wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 15:32:35 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 11:18:05 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
m...
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 18:07:11 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

I do not have a problem with him helping the Bin Laden family to get
home. I had a problem with him stopping the other 50 million
families
from getting home.
I think the whole post 9-11 policy is over-reaction.

Oh... like the shoe-bomber-take-my-shoes-off bs. I hate that. Who
wants
to
put your feet on God-knows what. Blech. I agree. We really
over-reacted,
and
we gave up too much. In that sense, he accomplished quite a bit.

The terrorists have won in my opinion. As a nation, we are certainly
terrorized enough to be giving up our freedom.

Nah. They might have "won" a battle, but the war over our constitution
has
been going on for 200 years. A bunch of people living in caves aren't
powerful enough to win.


Tell me again while you are submitting to an electronic strip search
at the airport or when you have to jump through the hoops to renew
your driver's license after your state passes "real ID"
Women take a worse beating than men in that, like having to produce
certified copies of all of their marriage licenses and divorce
decrees.
All I seem to need is my DD214.

Electronic strip search? You mean a metal detector or some screening where
my identity remains hidden unless something is discovered? I have no
problem
with that. Not sure what country you're talking about, but I've never
heard
of anyone having to produce divorce papers to renew a license.


I mean the full body x-ray scanner.

As for D/L
http://gathergoget.com/

Click YES on Have you ever changed your name

No problem with the scanner.

I still think it's reasonable (thanks for the link) to have to prove who you
are to renew your license. It's not much of a burden. I'd imagine that if
you're divorced or married and you changed your name, you'd have those
documents. Why is this a big deal? Does this somehow prove terrorists won?

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 15:30:49 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 10:05:27 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
om...
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 18:02:34 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

I was only addressing the Al Gore solution to the problem he
defined.
Personally I only have one observation. I an not sure if it is more
arrogant to think man caused global warming or that man can stop
global warming.

We better just make plans to live in a warmer world. That is where
we
should be spending our money.

Al Gore's solution may be one piece of the solution. Human beings are
absolutely the cause of adverse climate change. I don't know if we
have
the
ability to fix it, but we have to try. You're talking about dooming
millions
to extreme hardship if not death. There are no legitimate solutions
that
will fix that problem without fixing the underlying cause.


"Human induced climate change" is the part that you do get
disagreement about among scientists. The predominance do agree it is
getting warmer but that support starts dropping off when you start
assessing blame on why. The CO2 trend is 8000 years old, more closely
tied to agriculture than anything else.. In that regard, it is more
closely related to population than industrialization. I suppose if we
reduced the population to the 1900 levels, we *might* reduce CO2 to
1900 levels.

The "predominance" agree it's human caused. You can quote all the
numbers
you want, but that's a fact.


You are going to have to cite that ... and not from, Al Gore.

My "8000 years ago" number is from an article in Scientific American
about tracking CO2.
In that regard, man may be causing the CO2 buildup but it still tracks
population growth and the rise of agriculture as much as any other
metric. It is an 8000 year trend. Buying carbon credits from Al Gore
is not going to do anything about that. It will just create another
phony bubble market like the CDOs that will probably pop

I do have a little skepticism about "published reports" because
professors publish to get grants and there are no grants to prove man
didn't cause global warming.

Read all about it..

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americ...vey/index.html

If you don't believe "published reports," what possible reports would you
believe? Unpublished ones? How is someone supposed to do anything if they
don't let others know??

It's very difficult to prove a negative. You create a hypothesis, then
you
test that hypothesis. If it holds up, you publish and others test it.
That's
how things get done in the scientific world.


They didn't ask the second half of the question.

"Is this human activity the mere fact that we are here?"

I said this tracks POPULATION as closely as anything else. I suppose
if we scrubbed five billion off the world population we could actually
reduce CO2 levels to what it was in 1800 when there were only a
billion of us but it might take 40-50 years to see it happen after we
were gone. (forests and grassland taking the farms and cities back)

Human population is directly correlated with activity. We could scrub 5
billion, and certainly population is a serious issue, but that's not much
of a solution. We need to find a way to live that doesn't damage our
environment that will ultimately result in scrubbing millions due to
disaster.


Plume says the darndest things. "Human population is directly correlated
with activity." Yes dearie, humans call it sex."

On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 20:46:25 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 19:57:25 -0400, bpuharic wrote:


bush had the option of sending in the army...locking up tora bora and
capturing bin laden


The problem was, how many troops do you think it would have taken?
We have close to 80,000 there and that region is still far from
"locked up".

hey genius...guess what? we locked up tora bora AFTER bin laden
escaped. again, i recommend you read the 'new republic' article

Moving in troops takes time and they were out of time if they actually
wanted to stop Osama from crossing the border.

wrong.


he decided the bin ladens had too much money so let osama escape

That was the way the plan was supposed to work. The special Ops people
were in trouble when the local war lords turned against them and there
is no guarantee 1000 or even 10,000 more troops hastily dropped in
there with no real plan, would have turned the tide up in those
mountains. It would have just sent a lot more American kids home in
body bags.

really? got any proof of that?

Casualties in Afghanistan:

gee. people got killed in afghanistan. wow.

you STILL haven't proved we wouldnt have captured bin laden.



oh. none.
Close to GIs 1000 dead so far. Far from none.

and MOST of these would NOT be dead if we'd captured bin laden

read the article


when we DID send in the troops we destroyed the taliban govt
in a matter of weeks.

In Tora Bora?

I didn't think so.

yep. no big deal.

bush just wanted to be incompetent in afghanistan like he is in iraq

On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 20:49:51 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 20:00:00 -0400, bpuharic wrote:


you're right. it would be cheaper to let 'em die. WTF...why not?

The poor have always had Medicaid, all Obamacare did was ratchet up
what was "poor".

correct. because medicare does not cover the WORKING poor. you just
want them to die...typical right winger.



The big medicine people will do just fine. They are going to sell more
government paid for drugs and doctors/hospitals will get more
patients. I still have not seen anything to control the cost, They
just increased availability

let's balance the budget on the backs of the sick and dying. why not?

If we crash the economy, how do you think the poor will be doing?

bush ALREADY TRASHED THE ECONOMY!!!

i know it's news to the right wing but we're in a DEPRESSSION caused
by 30 years of milton friedman right wing economics.

killing the poor is not gonna solve the problem

On 6/20/10 6:22 AM, Moose wrote:
wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 15:30:49 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 10:05:27 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 18:02:34 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

I was only addressing the Al Gore solution to the problem he
defined.
Personally I only have one observation. I an not sure if it is more
arrogant to think man caused global warming or that man can stop
global warming.

We better just make plans to live in a warmer world. That is where
we
should be spending our money.

Al Gore's solution may be one piece of the solution. Human beings are
absolutely the cause of adverse climate change. I don't know if we
have
the
ability to fix it, but we have to try. You're talking about dooming
millions
to extreme hardship if not death. There are no legitimate solutions
that
will fix that problem without fixing the underlying cause.


"Human induced climate change" is the part that you do get
disagreement about among scientists. The predominance do agree it is
getting warmer but that support starts dropping off when you start
assessing blame on why. The CO2 trend is 8000 years old, more closely
tied to agriculture than anything else.. In that regard, it is more
closely related to population than industrialization. I suppose if we
reduced the population to the 1900 levels, we *might* reduce CO2 to
1900 levels.

The "predominance" agree it's human caused. You can quote all the
numbers
you want, but that's a fact.


You are going to have to cite that ... and not from, Al Gore.

My "8000 years ago" number is from an article in Scientific American
about tracking CO2.
In that regard, man may be causing the CO2 buildup but it still tracks
population growth and the rise of agriculture as much as any other
metric. It is an 8000 year trend. Buying carbon credits from Al Gore
is not going to do anything about that. It will just create another
phony bubble market like the CDOs that will probably pop

I do have a little skepticism about "published reports" because
professors publish to get grants and there are no grants to prove man
didn't cause global warming.

Read all about it..

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americ...vey/index.html

If you don't believe "published reports," what possible reports would you
believe? Unpublished ones? How is someone supposed to do anything if they
don't let others know??

It's very difficult to prove a negative. You create a hypothesis, then
you
test that hypothesis. If it holds up, you publish and others test it.
That's
how things get done in the scientific world.


They didn't ask the second half of the question.

"Is this human activity the mere fact that we are here?"

I said this tracks POPULATION as closely as anything else. I suppose
if we scrubbed five billion off the world population we could actually
reduce CO2 levels to what it was in 1800 when there were only a
billion of us but it might take 40-50 years to see it happen after we
were gone. (forests and grassland taking the farms and cities back)

Human population is directly correlated with activity. We could scrub 5
billion, and certainly population is a serious issue, but that's not much
of a solution. We need to find a way to live that doesn't damage our
environment that will ultimately result in scrubbing millions due to
disaster.


Plume says the darndest things. "Human population is directly correlated
with activity." Yes dearie, humans call it sex."



Well, then, you apparently never had that activity, since you don't have
kids.

"Harry" wrote in message
m...
On 6/20/10 6:22 AM, Moose wrote:
wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 15:30:49 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 10:05:27 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 18:02:34 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

I was only addressing the Al Gore solution to the problem he
defined.
Personally I only have one observation. I an not sure if it is
more
arrogant to think man caused global warming or that man can stop
global warming.

We better just make plans to live in a warmer world. That is
where
we
should be spending our money.

Al Gore's solution may be one piece of the solution. Human beings
are
absolutely the cause of adverse climate change. I don't know if we
have
the
ability to fix it, but we have to try. You're talking about
dooming
millions
to extreme hardship if not death. There are no legitimate
solutions
that
will fix that problem without fixing the underlying cause.


"Human induced climate change" is the part that you do get
disagreement about among scientists. The predominance do agree it
is
getting warmer but that support starts dropping off when you start
assessing blame on why. The CO2 trend is 8000 years old, more
closely
tied to agriculture than anything else.. In that regard, it is more
closely related to population than industrialization. I suppose if
we
reduced the population to the 1900 levels, we *might* reduce CO2 to
1900 levels.

The "predominance" agree it's human caused. You can quote all the
numbers
you want, but that's a fact.


You are going to have to cite that ... and not from, Al Gore.

My "8000 years ago" number is from an article in Scientific American
about tracking CO2.
In that regard, man may be causing the CO2 buildup but it still
tracks
population growth and the rise of agriculture as much as any other
metric. It is an 8000 year trend. Buying carbon credits from Al Gore
is not going to do anything about that. It will just create another
phony bubble market like the CDOs that will probably pop

I do have a little skepticism about "published reports" because
professors publish to get grants and there are no grants to prove man
didn't cause global warming.

Read all about it..

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americ...vey/index.html

If you don't believe "published reports," what possible reports would
you
believe? Unpublished ones? How is someone supposed to do anything if
they
don't let others know??

It's very difficult to prove a negative. You create a hypothesis, then
you
test that hypothesis. If it holds up, you publish and others test it.
That's
how things get done in the scientific world.


They didn't ask the second half of the question.

"Is this human activity the mere fact that we are here?"

I said this tracks POPULATION as closely as anything else. I suppose
if we scrubbed five billion off the world population we could actually
reduce CO2 levels to what it was in 1800 when there were only a
billion of us but it might take 40-50 years to see it happen after we
were gone. (forests and grassland taking the farms and cities back)

Human population is directly correlated with activity. We could scrub 5
billion, and certainly population is a serious issue, but that's not
much
of a solution. We need to find a way to live that doesn't damage our
environment that will ultimately result in scrubbing millions due to
disaster.


Plume says the darndest things. "Human population is directly correlated
with activity." Yes dearie, humans call it sex."



Well, then, you apparently never had that activity, since you don't have
kids.
Apparently your logical thought processes stopped developing when you were a
three year old.

On 6/20/10 8:24 AM, Moose wrote:
wrote in message
m...
On 6/20/10 6:22 AM, Moose wrote:
wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 15:30:49 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 10:05:27 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 18:02:34 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

I was only addressing the Al Gore solution to the problem he
defined.
Personally I only have one observation. I an not sure if it is
more
arrogant to think man caused global warming or that man can stop
global warming.

We better just make plans to live in a warmer world. That is
where
we
should be spending our money.

Al Gore's solution may be one piece of the solution. Human beings
are
absolutely the cause of adverse climate change. I don't know if we
have
the
ability to fix it, but we have to try. You're talking about
dooming
millions
to extreme hardship if not death. There are no legitimate
solutions
that
will fix that problem without fixing the underlying cause.


"Human induced climate change" is the part that you do get
disagreement about among scientists. The predominance do agree it
is
getting warmer but that support starts dropping off when you start
assessing blame on why. The CO2 trend is 8000 years old, more
closely
tied to agriculture than anything else.. In that regard, it is more
closely related to population than industrialization. I suppose if
we
reduced the population to the 1900 levels, we *might* reduce CO2 to
1900 levels.

The "predominance" agree it's human caused. You can quote all the
numbers
you want, but that's a fact.


You are going to have to cite that ... and not from, Al Gore.

My "8000 years ago" number is from an article in Scientific American
about tracking CO2.
In that regard, man may be causing the CO2 buildup but it still
tracks
population growth and the rise of agriculture as much as any other
metric. It is an 8000 year trend. Buying carbon credits from Al Gore
is not going to do anything about that. It will just create another
phony bubble market like the CDOs that will probably pop

I do have a little skepticism about "published reports" because
professors publish to get grants and there are no grants to prove man
didn't cause global warming.

Read all about it..

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americ...vey/index.html

If you don't believe "published reports," what possible reports would
you
believe? Unpublished ones? How is someone supposed to do anything if
they
don't let others know??

It's very difficult to prove a negative. You create a hypothesis, then
you
test that hypothesis. If it holds up, you publish and others test it.
That's
how things get done in the scientific world.


They didn't ask the second half of the question.

"Is this human activity the mere fact that we are here?"

I said this tracks POPULATION as closely as anything else. I suppose
if we scrubbed five billion off the world population we could actually
reduce CO2 levels to what it was in 1800 when there were only a
billion of us but it might take 40-50 years to see it happen after we
were gone. (forests and grassland taking the farms and cities back)

Human population is directly correlated with activity. We could scrub 5
billion, and certainly population is a serious issue, but that's not
much
of a solution. We need to find a way to live that doesn't damage our
environment that will ultimately result in scrubbing millions due to
disaster.


Plume says the darndest things. "Human population is directly correlated
with activity." Yes dearie, humans call it sex."



Well, then, you apparently never had that activity, since you don't have
kids.
Apparently your logical thought processes stopped developing when you were a
three year old.




I don't recall your ever mentioning you were a father, or that you had
children. I suppose to nervous nellies like you, revelation of such
information would be considered...dangerous. Sort of like saying what
you did for a living, or what boat you have, et cetera.

On 6/20/10 8:38 AM, Moose wrote:
wrote in message
m...
On 6/20/10 8:24 AM, Moose wrote:
wrote in message
m...
On 6/20/10 6:22 AM, Moose wrote:
wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 15:30:49 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 10:05:27 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 18:02:34 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

I was only addressing the Al Gore solution to the problem he
defined.
Personally I only have one observation. I an not sure if it is
more
arrogant to think man caused global warming or that man can
stop
global warming.

We better just make plans to live in a warmer world. That is
where
we
should be spending our money.

Al Gore's solution may be one piece of the solution. Human
beings
are
absolutely the cause of adverse climate change. I don't know if
we
have
the
ability to fix it, but we have to try. You're talking about
dooming
millions
to extreme hardship if not death. There are no legitimate
solutions
that
will fix that problem without fixing the underlying cause.


"Human induced climate change" is the part that you do get
disagreement about among scientists. The predominance do agree it
is
getting warmer but that support starts dropping off when you
start
assessing blame on why. The CO2 trend is 8000 years old, more
closely
tied to agriculture than anything else.. In that regard, it is
more
closely related to population than industrialization. I suppose
if
we
reduced the population to the 1900 levels, we *might* reduce CO2
to
1900 levels.

The "predominance" agree it's human caused. You can quote all the
numbers
you want, but that's a fact.


You are going to have to cite that ... and not from, Al Gore.

My "8000 years ago" number is from an article in Scientific
American
about tracking CO2.
In that regard, man may be causing the CO2 buildup but it still
tracks
population growth and the rise of agriculture as much as any other
metric. It is an 8000 year trend. Buying carbon credits from Al
Gore
is not going to do anything about that. It will just create another
phony bubble market like the CDOs that will probably pop

I do have a little skepticism about "published reports" because
professors publish to get grants and there are no grants to prove
man
didn't cause global warming.

Read all about it..

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americ...vey/index.html

If you don't believe "published reports," what possible reports
would
you
believe? Unpublished ones? How is someone supposed to do anything if
they
don't let others know??

It's very difficult to prove a negative. You create a hypothesis,
then
you
test that hypothesis. If it holds up, you publish and others test
it.
That's
how things get done in the scientific world.


They didn't ask the second half of the question.

"Is this human activity the mere fact that we are here?"

I said this tracks POPULATION as closely as anything else. I suppose
if we scrubbed five billion off the world population we could
actually
reduce CO2 levels to what it was in 1800 when there were only a
billion of us but it might take 40-50 years to see it happen after we
were gone. (forests and grassland taking the farms and cities back)

Human population is directly correlated with activity. We could scrub
5
billion, and certainly population is a serious issue, but that's not
much
of a solution. We need to find a way to live that doesn't damage our
environment that will ultimately result in scrubbing millions due to
disaster.


Plume says the darndest things. "Human population is directly
correlated
with activity." Yes dearie, humans call it sex."



Well, then, you apparently never had that activity, since you don't have
kids.
Apparently your logical thought processes stopped developing when you
were a
three year old.




I don't recall your ever mentioning you were a father, or that you had
children. I suppose to nervous nellies like you, revelation of such
information would be considered...dangerous. Sort of like saying what you
did for a living, or what boat you have, et cetera.


You writing a book or something?






Let's see...you have no kids, no boat, no job...is that about it for you?

"Harry" wrote in message
m...
On 6/20/10 8:24 AM, Moose wrote:
wrote in message
m...
On 6/20/10 6:22 AM, Moose wrote:
wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 15:30:49 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 10:05:27 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 18:02:34 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

I was only addressing the Al Gore solution to the problem he
defined.
Personally I only have one observation. I an not sure if it is
more
arrogant to think man caused global warming or that man can
stop
global warming.

We better just make plans to live in a warmer world. That is
where
we
should be spending our money.

Al Gore's solution may be one piece of the solution. Human
beings
are
absolutely the cause of adverse climate change. I don't know if
we
have
the
ability to fix it, but we have to try. You're talking about
dooming
millions
to extreme hardship if not death. There are no legitimate
solutions
that
will fix that problem without fixing the underlying cause.


"Human induced climate change" is the part that you do get
disagreement about among scientists. The predominance do agree it
is
getting warmer but that support starts dropping off when you
start
assessing blame on why. The CO2 trend is 8000 years old, more
closely
tied to agriculture than anything else.. In that regard, it is
more
closely related to population than industrialization. I suppose
if
we
reduced the population to the 1900 levels, we *might* reduce CO2
to
1900 levels.

The "predominance" agree it's human caused. You can quote all the
numbers
you want, but that's a fact.


You are going to have to cite that ... and not from, Al Gore.

My "8000 years ago" number is from an article in Scientific
American
about tracking CO2.
In that regard, man may be causing the CO2 buildup but it still
tracks
population growth and the rise of agriculture as much as any other
metric. It is an 8000 year trend. Buying carbon credits from Al
Gore
is not going to do anything about that. It will just create another
phony bubble market like the CDOs that will probably pop

I do have a little skepticism about "published reports" because
professors publish to get grants and there are no grants to prove
man
didn't cause global warming.

Read all about it..

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americ...vey/index.html

If you don't believe "published reports," what possible reports
would
you
believe? Unpublished ones? How is someone supposed to do anything if
they
don't let others know??

It's very difficult to prove a negative. You create a hypothesis,
then
you
test that hypothesis. If it holds up, you publish and others test
it.
That's
how things get done in the scientific world.


They didn't ask the second half of the question.

"Is this human activity the mere fact that we are here?"

I said this tracks POPULATION as closely as anything else. I suppose
if we scrubbed five billion off the world population we could
actually
reduce CO2 levels to what it was in 1800 when there were only a
billion of us but it might take 40-50 years to see it happen after we
were gone. (forests and grassland taking the farms and cities back)

Human population is directly correlated with activity. We could scrub
5
billion, and certainly population is a serious issue, but that's not
much
of a solution. We need to find a way to live that doesn't damage our
environment that will ultimately result in scrubbing millions due to
disaster.


Plume says the darndest things. "Human population is directly
correlated
with activity." Yes dearie, humans call it sex."



Well, then, you apparently never had that activity, since you don't have
kids.
Apparently your logical thought processes stopped developing when you
were a
three year old.




I don't recall your ever mentioning you were a father, or that you had
children. I suppose to nervous nellies like you, revelation of such
information would be considered...dangerous. Sort of like saying what you
did for a living, or what boat you have, et cetera.


You writing a book or something?

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 22:32:45 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americ...vey/index.html

If you don't believe "published reports," what possible reports would
you
believe? Unpublished ones? How is someone supposed to do anything if
they
don't let others know??

It's very difficult to prove a negative. You create a hypothesis, then
you
test that hypothesis. If it holds up, you publish and others test it.
That's
how things get done in the scientific world.


They didn't ask the second half of the question.

"Is this human activity the mere fact that we are here?"

I said this tracks POPULATION as closely as anything else. I suppose
if we scrubbed five billion off the world population we could actually
reduce CO2 levels to what it was in 1800 when there were only a
billion of us but it might take 40-50 years to see it happen after we
were gone. (forests and grassland taking the farms and cities back)

Human population is directly correlated with activity. We could scrub 5
billion, and certainly population is a serious issue, but that's not much
of
a solution. We need to find a way to live that doesn't damage our
environment that will ultimately result in scrubbing millions due to
disaster.


I doubt there is any way for 6 billion people to live on the planet in
a carbon neutral way.
When is gets to be 10 billion that is certainly going to be true. We
better spend our money figuring out how to live in a warmer world.

You're probably about the population number, and we are going to have to
figure out how to live in a warmer world, but we also need to do everything
possible to stop that trend or it'll be much, much worse...

Long before we have the Al Gore scenario we will have a nuclear war
and that will cool things off.