BBC: global warming sceptics may have been right...

Talk about everything else besides Stratovarius here in English. Please try to put more serious topics here, and silly topics in the Spam section.

Global Warming

Reality
26
79%
Bullshit
7
21%
 
Total votes: 33

User avatar
black death
Sr. Member
Posts: 1548
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 9:14 am
Location: Czech Republic

Re: BBC: global warming sceptics may have been right...

Post by black death » Sat Oct 13, 2007 6:42 pm

Yeah, there are many who deserve the price much more than somebody :P
Nothing agains Al Gore, I just doubt that Nobel PEACE Price is the right price for him and his activities. Maybe he should gain another price...

P.S. Consensus is consensus, if something's not consensus, it can be "vast majority" or something else... Of course TOTAL consensus can't exist among billins of people (or thousands of scientists and "scientists") who all have their own opinion about such matters as global warming. And that's why I'd be careful to say that there's consensus about it.
Defending the scientific consensus from vested interests.
:? :? :?

User avatar
NeonVomit
Sr. Member
Posts: 4628
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 5:36 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: BBC: global warming sceptics may have been right...

Post by NeonVomit » Sat Oct 13, 2007 9:06 pm

Ghandi was going to be awarded it, but was assassinated before it was announced. It is not awarded posthumously. There was no Nobel peace prize given that year.


From dictionary.com:

con·sen·sus /kənˈsɛnsəs/

1. majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month.
2. general agreement or concord; harmony.
"Beneath the freezing sky arrives Winter's Verge..."

http://www.wintersverge.com


I'm going to hell, and loving the ride!

User avatar
black death
Sr. Member
Posts: 1548
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 9:14 am
Location: Czech Republic

Re: BBC: global warming sceptics may have been right...

Post by black death » Sat Oct 13, 2007 9:31 pm

from Oxford dictionary :wink:

con•sen•sus /knsenss/ noun [sing., U] ~ (among sb)| ~ (about sth)| ~ (that ... ) an opinion that all members of a group agree with:

User avatar
browneyedgirl
Sr. Member
Posts: 27239
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2002 6:00 pm
Location: Starfall
Contact:

Re: BBC: global warming sceptics may have been right...

Post by browneyedgirl » Sun Oct 14, 2007 12:51 am

I don't really have an argument against Al winning, congrats to him&more power to him. But, this is a peace prize&the results have been anything but! :D For example, have you checked out the BBC messageboard,"Have Your Say?" People on both sides of the issue are flaming and cussing one another, the likes of immature 5-year olds. It's funny&at the same time, disgusting. Arguing is one thing, but ripping someone into pieces over an issue is quite another! Calling someone an idiot and worse just because they do not agree with you. Yhats really going to change someone's position.:roll:
People have the right to believe in Global Warming, but people have the right NOT to believe if they choose. Thats what true freedom is all about.
"Your life is yours, and yours alone. Rise up and live it!"

Bob: I don't believe in God.
Archangel Michael: That's OK, Bob, because He doesn't believe in you, either!~Legion~

User avatar
Carcass
Sr. Member
Posts: 1186
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 10:41 am
Location: Finland

Re: BBC: global warming sceptics may have been right...

Post by Carcass » Sun Oct 14, 2007 1:34 am

Sounds like hair splitting.

User avatar
miditek
Sr. Member
Posts: 2045
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 4:59 am

Re: BBC: global warming sceptics may have been right...

Post by miditek » Sun Oct 14, 2007 7:57 pm

browneyedgirl wrote:I don't really have an argument against Al winning, congrats to him&more power to him.


If it makes Al happy to get his prize, then yes, I also say more power to him and let him have it. I still don't get what he's actually done to advance world peace in practice- theories are great, but successful implementation is the real challenge.

Quite frankly, I'm rather tired of his whining and complaining, (I guess I'll nickname him Al the Green Vox Wah Pedal this week! :lol: ) and would give real money if he would simply shut up, at a minimum, for just one month. He's not green in the eco sense (it takes $650.00 per month in electricity just to heat his pool house, for Pete's sake!), but green with envy that he didn't get to be president.

Then he wants to throw out 230 years of Constitutional law because he didn't like the outcome of what was admittedly an unusual, but not unprecedented Electoral College result. If the roles had been reversed, Gore would have, of course, fought tooth and nail to defend the Electoral College and electors.
browneyedgirl wrote:But, this is a peace prize&the results have been anything but! :D


I'm actually quite surprised that they didn't give Ahmandinejad the Nobel prize during his recent visits to the UN and Columbia University. That idiot thinks that the best way to ensuring world peace is to "simply" get rid of Israel. No one needs to worry about arable land/water or anything like that. I think that- unless a person has been under a rock for the last 20 or more years, it's fairly evident where the trouble begins..and will end.
browneyedgirl wrote:For example, have you checked out the BBC messageboard,"Have Your Say?" People on both sides of the issue are flaming and cussing one another, the likes of immature 5-year olds.


I've always thought that loud and excessive profanities and insults, as an everyday behavior, just positively screams poor, (x) trash- such as the classic poor white trash. It's also a sign of a not-so-good upbringing, and is really unacceptable in most social and business situations. I've rarely seen it impress anyone or at any time.
browneyedgirl wrote:It's funny&at the same time, disgusting. Arguing is one thing, but ripping someone into pieces over an issue is quite another! Calling someone an idiot and worse just because they do not agree with you. Yhats really going to change someone's position.:roll:


As atonement, I think that the BBC should have to make a "Top Ten Slap List" of the worst trolls in that thread, publish their private identities, and then let everyone else rip them (or at least their computers, heheheh)- to shreds by sending them worms, trojans, rootkits, attack scripts, - the works(!), etc. for being such brave little keyboard warriors! A nice virtual playground style ass whipping, and it'll teach them a valuable lesson in manners, and should at least make them check their poor social skills! :D
browneyedgirl wrote:People have the right to believe in Global Warming, but people have the right NOT to believe if they choose. Thats what true freedom is all about.
:lol:

A-men to that! :)
Κύριε ἐλέησον

User avatar
NeonVomit
Sr. Member
Posts: 4628
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 5:36 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: BBC: global warming sceptics may have been right...

Post by NeonVomit » Sun Oct 14, 2007 8:32 pm

Bottom line: most scientists agree that something is happening.

And I guess you're free not to believe in climate change, like you're free to not believe in God. Personally, I find there to be more proof of climate change than God.

Al Gore is saying we have to be more careful with the environment.

Lessening pollution and emissions... how is that a bad thing? That is what he's advocating. As for economic damage, by making our processes and daily lives more fuel-efficient, we actually save money. Sure it's going to need a change in lifestyle, but would you rather risk not taking any action?

Do you think we should continue poisoning the earth's seas and skies?
"Beneath the freezing sky arrives Winter's Verge..."

http://www.wintersverge.com


I'm going to hell, and loving the ride!

User avatar
black death
Sr. Member
Posts: 1548
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 9:14 am
Location: Czech Republic

Re: BBC: global warming sceptics may have been right...

Post by black death » Sun Oct 14, 2007 10:00 pm

I said nothing against Al Gore and his activities (aside from what I think about it). Nor I'm saying that he's doing something bad. And I'm not saying that there's no climate change (just a little doubt if the change is as huge as some try to thrust upon us).
I can't see any reason why Al Gore shouldn't be awarded for his activities. But is really Nobel PEACE Price the right one??

I just can't see any connection between Al Gore's activities and world peace. If there is some, it's toooooooooooooo unclear :?.

User avatar
Carcass
Sr. Member
Posts: 1186
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 10:41 am
Location: Finland

Re: BBC: global warming sceptics may have been right...

Post by Carcass » Sun Oct 14, 2007 10:05 pm

NeonVomit wrote:Do you think we should continue poisoning the earth's seas and skies?
Does it matter? Armageddon's here, remember?

User avatar
miditek
Sr. Member
Posts: 2045
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 4:59 am

Re: BBC: global warming sceptics may have been right...

Post by miditek » Sun Oct 14, 2007 11:32 pm

NeonVomit wrote:Lessening pollution and emissions... how is that a bad thing? That is what he's advocating. As for economic damage, by making our processes and daily lives more fuel-efficient, we actually save money. Sure it's going to need a change in lifestyle, but would you rather risk not taking any action? Do you think we should continue poisoning the earth's seas and skies?
Gore isn't practicing what he's preaching. I'm sure that you saw the copy of his $30k per year electric bills, as well as all of the other fuel guzzling things in his life- such as Delta Frequent Flyer miles, GMC Suburban Secret Service convoys and other eco no-no's! Then he wants to pay a "penalty" in order to purchase "green" credits in order to make himself look like less of the ulta-consumptive hypocrite that he is!
Κύριε ἐλέησον

User avatar
browneyedgirl
Sr. Member
Posts: 27239
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2002 6:00 pm
Location: Starfall
Contact:

Re: BBC: global warming sceptics may have been right...

Post by browneyedgirl » Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:48 am

Carcass wrote:
NeonVomit wrote:Do you think we should continue poisoning the earth's seas and skies?
Does it matter? Armageddon's here, remember?
The skies&seas are crystal clear compared to when Wormwood strikes! ;)

We all should do what we can in our own world that we live in. There are plenty of things we can do to help the environment. Little things add up. It comes down to common sense. Its a shame laws have to be passed to force people to do the right thing, but que sera sera, thats how it is. And, miditek does have a point about Gore's lifestyle. I'm not saying Al should live in a one room shack&ride his bike to work, but excess is excess no matter who does it!
"Your life is yours, and yours alone. Rise up and live it!"

Bob: I don't believe in God.
Archangel Michael: That's OK, Bob, because He doesn't believe in you, either!~Legion~

User avatar
Carcass
Sr. Member
Posts: 1186
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 10:41 am
Location: Finland

Re: BBC: global warming sceptics may have been right...

Post by Carcass » Mon Oct 15, 2007 9:08 am

miditek wrote:
NeonVomit wrote:Lessening pollution and emissions... how is that a bad thing? That is what he's advocating. As for economic damage, by making our processes and daily lives more fuel-efficient, we actually save money. Sure it's going to need a change in lifestyle, but would you rather risk not taking any action? Do you think we should continue poisoning the earth's seas and skies?
Gore isn't practicing what he's preaching. I'm sure that you saw the copy of his $30k per year electric bills, as well as all of the other fuel guzzling things in his life- such as Delta Frequent Flyer miles, GMC Suburban Secret Service convoys and other eco no-no's! Then he wants to pay a "penalty" in order to purchase "green" credits in order to make himself look like less of the ulta-consumptive hypocrite that he is!
Yes, but do you think we should continue poisoning the earth's seas and skies?

User avatar
NeonVomit
Sr. Member
Posts: 4628
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 5:36 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: BBC: global warming sceptics may have been right...

Post by NeonVomit » Mon Oct 15, 2007 9:20 am

Carcass wrote:
NeonVomit wrote:Do you think we should continue poisoning the earth's seas and skies?
Does it matter? Armageddon's here, remember?
Right, I forgot about that. Never mind.
"Beneath the freezing sky arrives Winter's Verge..."

http://www.wintersverge.com


I'm going to hell, and loving the ride!

User avatar
NeonVomit
Sr. Member
Posts: 4628
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 5:36 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: BBC: global warming sceptics may have been right...

Post by NeonVomit » Mon Oct 15, 2007 9:23 am

miditek wrote:
NeonVomit wrote:Lessening pollution and emissions... how is that a bad thing? That is what he's advocating. As for economic damage, by making our processes and daily lives more fuel-efficient, we actually save money. Sure it's going to need a change in lifestyle, but would you rather risk not taking any action? Do you think we should continue poisoning the earth's seas and skies?
Gore isn't practicing what he's preaching. I'm sure that you saw the copy of his $30k per year electric bills, as well as all of the other fuel guzzling things in his life- such as Delta Frequent Flyer miles, GMC Suburban Secret Service convoys and other eco no-no's! Then he wants to pay a "penalty" in order to purchase "green" credits in order to make himself look like less of the ulta-consumptive hypocrite that he is!
You're avoiding the real issue at hand just to critisize Gore.

Is raising awareness and provoking discussion and debate about these issues a bad thing? Or something praiseworthy?
"Beneath the freezing sky arrives Winter's Verge..."

http://www.wintersverge.com


I'm going to hell, and loving the ride!

User avatar
miditek
Sr. Member
Posts: 2045
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 4:59 am

Re: BBC: global warming sceptics may have been right...

Post by miditek » Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:34 pm

NeonVomit wrote:
miditek wrote:
NeonVomit wrote:Lessening pollution and emissions... how is that a bad thing? That is what he's advocating. As for economic damage, by making our processes and daily lives more fuel-efficient, we actually save money. Sure it's going to need a change in lifestyle, but would you rather risk not taking any action? Do you think we should continue poisoning the earth's seas and skies?
Gore isn't practicing what he's preaching. I'm sure that you saw the copy of his $30k per year electric bills, as well as all of the other fuel guzzling things in his life- such as Delta Frequent Flyer miles, GMC Suburban Secret Service convoys and other eco no-no's! Then he wants to pay a "penalty" in order to purchase "green" credits in order to make himself look like less of the ulta-consumptive hypocrite that he is!
You're avoiding the real issue at hand just to critisize Gore.

Is raising awareness and provoking discussion and debate about these issues a bad thing? Or something praiseworthy?
What Gore is doing is coronating himself as a god of a junk/science religion called global warming. If awareness is to be raised, then that's all fine and dandy, but perhaps could we at least consider another spokesman or poster child other than this nitwit? He's more or less like an alcoholic parent that chastises a teenager for drinking with: "Do as I say; not as I do."
Κύριε ἐλέησον

User avatar
NeonVomit
Sr. Member
Posts: 4628
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 5:36 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: BBC: global warming sceptics may have been right...

Post by NeonVomit » Mon Oct 15, 2007 6:41 pm

miditek wrote:
What Gore is doing is coronating himself as a god of a junk/science religion called global warming.
We know where you stand with regards to him. I'm asking about the real issue at hand, which is above any political affiliation.

So you do not believe that the world is in danger? That everything will be just fine if we just carry on the way we are now?
"Beneath the freezing sky arrives Winter's Verge..."

http://www.wintersverge.com


I'm going to hell, and loving the ride!

User avatar
browneyedgirl
Sr. Member
Posts: 27239
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2002 6:00 pm
Location: Starfall
Contact:

Re: BBC: global warming sceptics may have been right...

Post by browneyedgirl » Tue Oct 16, 2007 4:03 am

Carcass wrote: Yes, but do you think we should continue poisoning the earth's seas and skies?
No, but look at reality. As long as the world's people loves their gadgets, technology, colored clothing, processed food&modern lifestyle there is going to be pollution as a result coming from the factories responsible for giving us the modern age. Wanna go back to the alternative? :? I thought so. Of course, horseback riding is healthy&you could use its waste to fertilize the hayfield to power/feed it. :? And candles are very romantic, just don't forget to blow them out when you go to bed on your corn shulk mattress. :?
China is going to become the biggest producer of pollution because their manufacturing of goods to export has increased tremendously. Look at stuff you buy now whether its clothes, toys, gadgets, household appliances etc, etc, and odds are it will have stamped, "Made in China".
If the USA signs the Kyoto agreement that will be a start, but it cannot do it all. Once again, the answer lies with you&I doing our part! And it will never be enough.

No, we should not continue to poison our air&water, and instead of asking simple rhetorical questions do you have any solutions?
"Your life is yours, and yours alone. Rise up and live it!"

Bob: I don't believe in God.
Archangel Michael: That's OK, Bob, because He doesn't believe in you, either!~Legion~

User avatar
Carcass
Sr. Member
Posts: 1186
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 10:41 am
Location: Finland

Re: BBC: global warming sceptics may have been right...

Post by Carcass » Tue Oct 16, 2007 7:39 am

Reducing pollution and CO2 emissions does not mean we would have to go back to the Middle Ages, okay? You can take the bus or the tube instead of the horse. Changing your light bulb to a less energy consuming alternative is enough, no need for candles.

User avatar
black death
Sr. Member
Posts: 1548
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 9:14 am
Location: Czech Republic

Re: BBC: global warming sceptics may have been right...

Post by black death » Tue Oct 16, 2007 9:26 am

It's very interesting how this discussion goes on...began with global warming, contiued with Britney :lol: , BBC messageboard, Al Gore and Nobel Price, Armageddon and even China...
But it doesn't change anything on the fact that NOBODY has explained me clearly enough the connection between world peace and Al Gore's activities :? .

Oh shit, once again I have a question to what nobody gives me satisfactory answer :roll:.

Anyway, everybody can choose if he/she wants to do something for the nature and our environment, or not. And I am FOR it! (I mean reducing emmissions, recycling, saving energy...). But the question is how much worthy is if just a few people (it's no good to entertain false hopes that it'll be majority) will really follow what Al Gore and similar "preachers" are saying (especially when they themselves do NOT do it!) :? .
I'm afraid it's a carousel that we can't stop any more. And I will use somebody else's :shock: words to sum it all up:
The future will show what happens to our world.
And we can influence it only a little bit...

User avatar
NeonVomit
Sr. Member
Posts: 4628
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 5:36 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: BBC: global warming sceptics may have been right...

Post by NeonVomit » Tue Oct 16, 2007 11:30 am

black death wrote: But it doesn't change anything on the fact that NOBODY has explained me clearly enough the connection between world peace and Al Gore's activities :?

Oh shit, once again I have a question to what nobody gives me satisfactory answer :roll:.
It has been explained.

The Nobel Committe explaned that most of the future wars will probably occur over resources such as arable land and clean water if climate change really takes hold. By raising awareness and therefore potentially preventing it from happening, or to the serious degree feared, future wars may be prevented.
"Beneath the freezing sky arrives Winter's Verge..."

http://www.wintersverge.com


I'm going to hell, and loving the ride!

User avatar
black death
Sr. Member
Posts: 1548
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 9:14 am
Location: Czech Republic

Re: BBC: global warming sceptics may have been right...

Post by black death » Tue Oct 16, 2007 12:13 pm

I don't want to repeat myself, but the explanation that a price (any price, not just this one) is awarded for something what will PROBABLY occure in the future is not satisfactory. It's not important if you say that it'll occur "probably" or "maybe" or whatever else. Nobody knows it! One can get this price when the thing he's fighting against occurs, not before that.

Why was Fleming awarded by the Nobel Price AFTER he discovered penicillin?? Why not before? He'd discovered enzyme lysozyme before he discovered penicillin. Why didn't the Nobel committee awarded him in the time between those two discoveries and explained it like "He's well-known and recognized authority and he discovered enzyme lysozyme, he'll PROBABLY discover something else in the future."??
Stupid, isn't it?? It has a lot in common with Al Gore's price...

User avatar
Carcass
Sr. Member
Posts: 1186
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 10:41 am
Location: Finland

Re: BBC: global warming sceptics may have been right...

Post by Carcass » Tue Oct 16, 2007 1:47 pm

Well, if you don't like the awarded you can always create your own foundation. This is not the UN that is choosing who wins the prize and who doesn't. It's the Swedes, except for the peace prize, which is awarded by a Norwegian committee.

The peace prize is a farce anyway when you look at who have been awarded in the past. Hell, even my father has been awarded (he was a UN-peacekeeper), and he is not known for being a proponent of peace! :lol:

User avatar
NeonVomit
Sr. Member
Posts: 4628
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 5:36 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: BBC: global warming sceptics may have been right...

Post by NeonVomit » Tue Oct 16, 2007 2:20 pm

black death wrote:I don't want to repeat myself, but the explanation that a price (any price, not just this one) is awarded for something what will PROBABLY occure in the future is not satisfactory.
Maybe not satisfactory to you, but the committe decided it was for them. They're the ones who made the decision... and maybe they felt that the issue needs to be seen as a serious priority as well. Whatever happened, they sparked even more debate and discussion on the issue of the environment, which is, again, a good thing.
"Beneath the freezing sky arrives Winter's Verge..."

http://www.wintersverge.com


I'm going to hell, and loving the ride!

User avatar
black death
Sr. Member
Posts: 1548
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 9:14 am
Location: Czech Republic

Re: BBC: global warming sceptics may have been right...

Post by black death » Tue Oct 16, 2007 4:13 pm

Not satisfactory to many people, I guess. Look at the comments here (down on the page): http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10 ... sr=hotnews

One for all: "Congratulations to Mr. Gore. Shame on the Nobel Peace Prize committee."

How many pro-Gore comments will you find?? An accident? :shake:
Carcass wrote:The peace prize is a farce anyway when you look at who have been awarded in the past. Hell, even my father has been awarded (he was a UN-peacekeeper), and he is not known for being a proponent of peace! :lol:
Yeah, for example IAEA, or the woman (I don't remember her name) planting the trees in Kenya, who was awarded a few years ago (of course it's praiseworthy activity, but what is it relation to world peace?)...or that writer......Yasser Arafat was also quite disputable :roll: . There's more of them...including Al Gore.

User avatar
Carcass
Sr. Member
Posts: 1186
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 10:41 am
Location: Finland

Re: BBC: global warming sceptics may have been right...

Post by Carcass » Tue Oct 16, 2007 5:14 pm

I personally can't understand why people whine, the criteria for the Nobel Peace Prize have always been very broad.

What's wrong with IAEA being awarded? This is an organization that is trying to prevet nuclear technology from being used to build weapons. The criteria do not include that the awarded have signed a peace treaty.

User avatar
nefertari
Sr. Member
Posts: 1579
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 6:12 pm
Location: Finland

Re: BBC: global warming sceptics may have been right...

Post by nefertari » Tue Oct 16, 2007 7:12 pm

This is what Timo Tolkki thinks about the Nobel Price :

AL GORE&NOBEL PEACE PRICE

I am very happy that he won it and that the cause gets more and more publicity. Like in any really important question, the powers that be and the programmed masses will criticise anything that would change the present system and their profits&comfortable life. But time has come for mankind to choose some very basic things and our future and destiny depends on those decisions. We are facing challeneges man has never faced before. That´s why people like Al Gore are important. And the more visibility he gets, the more he will be criticised. That doesn´t stop him or other people who still care about this planet. Global climate change is a fact and that fact is not gonna go away. We will either solve it or our culture and way of life will be destroyed. And we dont have time.
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fusea ... =319494027

User avatar
miditek
Sr. Member
Posts: 2045
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 4:59 am

Re: BBC: global warming sceptics may have been right...

Post by miditek » Tue Oct 16, 2007 10:04 pm

Hahahaha- I had a hunch that Tolkki would post some praise for Gore- as if the former VP didn't have enough of that already. What's next- will they paint Gore's face into Michelangelo's masterpiece in the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel in Rome? He really does seem to just love basking in his own glory. (What no telegram from the Clintons? Sacrilege!) :lol:

All the Nobel committee is are a group of neo-Marxists heaping praise onto other self-congratulatory lefists like Gore. He's actually a watermelon, by the way; red at the core and green on the outside. Gore talks a lot, but in the end, he does very little- if anything.
Κύριε ἐλέησον

User avatar
black death
Sr. Member
Posts: 1548
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 9:14 am
Location: Czech Republic

Re: BBC: global warming sceptics may have been right...

Post by black death » Tue Oct 16, 2007 10:17 pm

Carcass wrote:What's wrong with IAEA being awarded?
Probably nothing :roll: , I just remember I was really surprised by it at that time and I don't know why :roll: .

P.S. Nice new avatar :D

User avatar
Carcass
Sr. Member
Posts: 1186
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 10:41 am
Location: Finland

Re: BBC: global warming sceptics may have been right...

Post by Carcass » Tue Oct 16, 2007 10:30 pm

black death wrote: P.S. Nice new avatar :D
Hehe, thanks. It's Klaus Kinski. He once threw hot potatos in the face of a theatre critic for not praising his performance enough.

User avatar
miditek
Sr. Member
Posts: 2045
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 4:59 am

Re: BBC: global warming sceptics may have been right...

Post by miditek » Tue Oct 16, 2007 11:09 pm

Carcass wrote:
black death wrote: P.S. Nice new avatar :D
Hehe, thanks. It's Klaus Kinski. He once threw hot potatos in the face of a theatre critic for not praising his performance enough.
Father of Natassja? (She's hot, or at least was back in the day) 8)
Κύριε ἐλέησον

Locked