But what if you were too fat, Kevin?

Huh? What if you were?

Future Tense: http://www.elabs7.com/ct.html?rtr=on&s=fj6,kc2i,dv,b2m9,jy5a,ddg7,fqwa

What's that? Global warming a hoax, you say?

JIC (just in case) it seemed my snowy post yesterday implied that the blizzard somehow disproves global warming, let me clarify. As Colbert aptly pointed out, a blizzard (or even two! like in DC) does not a hoax make, just as the night does not imply the sun's death. My point, only vaguely conceptualized at the time, was that Pollyannaish-disbelief in global warming because of the weather outside is as irrational as the IPCC's (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) contention that the sky is falling in the next couple of decades.

That, and, where the transition to renewable/sustainable energies from soon-to-be-gone (goggle: peak oil) fossil-fuels as an issue of pragmatic resource allocation and thus world security and political stability is concerned, there's a convergence of me and the Sex-Master.

(All pics of feral houses in Detroit. Thanks Flavorwire.com)

Since there's a blizzard on.

This is a comment from an Economist graphic about increases in nation's wind power usage. Love the commenter's name.



Sex-master wrote:

Feb 3rd 2010 10:58 GMT

Increasing non-fossil fuel electricity generating capacity is to:

1. reduce the dependence on non-renewable energy sources and
2. reduce pollutions from say burning coals, but
3. NOT to deal with IPCC's religious bleif of global warming.

Recommend (5)