear the purpleshirts and other fascists. </div></div>

No you don't. You support the purpleshirts and other fascists. ie the present day Conservative party..

Q

Stretch
07-31-2012, 06:56 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Its you guys that are afraid. You are even afraid of your own democratically elected Govt!

"We need our guns because the British still might invade!"

Q......LOL </div></div>

We don't fear the Brits ... we fear the purpleshirts and other fascists. </div></div>

Can you be any more specific? St.