Human Health Effected By Co2. . .

T

TFinalshot

Guest
Study Links Adverse Human Health Effects to Increasing CO2 Emissions(January 3, 2008) ?

According to a study by a Stanford University researcher, increasing emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the most common anthropogenic greenhouse gas, cause temperature increases that in turn cause more air pollution, leading to adverse human health effects, including death.

The new study details how, for each increase of 1 degree Celsius caused by CO2, the resulting air pollution would lead annually to about a thousand additional deaths and many more cases of respiratory illness and asthma in the U.S. The study author, Mark Jacobson, used a computer model to determine the amounts of ozone and airborne particles that result from temperature increases caused by growth in CO2 emissions. He found links between air pollution and temperature increases caused by growth in CO2 emissions: higher temperatures due to CO2 increased the chemical rate of ozone production in urban areas; increased water vapor due to CO2-induced higher temperatures boosted chemical ozone production even more in urban areas; and where there was an increase in water vapor, particles that were present became more deadly, as they swelled from absorption of water. Jacobson then used a computer 4 model to project the impact on human health of more ozone and particle pollution.

[For further information: news-service.stanford.edu/news/2008/january9/co-010908.html]
 
Human health may or may not be affected by increasong CO2.

However there are two major assumptions.

1) increases in CO2 do infact cause increases in temperature.
While we are told there is a concensus that this is true, concensus is not science.

2) the model acuratley represents reality. As all scientist know no model is right, but some are better than others. So it is hard to say with any certainty if the model accuratley predicts effects, especially if it hasn't been validated (which it may or may not have been I don't know).
 
Big buck, you CANT show us one place where a scientist will prove that C02 does not cause warming. Sure, it's likely not the only cause, but it is a cause and effect relationship -- CO2 holds more heat energy. You can argue the physics of physics but unless you or your science friends are ready to challenge the fundamental laws of carbon, oxygen, and solar radiation, youre kinda in a pickle. The fact is, if you believe that there's no heating from C02 you are ignoring the real world physics of our solar system.

The cycling of carbon through living systems is not something to trifle with. In the network of feedbacks that make up the climate system, CO2 is a main driving force. This does not prove by itself that the greenhouse effect was responsible for the warming seen in the 20th century. And it does not say how much warming the rise of CO2 might bring in the future. What is however, beyond doubt is that the greenhouse effect is real, and it's carbon, oxygen and solar based.

But, for now, lets pretend you've managed to change the laws of physics, your first project should be to build the perpetual motion machine. Your second should be to completely rewrite the relationship between carbon, oxygen, and solar radiation . . .

Finally, I agree with you that modeling is tricky and difficult, and as you know, junk in = junk out. So, one must know more about the models etc. That said, you and I can and should be skeptical of the model, but unless we can show how and where the model is flawed, the only thing can be is skeptical. . .
 
First you guys wanna take our GUNS and now you want my KEG-ERATOR.......Stop global whinning!!!!!




If huntin is a sport.....Well your lookin at an athlete!
 
I dont know who you are referring too, but in fact, it is important to consider, or in the very least, know what other's are saying about global warming. I'm not saying one way or another, if it's good or bad on human health, but it is part of the puzzle and if ever there are to be good, common sense solutions it will take a good common understanding of the issues.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-08-08 AT 11:35AM (MST)[p]>I dont know who you are
>referring too, but in fact,
>it is important to consider,
>or in the very least,
>know what other's are saying
>about global warming. I'm
>not saying one way or
>another



C'mon T-F.....Everything you post is outa left field. I will say one thing (off topic) you definateley are making me re-think my loyalties to the government period, And second, cementing in just how important our second amendment rights are!




If huntin is a sport.....Well your lookin at an athlete!
 
I am not tring to argue with physics (we know a lot more about physics than any of the natural sciences), however there are complex interactions at the global level make it hard to determine the extent and magnitude of the effect that human caused rising CO2 levels will have (if any that are noticable) on global temperatures.

No I cannot nor am I tring to prove that human caused global climate change is real or infact false. However it has not been proven true either.

I am skeptical, very skeptical of this and any other human caused global climate change paper.

What really t's me off is that anyone skeptical of human caused global climate change is labled as a dummy with his head in the sand.

If I could build a perpetual motion machine I sure as heck wouldn't be wasting my time on the internet debating with you.
 
"The new study details how, for each increase of 1 degree Celsius caused by CO2"


And just how many degrees Celsius has this CO2 caused the world to warm?











It's Bush's fault!!!
 
The atmospheric composition breakdown is as follows:

Nitrogen N2 78.08%
Oxygen O2 20.95%
*Water H2O 0 to 4%
Argon Ar 0.93%
*Carbon Dioxide CO2 0.0360%
Neon Ne 0.0018%
Helium He 0.0005%
*Methane CH4 0.00017%
Hydrogen H2 0.00005%
*Nitrous Oxide N2O 0.00003%
*Ozone O3 0.000004%

So out of the air around us, .036% is C02. How much is it changing by ? Thousandths of a percent over 5 decades? Seriously??? A couple thousandths of a single percent over 50 years is causing wide spread warming and not some other factor???

BTW just as an FYI, the single greatest "green house gas" in the atmosphere is by several orders of magnatude, H20 or water. Those white puffy things you see floating up in the sky affects temperature greatly on this mudball.


-DallanC
 
Possible another case of poor researchers at Stanford looking for a way to get federal grants to conduct research for the next 20 years and support themselfs on tax payers money. The more you scream and convince the city liberals, the better chance of getting more money. Gee! I hope their research and findings are without any bias opinions that may effect their pocketbooks. If they are good enough at yelling "Doomsday is coming" they might make the millions that Al the "Gore" you has made.

RELH
 
Isn't there more money to be made by the energy companies if they can prove it's all a hoax? we all know they'd never lie to us so I'm waiting for their official word on the subject.
 
Dude don't you think we would be better not listening to anyone that has a vested interest in making money by promoting their theory. How about listening to some of the experts who do not work for energy companies, or seeking grant money for their pet projects that they must convince others it is worthy of funding.
There is a few scientists like that still out there, and most of them are leaning that it is a natural cycle based on what data that is available.
As for the energy companies making money, doesn't matter either way. One way keep selling oil, the other way, how fast do you think the oil firms, other big energy companies will buy up the solar companies and other forms of energy in order to control it & sell it to us at their price line. They have the bucks to do that!

RELH
 
"C'mon T-F.....Everything you post is outa left field."

then, in this instance, physics just got a political position, or the right-wing continues to ignore the physical truths . . . in fact, no is forcing you to believe anything, but, it is in our best interest to consider the various points of views and unless you have some evidence that things are not what they seem you have nothing more than faith. . .
 
What claims are those? if you're talking Co2 I'm no scientist but I suppose you are. if you're talking global warming in general I'm not scentist but the majority of the worlds scietist beleive there is a connection to human activity. again I don't know and don't claim to, isn't it funny how the hippies on one side and the energy companies along with the all knowing Bubbas on the other side are the only ones sure they've got a handle on it.

Roll the dice with your kids future if you're sure you know the truth, at age 46 it isn't going to have much effect in me so knock yourselves out.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-09-08 AT 09:43AM (MST)[p]Well I choose to consider all the evidence and as a senior scientist and formally a special assistance for the administrator of the office of air and radiation at EPA in Washington DC, (both for democrats and republicans) I do know exactly how the science works and I do know exactly how data, research and information is used to follow policy directives and become rules and regulations. It was my job to know. . .

Anyone who claims that all is a big conspiracy listens to way to much Hannidy and Orielly. I'd love to see some evidence of this conspiracy, if you have some evidence please, do us a favor and show it.

One of the projects that I saw go from data to policy was with mercury and if you think for one second that the people responsible for making decisions did not have access to all the data youre dumber than even I thought.

I've been in the middle of it on both sides of the isle, I've been in the discussion with Inhofe and his supporters, I've sat in meetings with the "experts" from NIH, ATSDR, and senior scientist from around the worlds, and with Exxon, and ford, and the major auto industries, and energy companies, I've seen the data and the science, I've been involved with the office of research and development, I've been there on the ground first hand and understand in detail, how it works. I'm not telling you to blindly believe me, but I would ask that if you are disagreeing or saying things that are controversial, and you have no experience or support for them, you must show us your proof and your qualifications, I dont like it anymore that you do, but if your not qualified in the scientific community NO POLITICIAN OR LAW MAKER would go to the floor of the house with your talking points. Again I'm not saying trust me, I am saying i've been there and what I see, while there are flaws, is as good a system as any in this world, and there is not, in my view, a conspiracy. . . I just dont see it, I'm open to other views, and I'd even change my own (as I did with the anti hunting issues) so, if someone here can show me the evidence, I'd sure consider it.

as they say, show me the money boyzzzzzzzzzzz . . .
 
"The new study details how, for each increase of 1 degree Celsius caused by CO2...."

I want to know how many degrees of Celsius has increased due to CO2.

I'll bet money that in another 20 years, these same global warming freaks will again be crying about another ice age like they were 30 years ago.









It's Bush's fault!!!
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-09-08 AT 10:35AM (MST)[p]
This science business is a process, it is not ever complete, new information and technology allows us to find new things and review the old and change the conclusions all the time. How to you think we wound up with a complete model of the genome? Hell, at one time we thought the earth was flat. . .

So, we should use science as ONE tool that helps us make decisions. It's one tool, just like economics, wood shop, and cowboying, it's a tool and when used together with others tools we try to make informed decisions. If the information that's going it is flawed, or worse, there is none, chances are that we will make mistakes. When new, better data is gathered due to new or previously unknown data is created or found, we use it if it is of proper quality. It would be idiotic to ignore new data, no matter what conclusions could or would be drawn from the new data.

Moreover, data quality assurance and quality control as well as data validation by objective, disinterested third parties who often dont even know what they are analyzing, they just follow a data validation procedure check the data and note discrepancies. Later that is information that will be used to develop some conclusions. It is very uncommon for real good research to get though without proper QA and data validations. . .

So, it's not perfect, our conclusions often change and so do should our minds from time to time if the evidence leads us in that direction. At the end of the day, what's the worse that can happen if we look at the data and make some attempts to mitigate? What's the worse that can happen if we ignore the facts and ignore altogether the issues because people like you say it's all a giant conspiracy?

You know it was just a few short years ago, that it was discovered that the scablands and gorge of the Columbia river, as well as flathead lake was created by ice dams and floods. . . Are we wrong today to make that conclusion when only a few years ago we thought that the wind created that landscape?

Get a grip, dont believe everything you read or hear, but dont close your mind to new information and new conclusions, in other words evolve or mankind will leave you behind. . .
 
I agree with you and most of your critics here get their talking points from Rush so go figure.

If it were just a money thing these scientist could get more money and faster on projects that are less controversial. the brainiacs I've met aren't driven by greed, if that was their motivation the wouldn't be working on an issue like global warming . greedy scienist looking for a grant is the most pathetic excuse I've ever heard, sure it can happen but not on this scale and not by the quality of the people envolved. I can't say they're 100% correct but to doubt their dedication to the truth just shows ignorance. they don't think like the average Bubba that's why they're a scientist, Bubbas just can't get a grip on that.
 
Well, we're back to who is getting the best press. Obviously it is Al Gore and his loyal minions.

There is a HUGE group of scientists who have formed a coalition called " Global Warming Petition Project".....punch it up. You will find over 19,000 scientists who say that global warming is NOT the end of the world.

Problem is, their information does not fit in with the gloom and doom people's agenda and as such, gets no press.

They are not denying the global warming facts, just disputing the detrimental effects.

It all depends on which side you take. Personnaly, I choose not to believe the "sky is falling".

Some thousands of years ago, a city was built, which is now under 90 feet of water off the Italian coast. I pretty much can guarantee that it wasn't BUILT under water. There are other structures off the Japanese coast.

Must have been less ocean in those days? In another thousand years, maybe that city can be reclaimed. So what? In the meantime, they might be able to grow peaches in Sweden.
 
I think what hes's saying is that,yes our actions do produce things that in larger quantities could have a drastic effect on the atmosphere. Personally I think its a convienent coincidence, Global warming and Global Cooling have been a natural occurance since the beggining of time......and they do have proof of that. JMO, Are "green" practices helping? Sure probably on some noticeable level. Point is we cant rely on fossil fuels forever as our main source of energy, and after that the energy companies will be pimpin something else......The liberals will be pissed about that, and find some reason....no matter how in-signifficant to shoot "it" down. That is also a never ending cycle. Hell, every thing is dangerous. Last year some lady died from drinking too much water :)




If huntin is a sport.....Well your lookin at an athlete!
 
So T if it is ALL about CO2. Then esplain to us why the temps are rising on the other planets near us in our solar system.......................hmmmmmm could it be a sun problem?
Have I not read somewhere that the sun is going through some changes right now, yes I am sure of it.

T back away from the Goracale.






?Justice consists not in being neutral between right and wrong, but in finding out the right and upholding it, wherever found, against the wrong.?
---Theodore Roosevelt,
 
The sound of crickets in the back ground



?Justice consists not in being neutral between right and wrong, but in finding out the right and upholding it, wherever found, against the wrong.?
---Theodore Roosevelt,
 
That's because you finally shut your trap and your now hearing the sound that exists between your ears. . .
 
>That's because you finally shut your
>trap and your now hearing
>the sound that exists between
>your ears. . .

I swear T you crack me up. LOL. Thanks for the laugh. :)



?Justice consists not in being neutral between right and wrong, but in finding out the right and upholding it, wherever found, against the wrong.?
---Theodore Roosevelt,
 
thats one the things I like about you 02, you always seem to know when it's just fun, you have a good sense of humor and that's cool!

Take care man,

Tony
 
You too T. I am still laughing. Thanks



?Justice consists not in being neutral between right and wrong, but in finding out the right and upholding it, wherever found, against the wrong.?
---Theodore Roosevelt,
 
it would not do any good my friend, for any answer that I would give would be a liberal conspiracy, find your own answers, according you there's no problems anyhow so move along . . .
 
"it would not do any good my friend, for any answer that I would give would be a liberal conspiracy, find your own answers, according you there's no problems anyhow so move along . . . "


Thanks T, you have proven my point. When you ask a liberal a specific question to back up a claim, they cannot provide facts to prove what they are saying. But, I always knew that.













It's Bush's fault!!!
 
>"it would not do any good
>my friend, for any answer
>that I would give would
>be a liberal conspiracy, find
>your own answers, according you
>there's no problems anyhow so
>move along . . .
>"
>
>
>Thanks T, you have proven my
>point. When you ask a
>liberal a specific question to
>back up a claim, they
>cannot provide facts to prove
>what they are saying. But,
>I always knew that.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>It's Bush's fault!!!

Exactly, talk about ducking the question. Come on mister "senior scientist" answer the DANG question! Also answer please, why the temp is rising at the same rate on other planets in our solar system. Is it because of all the automobles on Jupiter/Saturn/Mars/Venus? Please 'enlighten' us mr senior scientist.

PRO


Define, develop, and sustain BOTH trophy and opportunity hunts throughout the state of Utah.
 
That's a mighty good point since the conservative's track record is SO good. why don't you prove it's wrong?
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-10-08 AT 04:26PM (MST)[p]"why the temp is rising at the same rate on other planets in our solar system."

OH MY GOD PRO! Do you realize what you have just created? You are now the official spokesperson of UNIVERSAL WARMING:) This is no longer a global issue. By god we better do something about the entire universe now.

Oh no, what are we gonna do?


Dude,
I shouldn't have to prove its wrong for the same reason you would ask me to prove something I claimed. I would like to thank you as well, because you too have proven my point with your response. THANK YOU!











It's Bush's fault!!!
 
So dude, if I make a crazy wild claim, is it my responsiblity to 'prove' it or yours tp 'prove' it wrong? I say those who make the claims have the bigger burden on being able to 'prove' the claims are FACT and not just some socialistic plan to re-distribute wealth among countries.

PRO

Define, develop, and sustain BOTH trophy and opportunity hunts throughout the state of Utah.
 
I'll remember the fact the burden of proof falls on the one making the claims next time I ask you to prove the war in Iraq has made us any safer.

I really don't care that much about global warming I just like to argue, none of us are qualified or have the information to say yes or no anyway . I don't have any kids and I have 35 years at best left so knock yourselves out, if you screw up the planet I'll say I told you so, if you don't you saved me some money.
 
I was not throwing in your face the fact that I'm a scientist I was pointing out that the policy makers only can cite qualified scientist no matter what their position might be. I dont make the rules, but I do have to live by them, well most of them.

In any event, I dont claim to have all the answers and not does anyone on this subject, however I do believe, based on the physics of matter and what I know about how the different layers of the earths atmosphere operate in conjunction with the sun, other chemicals, and the earth itself, that man is having some influence on the changing climate. How much is not yet known to me, how much would we need to do in order to change the current trend is also something that I do not know. What I do know is that most of what we can do to mitigate the emission of co2 we should do no matter what the climate is telling us. . .
 
>I'll remember the fact the burden
>of proof falls on the
>one making the claims next
>time I ask you to
>prove the war in Iraq
>has made us any safer.
>
>
> I really don't care that
>much about global warming I
>just like to argue, none
>of us are qualified or
>have the information to say
>yes or no anyway .
>I don't have any kids
>and I have 35 years
>at best left so knock
>yourselves out, if you screw
>up the planet I'll say
>I told you so, if
>you don't you saved me
>some money.


You are hilarious Dude LMAO, you managed to take a global warming thread and mix in the war in Iraq. Briliant. LMAO. Well at least you are honest. I like to argue as well. LOL. I swear......Dude that is funny right there.

My issue is exactly what Pro said. Global warming despite what T may think is all about redistrabution of wealth. It has absolutly nothing to do with what is really going on with our climate. There is no way you can convince me that the industrial revolution is having a major impact on our climate when all it takes is 1 (thats one) volcano explosion and it pours more bad stuff into the air than 100 years of smoke stacks and cars. This planet has been on the change since God made it and it is quite arrogant to think that MAN cange alter it. When we are all long gone Earth will still be ticking right along. If it is not it will be of its own demise (self destruction)


?Justice consists not in being neutral between right and wrong, but in finding out the right and upholding it, wherever found, against the wrong.?
---Theodore Roosevelt,
 
I'll bet you wouldn't sit in a sealed up garage with your pickup running would you? why not man can't change the environment. we've already changed the environment, go to Mexico or China and choose which river you want to drink from. I suppose god is OK with water pollution but he draws the line at global warming and air polution?
 
Dude try and keep up here. We are talking about Global Warming not water polution or trying to off your self in the garage. Geez.

The earth is not fragile Dude. It is one bad mo fo and has great recuperating abilities. God did not put this planet in place to be taken out by man. Dude long after man is extinct the planet will still be here good as gold.



?Justice consists not in being neutral between right and wrong, but in finding out the right and upholding it, wherever found, against the wrong.?
---Theodore Roosevelt,
 
Everything is on scale, how many billion tons of fossil fuels do we need to burn to knock something out of whack? there is a number just like the pickup in your garage. question is have we reached that point, are we about to or will we ever. I don't buy your god theory I believe man is responsible for his own actions, so if global warming is man caused we need to act now, if it's a natural event we'll adapt or die the dinosaurs thats nature. after all man is just a mammal at the top of the food chain, if a deer is too dumb to come out of the high country in the winter he dies, if we're to dumb to protect out planet we die,cause and effects.
 
You forgot to add: If we are so arrogant to believe we can control the climate, here and throughout the solar system we deserve what we get. I am STILL waiting as are others for TF and/or dud to explain the "global warming" of the other planets in our solar system, they are warming at the same or higher rates than the earth. Maybe Al Gore should fly up to those planets and buy some carbon credits there to 'solve' the warming problem on Uranus. Just a thought.

PRO

Define, develop, and sustain BOTH trophy and opportunity hunts throughout the state of Utah.
 
I know nothing of the issues with which you speak. I think it sounds interesting. Let me get this straight, youre using information that you got from who knows where but lets agree that the public paid for it, but yet youre doubting the data and information about global warming paid for with the same money, you must also be one of those Intelligence estimates doubters but only when it suits you. . .

I hope for our sake that the government keeps funding the research for it. Oh ya, I'm sure that it was public money that funded that research, where would you be with your argument without it?

Should we now take your advice and ignore it as conspiracy, or should be spend more money on the research? I'm inclined to look more into the information and support continued study, because if the studys can show that indeed there is no impact on earth - God only know's how that can be -- than it would potentially save us some effort. Nonetheless, conservation is the real issue, lets stop trying to justify our overuse and abuse of resources, just conserve more and then you can call yourself a true conservative.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-11-08 AT 11:45AM (MST)[p] There is a huge difference between control and effect. you can have an effect on your chances of getting cancer by your lifestyle but you can't control it, the climate may be the same.

How detailed and how long of history do we have on these other planets to track their warming pattern? enough to say we can draw a parallel? you're grasping at straws pro, let the Martians worry about their own problems.
 
Bottom line is 100 years of pollution, with about 50 of those years minor pollution, is NOT going to change a process that is 4.5 billion years old.












It's Bush's fault!!!
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-11-08 AT 11:57AM (MST)[p]and where is your scientific basis for that statement?

It took 50 million years to create man, we can kill one in the blink of an eye. . . It took 1 billion years to create the landscape we now see, we can in a blink of an eye wipe out entire populations and ruin massive bodies of water. . . I dont know where youre getting your theory's but if you dont mind, lets stick to reality ay. . .

What do you then think of thermo-nuclear-war, think that could change things a bit, like overnight?

Get a grip. . .
 
I am not the one grasping at straws. You and TF and the other kool-aid drinkers have intentionally avoided answering the VALID questions asked of you 'wise ones', I wonder why that is.

TF, I haven't, nor have I read others, advocating not conserving or being 'true conseravtionists'. But, because we are NOT willing to change our entire way of life and go back to horse and buggy, doesn't mean we don't care about the 'health' of Mother Earth. Just because we don't fall for the AGENDA driven 'science' and chose to listen to ALL sides instead of only ONE side, does not mean we have ignored the 'truth', it simply means we/I see a different 'truth' than you do. There are more and more RESPECTED scientists coming forward EVERY week disputing the causes of global warming and the EFFECTS of the current warming trend and the historical EVIDENCE that shows this is a 'normal' cycle in the earth's history. What is it that leads you to believe a 1-2 degree change in temp is unprecedented and/or not good for the 'health' of the earth and it's occupants? The studies I have read say a cooling is much worse to mankind than a warming period. The arrogance to believe we can/should step in and alter 'NORMAL' warming/cooling trends is nonsensical.

PRO

Define, develop, and sustain BOTH trophy and opportunity hunts throughout the state of Utah.
 
>I wish Utah would put up
>a fence. . .
and keep do gooder liberals out!

I agree!

PRO


Define, develop, and sustain BOTH trophy and opportunity hunts throughout the state of Utah.
 
lets change this a bit, and focus on post 46 for a minute. for those that say the data collection is a conspiracy, what of your new conclusions about other planets and their warming, falls within the same conspiracy?
 
I'll type slow for you.

I am NOT denying that the earth has warmed, I AM disputing the causes of it, and what we can do about it. Those pushing this crap on us want us to change our way of life. Look at what they are advocating for cripes sake. They want to punish big business and America directly, and as I and others have stated before, redistribute wealth from one country to another and one individual to another. Socialism at it's WORST. Al Gore flys around in private chartered jets, lives in mansionS, blows hot air every time he opens his pie hole, and then he dares tell me I need to park my Superduty to "do my part". WTH?? If America were to implement the recommendations of Koyoto and what Al spew forth, our economy would go right down the crapper, exactly as they desire.

My point on the other planets warming is; it should 'expose' the silliness of believing man is the cause/cure for the current warm trend. When you come up with a way to 'control' the temp of the sun and the rest of the solar system, then I will drink the kool-aid.

PRO

Define, develop, and sustain BOTH trophy and opportunity hunts throughout the state of Utah.
 
Here are 2 VERY simple questions for Tfinal:

1. Did you read where Pro said he believes the climate is warming but disputes the cause?

2. Do you understand question #1??

JB
 
yea T

LMAO



?Justice consists not in being neutral between right and wrong, but in finding out the right and upholding it, wherever found, against the wrong.?
---Theodore Roosevelt,
 
"I dont know where youre getting your theory's but if you dont mind, lets stick to reality ay."

Reality is humans are not creating this global warming.


I too agree that the earth is warming. But not at a rate that it will kill everything. And not because of humans. You are going to sit there and tell me that this is the first time in 4.5 billion years the earth has warmed a degree or two? Talk about sticking to reality.








It's Bush's fault!!!
 
I refuse, until forced economically, to alter my lifestyle in any fashion, just because some runt in Kyoto don't have a 4X4.

If they don't like their lifestyle........move!

I am sick of all these "sky is falling", hand wringing liberals, whining about how we need to become "One Community" and save the planet. From what?

I don't buy into the "problem".

Do I use more than my "world share" of fossil fuel? Damn right , and I pay for it too.

I have four 4X4's....I'll give one to anyone in Kyoto who wants to come get it......if you promise to get off my ass and leave me alone!
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

IMG_1889.jpeg
IMG_5767.jpeg
Screenshot_20240117_040735_Instagram.jpg
IMG_0824.jpeg
MFDC0238.JPG
54545.jpeg
11-9-08 007.jpg
IMG_4238.JPG
20171202_090306.jpg
IMG_5103 copy.jpg
fb3-2-17.JPG
78014210-B982-4F8C-9002-59BCC26118A7.jpeg
Back
Top Bottom