Oppose AB 144

Written by nate Saturday, 17 September 2011 19:16

 

 

Yet again California leads the way in back asswords politics. AB 144 is moving its way through the state Senate on its way to a vote in the fall session. The bill was introduce on 13 January 2011 after many people started using their right to carry firearms for their own protection, as is guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution. In California it has become increasingly more difficult to obtain a firearms permit to carry a concealed weapon but in the law it allows for individuals to practice open carry of a firearm as long as the weapon is not loaded. The bill AB 144 has the objective of:

An act to amend Sections 7574.14 and 7582.2 of the Business and
Professions Code, and to amend Sections 626.9, 16520, 17510, 25595, 25605, and 29805 of, to add Sections 17040, 17295, and 25590 to, and to add Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 26350) to Division 5 of Title 4 of Part 6 of, the Penal Code, relating to firearms.

Basically what this will do is make it a crime for anyone to carry their firearms openly, whether for protection or for transport. As stated by the legal counsel’s digest this bill would:

AB 144, as introduced, Portantino. Firearms.
Existing law, subject to certain exceptions, makes it an offense to carry a concealed handgun on the person or in a vehicle, as specified. Existing law provides that firearms carried openly in belt holsters are not concealed within the meaning of those provisions. This bill would establish an exemption to the offense for transportation of a firearm between certain areas where the firearm may be carried concealed, or loaded, or openly carried unloaded, as specified. Existing law, subject to certain exceptions, makes it an offense to carry a loaded firearm on the person or in a vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an incorporated city or in
any public place or on any public street in a prohibited area of unincorporated territory. The bill would, subject to exceptions, make it a misdemeanor to openly carry an unloaded handgun on the person in specified public areas. By creating a new offense, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would make conforming and non-substantive technical changes.

Now in normal circumstances the people and the officials have not allowed any such provisions to pass into law that restricts individuals from carrying their firearms on them. However, with the shooting of the 8th district of Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Gifford many of the California politicians have disgustingly used this opportunity to turn a tragedy into a political football.

This is completely absurd and they are baiting people to use their emotions on the vote rather then fact and rational thought. By banning open carry you restrict people from using their rights to bear arms legally and push for the only people to have guns to be those that would do so illegally. This is backed up in many studies. One such study done by a Harvard Law Journal entitled "Would Banning Firearms reduce Murder and Suicide?" by Don B. Kates and Mary Mauser has shown that banning firearms reduces nothing. The accusation that America has a high murder rate because of guns is due; for the most part, because of statistical forgery and data cover ups. As stated in the journal:

There is a compound assertion that (a) guns are uniquely available in the United States compared with other modern developed nations, which is why (b) the United States has by far the highest murder rate. Though these assertions have been endlessly repeated, statement (b) is, in fact, false and statement (a) is substantially so. Since at least 1965, the false assertion that the United States has the industrialized world’s highest murder rate has been an artifact of politically motivated Soviet minimization designed to hide the true homicide rates. 2 Since well before that date, the Soviet Union possessed extremely stringent gun controls 3 that were effectuated by a police state apparatus providing stringent enforcement. 4 So successful was that regime that few Russian civilians now have firearms and very few murders involve them. 5Yet, manifest success in keeping its people disarmed did not prevent the Soviet Union from having far and away the highest murder rate in the developed world. 6 In the 1960s and early 1970s, the gun less Soviet Union’s murder rates paralleled or generally exceeded those of gun ridden America. While American rates stabilized and then steeply declined, however, Russian murder increased so drastically that by the early 1990s the Russian rate was three times higher than that of the United States. Between 1998 -2004 (the latest figure available for Russia), Russian murder rates were nearly four times higher than American rates. Similar murder rates also characterize the Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and various other now independent European nations of the former U.S.S.R. (Kates and Mauser 2)

Folks please do your duty and bug the hell out of your congressmen or women and state senators to stop trying to pass these ridiculous laws. Your right to bear arms is exactly that your right and no one is going to stand up for it but you. California has already got some of the most restrictive laws; besides New York, and we do not need any further restrictions.

NO to AB 144!!!!!!!!!

Harvard Journal

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

AB 144 legislation

http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_0101-0150/ab_144_bill_20110113_introduced.html

Public Safety Hearing on AB 144

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXhCwc6bYkM

Get informed Get involved

 

 

Last Updated on Saturday, 17 September 2011 20:45  

Health and Safety codes

Written by nate Saturday, 14 May 2011 07:02

 

 

 

A leading environmental group the Sierra Club is calling on Jerry Brown to reevaluate the cap-and-trade regulations adopted by the Air Resource Board. They are calling on this because they say that the old law and rules signed into legislation by Arnold Schwarzenegger “has major flaws in it that will limit the effectiveness of curbing carbon emissions and generate the flow of green jobs in accordance with with the requirements of AB 32.”ⁱ This is not a bad idea and it should be a chance for all of us to reevaluate the laws and legislation that the rules and regulations require California, as well as, all of the agencies that work towards these goals to abide by.

 

Accordingly the act falls under the Air Resource Boards final Resolution that was given on December 16, 2010. (under Resolution 10-42; agenda item #: 10-11-1) This act falls under the Global Warmings Solution Act of 2006 AB 32: chapter 448, statues of 2006, Health and Safety Code subsection 38500 et seq.ⁱⁱ

 

In the Air Resource Boards final Resolution pg 1 paragraph 3 it states:

Whereas to Health and Safety Code, which express the Legislation intent that Air Resource Board COORDINATE with state agenciesⁱⁱⁱ

In California Health and Safety Code subsection 38501 (f) it states:

It is the intent of the legislature that the State Air Resource Board COORDINATE with state agencies, as well as, consult with environmental justice community, Industrial Sector, Business Groups, academic institutions, environmental organizations, and other stakeholders in implementing this division.^iv

Also in California Health and Safety Code subsection 38501 (i) it states:

It is the intent of the Legislature that the climate Action Team established by the Governor to COORDINATE the efforts set forth under Executive Order S-3-05, continue its role in COORDINATING overall climate policy.

 

Executive Order S-3-5 states in section 2:

That the California Environmental Protection Agency (secretary) shall coordinate oversight of the efforts made to meet the targets with: Secretary of Business, Transportation and Housing Agency, Secretary of the Department of Food and Agriculture, Secretary of Resource Agency, Chairperson of the Air Resource Board, Chairperson of the Energy Commission, and the President of the Utilities Commission.^v

Not only does Executive Order of the State Governor require coordination with the CEPA secretary but as the CEPA falls under NEPA coordination is required at all levels see:

42 U.S.C. 4331 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) subsections (a), (b) specifically.

For those who have never heard of Coordination or would like a quick review, it is defined in California Native Plant Society v. City of Rancho Cordova, 172 Cal. App. 4^Th 603, 91 Cal. Rpr. 3^rd. 571 (Third App. Dist. 2009) only equal parties coordinate. In enacting your coordination right your local government, meaning tax collecting agency, is at an even table with the agency attempting to enact any law, regulation, or rule and they shall coordinate with the party that is enacting; they shall not they may.

This meaning any plan set forth must be considered before implementation of the project any no consideration is a violation of their own State and Federal rules and regulations.

California Health and Safety Code 38562 subsection (g) also requires that:

they must do a public workshop allowing for public comment on the plan and they must post the plans for these periods on either the federal register or the state register depending on the implementation.

In the case of this California specific action it should be posted through your local officals office or through the Capital in Sacramento.

 

It is a definate that if you do not act on these rights the environmental groups will and they have for a number of years.

The description of the goals and ends of this legislation is presented in California Health and Safety Code 38562 subsection (a):

On or before January 1^st 2011 the state board shall adopt greenhouse gas emissions limits and emissions reduction measures by regulation to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and COST-EFFECTIVE reductions in greenhouse emissions. These measures are to be enacted by January 1^st, 2012.

If New Jersey is any indication of the direction that we are headed in California then there should really be some comparisons made in which we see that these are not feasible measures nor are they cost-effective by any means of the word whether in pursuant of reductions of emissions or in economic feasibility. In New Jersey the utility companies are required to get 22% of their electrical energy from renewable resources. The end result is that $515 million dollars was spent to eventually power 3250 homes. That means approx $158,000 was spent per home. The average electric bill in the United States is approx $105 a month, or $1260 a year. Meaning in the end it would take about 125 years to break even. You can read the full story at (http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2011/04/28/nj-residents-burned-by-going-green/). For California this is going to become much worse if the environmentalist and the insane California politicians do not get put back in their place. California's renewable energy initiative is the highest in the country, which is 33% percent renewable energy from all utility companies. With California's property tax's at 12% which is the second highest in the country, the unemployment rate is at “officially” 12% but seeing as how they don't count people who have ran out and people who have stopped looking for work the real number is closer to 15-18%. If California keeps trucking along with insanity as usual we are not going to have to wait for a big earthquake to send us rushing into the Pacific Ocean because were going to make ourselves so broke that Mexico will have to annex us back into existence.

Although it seems daunting in a state that is so liberal that they cannot see the destruction that they are bringing, there is still hope. If we can work as hard as those that we disagree with. Not in argument or protest but in legislation. We can use the system and the tools that are set forth within them to gain back some sense of normality in this state.The NEPA and FLMPA as well as all local rules and regulations have to account for the human element not just the environmental and endangered species in the region.

In California Health and Safety Code 38562 subsection (6) it states:

Consider all Societal Benefits...to the economy, environment, and public health. There are two groups within this Code that are going to jump on this and take advantage of it. The environmental groups are making there voices heard but as you can see they are not the only ones that legislatively have the power to enact some type of coordination process with the Air Resource Board.

Actual copied sections of the California Health and Safety codes below:

California Health and Safety code 38501 specifically subsection(f) and (I) coordination is required

 

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cegi-bin/displaycode?section=hsc&group=38001-39000&file=38501

38652 subsection (c)

(c) In furtherance of achieving the statewide greenhouse gas
emissions limit, by January 1, 2011, the state board may adopt a
regulation that establishes a system of market-based declining annual
aggregate emission limits for sources or categories of sources that
emit greenhouse gas emissions, applicable from January 1, 2012, to
December 31, 2020, inclusive, that the state board determines will
achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective
reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, in the aggregate, from those
sources or categories of sources.
38562 subsection (f)
(f) The state board shall consult with the Public Utilities
Commission in the development of the regulations as they affect
electricity and natural gas providers in order to minimize
duplication or inconsistent regulatory requirements.


38564.  The state board shall consult with other states, and the
federal government, and other nations to identify the most effective
strategies and methods to reduce greenhouse gases, manage greenhouse
gas control programs, and to facilitate the development of integrated
and cost-effective regional, national, and international greenhouse
gas reduction programs.



38565.  The state board shall ensure that the greenhouse gas
emission reduction rules, regulations, programs, mechanisms, and
incentives under its jurisdiction, where applicable and to the extent
feasible, direct public and private investment toward the most
disadvantaged communities in California and provide an opportunity
for small businesses, schools, affordable housing associations, and
other community institutions to participate in and benefit from
statewide efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

 

 

 

 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2010/capandtrade10/res1042.pdf

http://www.apartment-manager-law.com/data03/60006-Environmental%20Alternatives.php

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codesection=hsc&codebody=&hits=20

 

Environazi's do Brainwash them young

Written by nate Monday, 09 May 2011 06:25

Oh Lord the Environazi’s do

Brainwash them Young don’t they

 

 

In any spectrum of the political field young children should be left to be just that, Young children. There minds are impressionable and what their parents and elders tell them will undoubtedly be taken at face value without questioning, reasoning, and most importantly physical evidence.

This is why today May 8^th 2011 when reading the papers online it was disturbing, to say the least, to see that in Sacramento there is a Youth Rally called the “iMatter March” taking place at Cesar Chavez park. The goal was report ably to call for immediate “climate justice.” It was also said to be the "largest-ever mobilization of youth," a group that vowed to counter climate change and to become the next generation of environmental stewards.”[i] It would be nice if the parents of these children taught them what this “climate justice” actually entailed. Thus far, the only types of actions and solutions being offered for “climate change” has been to tax people for there carbon emission’s making it much more difficult to get by in an already economically turbulent world, and to restrict people’s access to wilderness through federal control, as with the Travel Management Plan. If these people want justice; how about the justice for small towns and communities that are being trampled? Who are having their lively hoods taken away from them by these egregious actions being taken by federal government.

It is much worse that they are putting their kids in the line of fire and holding them forward as protection against critics. These kids don’t know the difference and they are only repeating what there misguided parents and teachers have been telling them.

Shame on you folks!

On this mothers day I would like to openly thank my mother for never putting one thought in my head other then common decency towards my fellow man and a good hard work ethic. By doing so I was allowed to find out things on my own without having any idea crammed down my throat. If you want to teach them good Stewardship you should be out their yourselves leading by example to protect the public’s right to access the land. Once we lose control then we won’t have a choice about anything that goes on there. It’s funny how people in the city are always the loudest about environmental causes. You should take a hike or something, because the oxygen seems to not be flowing properly to your brains.

The calling of “iMatter” is posted on the website as “our climate, our future, our revolution.” Well pardon me for saying so but these groups need to go back and look up their Revolutionary history. It’s really not pretty. They do however have one thread that ties through them all, Youth activism. You take one part hormone, one part angry teenager, and one part guiding hand behind the whole thing and you get yourself a potent mixture of movement going on. It is really sick and not fair to the kids that are seen on these interviews. I am sure that they justify it to themselves that they are doing good for humanity but you are taking away these kids right to choose how they feel about an issue they do not understand.

Who is behind “iMatter” I would say Al Gore’s debunked piece of fiction “An Inconvenient Truth.” And so would the Blaze’s blog on the internet saying “Be afraid. Idealistic and uninformed young kids armed with Al Gore’s debunked movie are taking to the streets…The “iMatter March” plans to bring kids from around the globe together on May 8 for “Our climate. Our future. Our revolution.” The march is being organized by a group called Kids vs. Global Warming, a group founded by a California 12-year-old already well-versed in the gospel of Al Gore.[ii] This is really incredible that a movie that was based on horrible science is still being touted up as a piece of real science. When you go through and look at what green groups are saying about groups like this you see the ideas that they have. Living Greens website describes it as “This movement—just like scores of others throughout history—was fueled by youth. We, as young people have the passion, the tenacity, and the unyielding courage that it takes to lead our people in revolt against a more powerful ruling class.”[iii] If any other group in the nation said words like revolt, revolution, or upheaval there would be an immediate backlash of bad press but because it is the greenies it seems to be o.k.

Living green magazine goes on to describe this group in comparison with some other movements taking place around the world as well. They compare it to the Egyptian revolution in this statement “We have just witnessed a successful revolution in Egypt. Hundreds of thousands of people rallied in the streets and stood up against their brutal president and security force. The people gathered en masse to let their leaders know that they will no longer tolerate the corruption of their government, which caused poverty, extreme unemployment, and police brutality. It was a peaceful movement, non-violently rising up against a power that was unjust and wrong.”[iv] This causes one to beg the question, who is this groups terrible dictator? Is it all those that oppose the climate change theory and call for honest truthful debate well these people cower behind a group of impressionable youth.

 

To go even further it is stated that the reasons for climate change are real and proven and that there is a huge consensus on the matter in stating that “All of this is because of humanity’s addiction to fossil fuels. It’s been proven. Over 97% of certified scientists agree with that fact.”[v] This is an incredible almost unbelievable turn of events because back in 2004 when Al Gore was claiming that there was a 98% percent consensus the actual number was only 17%.[vi] On the issue of polling it is difficult to tell because they have created such a schism between people once again and discarded actually showing science. They are showing polls now with the exact same number used by Gore back in 2004 and one thing that is for certain is that if you repeat something long and loud enough people eventually begin to just believe it. I would turn your attention to the ice cores from around the world that show temperatures much higher thousands of years ago before any man made carbon dioxide.

The science is out there for you to see and I would hope that anyone would take the time to look and decide for themselves rather then listen to ole Man-Bear-Pig (Al Gore) on the issue of climate change. The temperatures move in varying degrees and if you notice there was actually the coldest period on record not that far back in relative terms. So it would be expected, going by this chart, that there would be a steady rise for some time.

When you are normally given a chart it shows about from 1850 to our present day which is extremely deceptive. If you picked hundred year intervals at any point in these charts you could show a trend of extreme cold or extreme warming in temperatures, the simple fact is climate fluctuates. If you are still not convinced in the slightest you can look at more recent trends and see that temperature is cooling down and has been for the past 10 years or so.(http://digitaldiatribes.wordpress.com/2008/08/18/august-2008-update-on-global-temperature-hadcrut/)

There are a plethora of sights out there with evidence showing contrary to the main stream dialogue. The talking heads in this world do nothing more then distract us and with a means like the internet available we have the capability to all be our own fact checkers if we have the rational and stomachs to swallow the truth for what it truly is.

With the issue of climate change being turned into nothing more then a divisionary political tool we must find the facts for what they are and see what peoples agendas are who are not using there reasoning to decide things. When you are stirring up a youth movement you will always be playing a dangerous game. Youth movements are sporadic but always seem to have an agenda behind them, which is unfortunate because the kids that get used are probably completely good hearted individuals. Especially in the green movement with climate change does this issue spark some worry some thoughts. If you get enough of these kids thinking that the world might end if we don't do something now it could be trouble; legislatively and socially.

What is truly disturbing is the attitude and direction that they are encouraging these youth movements to go. They are not calling for debate. They are not calling for research and discussion on how to solve things. What they are quite clearly saying is Revolution and Revolt. If you want to compare it to the Middle Eastern revolutions you have to remember that people are dying over there and the place is chaotic. This is not something anyone should wish for in any country. I think the Egyptians themselves would rather not have to go through a revolution for freedom. And that is what they are fighting for freedom. What these groups are advocating revolution for is an unproven theory that could be completely out of mans control in the first place. It is rather arrogant to think your going to save the planet and to put you kid along this path before understanding the whole truth of the matter is just flat out wrong.

 

Last Updated on Monday, 09 May 2011 07:04  

let the Nature Worship Begin

Written by nate Saturday, 23 April 2011 06:24

 

Let the Nature Worship Begin

By: Todd Stevens

It’s Earth Day, the day that all of the greenies come out of their respective closest to express their outrage for capitalism, the destruction of the earth, and to help promote the green movement. Earth day was started by one Gaylord Nelson, whose parents seem to have some insight into the direction their son would go right at his birth. With a name like Gaylord they insured that their son would be made fun of for the rest of his life but this should be no reason to hold something against the man and instead he should be judged because of his decision to make a national day for the Earth instead.

This years Earth Day was celebrated by media moguls, governments, protesters, and the beloved United Nations. On this day, April 22, 2011 the United Nations has declared it to be the official Mother Earth Day. The Bolivian government was one of the attendees at the United Nations in New York City to celebrate the Resolution of this Mother Earth Day. Earlier in the week the Bolivian government signed into law legislation declaring that the Earth now has rights that are equal to man and should be respect as such. This should sound very familiar to anyone who has heard of Agenda 21, the UN Biodiversity project, and the Wildlands project because they all advocate very similar points of view. In explaining the Bolivian and UN position the Foreign Minister of Bolivia David Choquehuanca stated that “The United Nations is revolutionizing the way we look at our planet. At the moment various issues are being receded in the United Nations and we have begun to discuss the idea of declaring an official national day of mother Earth and we will also soon be discussing what the rights of mother earth are.”[i] This is absolutely true they are revolutionizing the planet into corridor system of the state in which limited human access and travel are granted and they will only be granted through governmental control. These plans have been moving forward even before any of this since about 2005 in what is known as the travel management plans.

 

Democracy Now hosted a discussion session that had the guessed Vandana Shiva; an Indian environmental and women’s rights activist, as well as, Maude Barlow a Canadian environmentalist. Vandana Shiva also wrote a book entitled Earth Democracy. In this book she outlines her ideas that we should decentralize the corporation’s international powers to go in and use unsustainable resources for their own profit gains; as she describes that “Robust living economies are people-centered, decentralized, sustainable, and livelihood-generating.”[ii] The theory goes that you take all of the power away from corporations to come in and use anyone’s natural resources and land for there own gains and by allowing local groups and individuals to create and promote their own sustained lifestyle and resources they will then be using their judgment to delegate through subsidiaries upward to larger governmental entities how it will be run. As she describes “Living economies grow outward, from the individual to the community, to the region, to the country, to the global level.” In truth this does not sound like a bad intended idea but when you get up to the higher level where she bases her model on you see the flaws in such arguments.

Unfortunately we do not live in this fictitious world that she envisions. There are centralized powers and it is imperative that we analyze these powers intentions. Shiva bases her model on the fact that “Living economies are grounded on the principles necessary to protect and restore nature and societies that free market economist have resisted implementing. These principles are the “precautionary principle” and the “polluter pays principle” as enshrined in Agenda 21 at the UN conference on Environment and Development (1992), known as the Earth Summit.”[iii] The precautionary principal basically state that if an action or policy has a risk then the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on the one taking the action. This seems a bit broad. What sort of risk (probably ecological)? What if all of the risk is being taken by the entrepreneur? Well, that sort of falls into the next principal which is the principal of the polluter pays.

The principal of the polluter pays, in its most rudimentary form, states that the polluter must pay for the pollutants that they put out; particularly CO2. Now this seems a bit rash, especially considering the mounting empirical evidence that global cooling or global warming; woops I mean climate change is real. This sort of thing reminds me of the struggle facing Hank Rearden and Dagney Taggart in Atlas Shrugged. How can any business person who is inventing an idea that has risk to it, which everything does, enter into any type of new form without having to pay a carbon tax or being shot down by the UN because they deem it to be too risky or being pressured to put back because you are not lifting up society. They want to talk about nature and the natural order of things. They should look around. Nature is chaotic with risk and destruction, death and birth, flowing tides and tidal waves, majestic mountains and erupting volcanoes. What planet do these people live on? There is no Utopia. That is even what it means no where.

In their discussion with Democracy Now Shiva and Monbiot discuss the fact that they want to introduce the Bolivian idea as a resolution to the UN that would be on par with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as she states “A number of us were in Cochabamba a year ago, this Mother Earth Day, when we finalized this draft of this Universal Declaration on the Rights of Mother Earth. And so, basically, we’re here to introduce it to the U.N. The concept-we eventually want the Universal Declaration on the Rights of Mother Earth to be a companion piece to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”[iv] The propping up of natures or Mother Earths rights to humans does two things it puts nature up and man down. If we are as valued as nature then what is to prevent the thinking that we are not just as expendable in many cases. They probably don’t personally feel this way but it is not these particular two people to be worried about. Either way they like to spin it someone gets a hierarchal rule in all of this, that being the United Nations. Who started who runs and who has sole veto power in the UN are questions that need to be asked before delegating any power to these people. A world government in the long scheme of things is a reality but it is how we are coming into it and who is controlling it that will determine the outcome. In truth the way it is coming together is only benefitting a few not humanity at this point. Right now sovereignty must still be a choice, considering the short life span of its existence, and without that choice we are going to fall under some despots rule.

In the final closing of Democracy Now’s show they had a man by the name of Bill Mckibben, the founder of 350 a reference to 350 parts per million of carbon in the atmosphere, speak before a greenie audience. His fallacies were priceless he stated “The science is the easy part of this. Grim, but easy, 2010 was the warmest year on record, and it was warm. We were on the phone one day with our 350 crew in Pakistan, and one of them said, “It’s hot here today.” And I was surprised to hear him say it, because it’s usually hot in Pakistan in the summer. And he said, “No, it’s really hot. We just set the new all-time Asia temperature record, 129 degrees.” That kind of heat melts the Arctic. That kind of heat causes drought so deep across Russia that the Kremlin stops all grain export. That kind of heat causes the flooding that has four million people across Pakistan homeless tonight.”[v] Well according to most sources these are the hottest days on record but they still have yet to address the medieval warm period of 1200 as well as the ice core samples going back over 200,000 years showing large fluctuations of hot and cold. This also isn’t proof of carbon emission causation. So they can spout off all they want about it but the burden of proof still lies upon them. If you ask any scientist or if you look up the record yourself we are just as close to coming to an ice age as we are to a heating period.

Russian Ice C  ores from Antarctica http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/globalwarmA.html

Proposed new National Day

http://www.h3adlin3.com/hs/fted.html

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjmtSkl53h4

 

Last Updated on Saturday, 23 April 2011 21:33