What happened to Global Warming?
When I put my first above ground pool in around the late 90's we were able to open it in April and start swimming in May.
Now my pool is just opened and still not warm enough to swim in
I'd like some global warming back...
Krazikarl pretty much nailed it as to the arctic sea ice.
Did you know that those "worldwide mean temperatures" are surface air temp readings that only account for 2% of the Earth's total heat content? The vast majority (~93%) of the heat accumulated by the earth goes into the oceans, and we've gotten better at reading ocean temperatures at different depths in the past decade. The seas are still rising. The oceans are still heating up. Glaciers are still retreating. We have so many different indicators that this is happening, yet people still stick their heads in the sand and just tell themselves it will all be okay if they ignore the problem.
That's the thing. A lot of these scary predictions that "haven't occurred yet" are on the slate for around 2050 to 2100, depending on what model you look at. That's when the crap will hit the fan, and if we sit around doing nothing until then to see if they happen, we'll be in a terrible, terrible place (well, our children anyways). It's like if a car dealership stated that you can only drive for approximately 400 miles until you run out of gas, and then believe that they lied to you and think it's all a hoax when your trip meter hits 410 miles and you're still going.
As for the ramifications of AGW and what we can do about it... plenty! I don't think carbon credits are the answer, as they can be too easily exploited by corporations and other entities only looking for profit instead of what's best for humanity. Carbon reduction goals are nice, but they are so often ignored and forgotten, with no real consequences for failing to meet them (and why would you punish countries for not meeting their goals when you should be providing positive incentives?). Here in my neck of the woods, legislation was passed that mandated utility companies produce higher percentages of their total power output by using renewables... 3% in 2012, 9% in 2016 and 15% in 2020 (not counting hydro power, seeing as how Washington State already leads the nation in hydro power: we produce something like 30% of the hydro power in the entire country). Over $8 billion dollars has been invested into green energy as a result. It's a great start, however I think that the real key to unlocking renewable energy as a commercially viable enterprise is a leap forward in battery technology. Almost all renewable resources do not produce an even, constant generation of electricity... and that causes a lot of the power produced to be wasted (as you probably know from your solar panels). If we get better batteries, we can efficiently store the power produced by renewables and distribute it through Smartgrids and start reducing our burninating of fossil fuels.
There's a huge problem though. Take this thread even. What would be the point of trying to talk about what we need to do to prevent AGW when half the people don't even believe it's real? It'd be like trying to have a conversation with vegans about which restaurant has the best steak. Combine that with the fact that the only real way to fight global warming is through legislation and public pressure. Do you think anything meaningful is going to happen when politicians have to endorse environmentally friendly programs when they might alienate their voters who think it's all a load of hooey? That brings me to the other problem I have with the AGW "debate":
"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."-Neil Degrasse Tyson
AGW is not a belief system, it's science. You can look at the data. You can draw your own conclusions. If AGW is indeed a hoax, then science will show it. It hasn't so far, and there's been plenty of smart people out there that have been desperately trying to do so. Give me more than cherry picked surface air temperature numbers to go off of here. This is not a political debate. This is not a religious debate. There is no partial credit or compromise on the horizon. Either we're digging our own graves or we aren't. Science has shown that it's not a question of "if" right now, but a question of "when" and "how bad". That's the real debate climate scientists are having. It's a shame that to do anything about it, we'll most likely need the support of people who aren't even open to the possibility that they're wrong.
Climatology is science. That warming of the planet has occurred during our lifetime is a fact. That it has warmed and cooled in a cyclic manner throughout its existence is a fact.
AGW is a belief. At best a theory. A theory that by its very nature will likely never be 'proven' in the traditional scientific sense. Those who believe the theory to be correct claim it is 'science' and consider those who are skeptical of the theory 'unscientific' (or worse). The documented factual evidence since IPCC 1 runs counter to the theory - temperatures have stabilized despite rapidly climbing atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
It's all well and good to 'do the right thing' on a local or individual level (live as 'green' as you wish or can) but it's the epitome of hubris to believe that political entities can 'know' the right things to do about global climate as matters of policy. Carbon taxes, cap & trade schemes, etc., are the climatologic equivalents of applying leeches or bloodletting in medicine - wild ass guesses in the absence of adequate knowledge coupled with the urge to 'do something'. And as motivated by opportunistic greed as any capitalist enterprise.
The Ehrlichs predicted (in 1968) societal collapse by the late 1980's due to overpopulation. It was unimaginable (to the Ehrlichs) at the time that the Earth could sustain the population to which it has since grown. To argue that they were right but wrong about the timing is rationalization.
Same with AGW. To argue that it's fact but just wrong in the timing is rationalization. We don't have sufficient data (yet).
Here is an interesting interview in Der Spiegel regarding what the stagnation in global temperatures (a leveling off that coincided with the measurements starting to be closely scrutinized) means to the AGW hypothesis:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-hans-von-storch-on-problems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721.html
Basically, if it continues a few more years it means that the human influenced climate change model is dead since no one -- no one predicted such a long leveling off of temperatures.
An interesting article, my views on climate change are very similar. For those looking for more reliable sources on this topic to verify the other articles see this article by the Economist, which has always been very pro global warming. I won't comment on how much people effect the climate since I'm not an expert but with my background in economics I have always found climate change true believers very annoying. Not one of them as advanced anything remotely like a plan to deal with their coming climate apocalypse.
Green energy like solar and wind can't compete with fossil fuels cost wise. Thus the only way we can can use them without increasing energy costs by huge amounts and crashing modern civilization is to subsidize them, and where does this money come from? Why from fossil fuels of course... From my own experience someone with government contacts always makes a huge profit from these schemes though.
Cap and trade schemes or carbon taxes can reduce emissions a bit but not enough to make any difference really. The main point of them is to provide a financial incentive for companies to become more emission efficient and to do research in order to discover new technologies. I'm not against either of these policies I'm just aware that they will make no little to no real difference in reducing global emissions, unless of course they lead to some groundbreaking new technology. Too often they are used as excuses by political groups to increase taxes on businesses.
When you get right down to it the only real way to completely avoid global warming is to revert back to the pre-electrical age, which is what a lot of true believers think they really want anyway. Of course that is never going to happen as society would rather have several large cities sink into the ocean and super storms then lose the conveniences of modern life. So the only real effect of the green lobby will be for a lot of government money to end up in the hands of green companies for questionable returns.
I'll quote the guy in the article:
"Yes, we are certainly going to see an increase of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) or more -- and by the end of this century, mind you."
So even if you want to take that guy as your complete source of authority, you STILL get really bad man made global warming.
And as I showed above, peer reviewed papers show that the "level off" is debatable at best (its probably a statistical trick of picking end dates - if you work over long time periods, global warming trends indisputably match predictions).
Basically, its debatable if the level off even exists (it probably doesn't), and even if it does, your own source still predict massive global warming.
Quoting Daiwa, reply 77AGW is a belief. At best a theory. A theory that by its very nature will likely never be 'proven' in the traditional scientific sense.
You don't know what science is.
Science lacks the logical capacity to prove anything. Go read Karl Popper or something. Science can't prove that rocks fall to the ground, that atoms will act in the way that we expect, or even that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow.
What science can do is make predictions of varying degree of certainty.
The highest state of anything based on observation in science is "theory". You can't get any higher than theory in science - you have the theory of gravitation, and quantum theory, and the theory of evolution (etc) - we believe all those to a very high degree of certainty, but they are still theories. "Laws" are essentially just mathematical assertions. A theory can never become a law no matter what observational or experimental evidence might exist.
I'd recommend that you go read up on the logical structure of science, as well as scientific methodology. Then come back to the conversation when you get that.
Since you don't know me, I'll forgive your childish condescension. And in fact, we are in agreement about science. You are correct that I used the term theory incorrectly - AGW doesn't rise to that - but there's a reason 'proven' was in quotes, this being a somewhat casual-discussion forum. The more appropriate descriptor for AGW is an hypothesis. That being that rapid anthropogenic increases in atmospheric CO2 will accelerate a known long-term warming trend. That hypothesis has yet to be supported by observed data. With any degree of certainty.
Also, thanks for giving me hope that I may some day be worthy of returning to the conversation.
Which I don't because trying to predict something that far out is ridiculous. One significant volcanic eruption and everything changes. Heck, the technological singularity is due in the 2030s and at that point we have no idea what's going to happen.
And there's the rub. The historical temperature measurements are very suspect. When I was in college, I worked for the university and was involved in data collection for the GIS department. Careful care on readings was not a priority. Until the 2001 IPCC report, most people weren't paying much attention to "global warming". The data didn't really get scrutinized very carefully until after that and then, suddenly, once the big bad "denialists" started looking over the readings, the agreed upon temperature measurements miraculously stabilized.
That isn't to say that global warming hasn't happened. Isn't happening. Nor does it mean that we should try to take steps to reduce our foot print on the environment. But before governments start using force to change the way people live, this stuff better be a lot more solid than it really is.
It is an undeniable fact: Nobody predicted that in 2013 we'd be seeing the same temperatures (atmosphere/surface) as we were in 2003. Nobody. And yet, here we are.
That's a pretty insulting statement to make to Daiwa. AGW is a belief. It is an unproven hypothesis. As a theory, the first test would be to make a prediction and measure it against measured outcomes. For example: predict the temperature will rise and then see if it happens. Well, they made the prediction and here we are in 2013 and it didn't happen.
And even if it had happened, it wouldn't prove AGW. At some point, the AGW hypothesis will no longer be credible. If we're in 2023 and the temperature hasn't measurably increased, I think the AGW hypothesis will be pretty dead. In 2013, it is largely breaking down ideological lines.
AGW isn't a theory. It's a hypothesis. That's how science works. To get to be a theory, it needs to make predictions that can be tested against that actually work out. So far, no go.And then there's the clincher:
Let's assume that AGW is real. That we know, for certain, that unless we reduce CO2 emissions back to 1989 levels that the world's mean temperature will increase 2C. What do you propose?
What are you going to do about it?
I live in a 100% solar powered house heated and cooled by geothermal and drive an electric car powered by the aforementioned solar arrays. My solar arrays generate so much power that I actually sell back to DTE powering other houses with my solar array. I use cisterns to collect rain water for use in lawn care and other "gray water" needs. What are you doing?
Because there's always a secondary issue I see: People who treat other people with disrespect (like saying they don't know science) based on their beliefs. Well, you seem very convinced about AGW. What are you doing then? I'm a skeptic. But I bet my carbon foot print (which is technically 0 since I produce more energy than I consume) is less than any climate "alarmist" in this discussion.
There was a conversation?
The hardest bit re 'what to do' is balancing savings re coal-resourced [eg] power vs technology alternatives that require high resource use to otherwise obviate the burning of coal. The famous example is the Prius.... yes, saves on fuel ....but the tech uses exotic metals etc which essentially negates any benefit.
When 'sums' can be done to demonstrate that that old gas-guzzler is more energy 'conservative' than a trendy new car and its associated resource-use in manufacture combined with the land-fill destiny of the guzzler it would be replacing.... you end up damned-if-you-do and damned-if-you-don't.
Our throw-away consumerist society is the blame for much of our ills.....and the rest is down to political ennui [scared of the backlash against anything even remotely a solution].
Whilst I see my having a 'small' house on a property of 192 square meters [at a comparative premium price] my most recent house design is on 10 acres and is 80 squares [8000 sq. feet] .... cos there are clients out there who want that. Interestingly both houses are technically 3 bedroom....
What do you do?
Individuals can do next to nothing....it's all pissing into the wind.
However... if everyone did 'something' there'd be a benefit definitely. The only issue is that 'everyone' means the entire planet [so economic sacrifices were balanced - no-one profited by not toe-ing the line] .... and you can't get the entire planet to do anything.
Ever.
Thanks, Brad, but my skin is sufficiently thick, having posted on these forums for 12 years now.
I admit I used the word 'theory' carelessly (from a technical perspective) but did so as the colloquial equivalent of hypothesis, as many people who have no scientific background use the term, the technical equivalents of 'theory' and 'fact' being 'hypothesis' and 'theory' respectively. On that score, guilty as charged.
On the main point, I believe my take is valid. AGW is an hypothesis so far unsupported by observed data. Just to be clear, that's distinct from long-term climate change, about which there is little doubt and over which we have, and forever will have, trivial influence, whether inadvertent (e.g., AGW, if real) or intentional (e.g., trying to 'do something' about global warming).
Ah....the phrase "nuclear winter" springs to mind....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter
Nobodies such as Karl Sagan are referenced there.
That we CAN is beyond dispute [really] .... that we currently are is simply too soon to be absolutely certain, thanks to naturally existing cycles. Who it is that is actually on the earth-is-flat-because-we-don't-fall-off-it side is yet to be demonstrated....
Grant you that, Jafo. But even a 'nuclear winter' would barely be a blink of the cosmic eye, if that. Not trivial to us humans, of course, but a cosmic triviality just the same. To paraphrase Krazikarl, with a long enough time line almost everything gets buried in the noise eventually. Haven't done the math, but I doubt detonating all the nukes in the world simultaneously would come close to matching the energy of the Chicxulub asteroid impact.
Without which, it's worth noting, it's unlikely we'd be having this exchange of replies. We're lucky to be here.
Let's put this another way:
The VAST majority of climate scientists and every National Academy of Science in the first world assert that our theories of climate change are theories. Some guys on the internet who systematically ignore the data that they don't like say something different. I know who I'm going with.
To refer to climate change as a hypothesis is absurd.
A hypothesis is, as defined in science, and educated guess unsupported by evidence. But we have a vast body of evidence supporting modern theories of climate change.
Temperatures have, indisputably, increased substantially since the start of the 20th century. They have increased essentially as predicted by the models. As my link shows, temperatures have likely increased during the last 15 years or so, although as your link shows, this is not indisputable. However, even if we accept your link, your own person still asserts that climate change is happening as predicted by models.
On top of that, you have arctic ice melting as predicted ahead of time by models. You have glaciers in worldwide retreat, as predicted by the models. Or you have the measured ocean acidification, which is following the predicted trends (source: C. L. Sabine et.al., “The Oceanic Sink for Anthropogenic CO2,” Science vol. 305 (16 July 2004), 367-371). Or the fact that the rate of the global sea level rise is accelerating, as predicted by models (some source as before).
This is all strong, largely indisputable, evidence for climate change as described by our current theories.
And the best part is, there are no viable alternative hypotheses. Oh, people have tried. Real hard, but no hypothesis has stood up to any kind of reasoning.
You know what is pretty insulting? The fact that people are calling out scientists for being incompetent at their job on the basis of not even half baked theories, or a fundamental misstatement of how science works.
Except you ignore the fact that it DOES predict historical changes in temperatures (over decades), it successfully predicted arctic ice melts (in fact, it has probably UNDERESTIMATED that), and global glacier retreat. And acidification. And rate of sea level rise.
You are simply ignoring all the data that are inconvenient to your argument. Scientists don't get to do that.
No. Volcanic eruptions might change a yearly temperature a bit, but unless a bunch of supervolcanoes go off, a slight drop in temperatures one year isn't going to change the big picture.
Right, right, people are faking data now. Its a conspiracy.
Temperature readings are taken in a variety of different ways and calibrated against each other. Most AGW deniers can't even deny that temperatures have increased since 1880 or so because the data are sufficiently strong.
You might want to go back and read your own article.
The guy in your own article says that some fraction of models they ran (that assumed climate change) DID predict essentially no rise in temperatures due to statistical fluctuations. And as my article said and as yours also, looking at temperature changes over that small of a window does not work due to short scale statistical fluctuations.
You are objecting to something on the basis of a line of reasoning that your own sources reject (that you can use time frames of that length to falsify anything - both of our sources say at least 15 years).
Also, I want to point out one important thing in another post (I should have mentioned this earlier)-
Keep in mind that the last decade also had a VERY unusual solar cycle where the Sun solar minimum was much deeper than usual. Solar minimums are usually associated with slightly lower temperatures. So even if there was a slow in temperature rise, it is likely because of a known, observation effect (the solar minimum), rather than a sudden change in overall warming trends that have been happening over the last 150 years or so.
Although the folks at Hiroshima may beg to differ....the 'models' of effect of 'nuclear winter' were postulated with TOY nukes.... measured in kilotons - 50 the size of those used in WW2. Since then we got 'better' at eradicating life-as-we-know-it.
Sure, the planet is tough....it won't run away and hide.... it'll still be here..... but existentialists will argue it won't...because no-one will be left to observe it.
The question left to ask is... is it better to snuff out all life quick and [relatively] painless ... or suffer the slow, lingering death that is genocide by degrees? [pun intended]...
Don't forget that both the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the El Nino Southern Oscillation have both been in negative/cooling phases quite often this past decade. It's certainly possible that those cycles combined with decreased solar output could be masking the surface temperature warming, leading to all this "global warming has stalled" guff.
Nevermind that the oceans have been constantly rising anyways.
We don't have a temperature record going back to 1880, we have a partial temperature record covering a minuscule fraction of the current station network, that's been heavily doctored over the last few decades.
Way back in the day, when they were postulating the end of the world in another ice age by now, the temperature record for the US said it was hotter in the 30's than it was in the 90's. When the world stopped cooling in the 70's, they went ape shit over how hot we were getting and switched to AGW. Now, magically, all the data that previously said we were cooling, substantially, shows us nearly flat instead.
The same people that came up with all these revisions to reduce our past temperature record are the same people that decided the current monitoring stations were reading too low. Despite such clever locations as paved parking lots, runway taxi lanes, and commercial AC exhaust systems, they managed to convince themselves the majority of stations needed additions to their readings, instead of subtractions.
Then they faked the satellite readings to match them, people got wise, and oh look, we lost half the increase! I've looked into it, and I can't see any reason for the discrepancies in the temperature record. As such, I've stopped paying attention to the nonsense and decided to just assume they're all lying to us for our own good because fossil fuels are "evil" and need curbed.
As to predicting that the polar ice caps will melt, and glaciers will melt... No shit, they've been doing it since we got out of the last ice age. Maybe we'll all drown in another century, who knows. Odds are we'll be too busy killing each other to notice.
Quoting Frogboy, reply 82I use cisterns to collect rain water for use in lawn care and other "gray water" needscarefull now stealing water from the state is bad Sir
I think this definition is more accurate:
A hypothesis comes about from observing the world, developing a guess that explains the observations, making predictions that support the guess, then testing/observing further to see if those predictions hold up.
Those testable predictions must:
If a prediction explains any result, then it explains nothing, and you’re just spouting philosophies, notions, hopes and beliefs, however well backed-up you might be by models and logic.
I didn't say climate change was a hypothesis. I said AGW was a hypothesis.
Though, if one wants to be pandemic, one could say every breath we take warms the climate some tiny amount in the same sense that every time I jump up and down on the ground I am moving the earth some infinitesimal amount.
They have increased essentially as predicted by the models. As my link shows, temperatures have likely increased during the last 15 years or so, although as your link shows, this is not indisputable. However, even if we accept your link, your own person still asserts that climate change is happening as predicted by models.
No they haven't. What are you talking about? Are you suggesting there were "climate models" in 1880? We didn't start to get seriously interested in AGW until the 1990s and none -- repeat -- none of the models predicted that the surface/air temperature would stay the same.
The links I've provided come from Wikipedia where people a lot more into this than we are have already been arguing out whose data to include.
Who is suggesting scientists are "incompetent"? History is replete with scientific consensus on a belief that turned out to be wrong (remember ether?). Science is about constantly striving for better explanations of why things are. It does not (or should not) get held back by institutionalized dogma. If the temperatures continue to be stable for another decade or so, the notion that human beings are the primary mover of global temperatures will have to be tossed out and a new set of hypothesis's will need to be created.
Except you ignore the fact that it DOES predict historical changes in temperatures (over decades), it successfully predicted arctic ice melts (in fact, it has probably UNDERESTIMATED that), and global glacier retreat. And acidification. And rate of sea level rise. You are simply ignoring all the data that are inconvenient to your argument. Scientists don't get to do that.
What are you talking about? You can't retroactively predict something and claim that's proof of your theory. Perhaps you can point us to the paper written in 1900 that "predicted" temperature increases in the 20th century.
Feel free to point us to a paper from say 1993 that predicts ocean levels over the next several decades and then show the actual sea levels.
Saying that it's warmer in the arctic (and thus seeing glacier retreat) isn't proof of man made warming. It is proof that there is a regional warming there. Since the overall temperature worldwide has remained steady for the last 10 - 15 years, that indicates that there are regions where it's cooler.
People scoff at people like the OP for complaining about the local weather being too cold and then you do the exact same thing with regards to the arctic -- which has only had satellite imagery since 1978.
Ok, you either have terrible reading comprehension or you're just being a jackass. Either way, if you keep it up I'll just ignore your points in future conversations.
My point, which I thought was clear, is that data collection on temperatures has been historically sloppy. When global warming started to become a serious issue, the measurements started to be taken much much more carefully because everyone was looking much more closely at the data. When that happened, the temperatures abruptly stabilized. No conspiracy.
If temperatures continue to be level another decade, I think the backpedaling by the AGW proponents will become even more rigorous. After all, you are now retroactively claiming that lots of climate scientists predicted a leveling off of temperatures for an entire decade and a half. Perhaps you can point to some papers that were part of the "consensus" that claimed that. The IPCC report certainly didn't claim that.
..
And I want to put this out there again: You obviously believe that humans are impacting the climate. What are YOU doing about it? What do you want the governments to do about it?
I'll be candid - I don't care about the issue other than enjoying debating the topic. If humans are materially affecting the climate, there's little that can be done. I'm doing my part to reduce my impact I think. But otherwise, the strategy should be about adaptation and cultural respect for the environment.
Ok, then why wasn't this predicted in the 1990s or in the IPCC report? If there's another decade of stable temperatures, do you have another rationale ready to retroactively use?
The skeptics, like me, have pointed out since the start that the earth's climate is very very complex and there are a lot of moving parts involved. Humans certainly have an impact on global climate. It wouldn't be the first time an organism on earth has done that (thank goodness because I really appreciate the oxygen in the atmosphere that cyanobacteria put there). What is disputed, however, is the amount of impact humans are having and the means we are having the most impact.
I worry less about CO2 than I do about methane and deforestation in terms of having an impact (humans, through their food production, indirectly put a great deal of methane into the atmosphere).
What annoys me to no end are people who smugly take on a belief without, in my view, really understanding the science behind it and how the "consensus" came about. They think having the belief, in itself, somehow makes them more educated than those who have looked at a lot more data and reached different conclusions. I'm not suggesting anyone in this discussion falls into this, but I have dealt with plenty of friends and family who behave smugly because they believe in AGW after watching Inconvenient Truth and nothing else.
I also get highly annoyed by people who are adamant about the dire consequences of AGW but do nothing about it in their personal lives. I'm a skeptic and as I mentioned in another post, I live in a 100% solar powered house heated/cooled by geothermal and drive an electric car (and no, Jafo, the footprint of the construction of these materials doesn't even remotely come close to undoing their "green", that's a load of shit). I'll start worrying about AGW when its loudest proponents start acting like it's a crisis in their personal lives.
I'm a complete and utter denialist and proud of it. I don't give a rat's ass about my 'emissions' because relative to nature's emissions it's not even a grain of sand on a beach.
I'll never ever drive an electric car that isn't powered by a dieselengine, I waste energy,water,food left, right front and center because it's my stuff which i pay for to do what i like and no econut is going to tell otherwise.
Regardless of which side of this debate you may find yourself on, wasting anything just seems so pointless/foolish.....not to mention painting your position ("proud denialist") in no better a light than that of the so-called 'fanatical alarmists'.
EDIT:
In my opinion it takes facts combined with a healthy dose of responsible intelligence to make good choices in life. The same has led me personally to a role of stewardship with the things I have the opportunity to affect. I personally have found this approach to everything in my life very fulfilling if not helping to make the tiniest of difference.
Glad you got the point that this whole claptrap about 'stewardship' is utter malarkey. If push comes to shove you'll kill every last animal to feed your starving kids, chop the last tree on earth to prevent your kids dying from hypothermia.
'Stewardship' is an insult to the 80% of the world on a subsistence level by comparing your mighty fight for humankind to their suffering. As if they have the choice to be stewards. Where do you live? California? JHC how much ecolooneytunes have you been spoonfed to come up with such nonsense?
How does any of this support your position of wasting resources? Waste of any kind is pointless/foolish in my opinion and if anything introduces unnecessary hardship somewhere along the line. Besides, how does any of this affect whether you yourself can behave as a steward or not? I don't care to force stewardship on anyone, I simply stated that I have chosen to live that way. Nothing you could say would make me believe my making responsible choices (ie. not wasting wherever I can) is not the better way to live.
You don't have to be an 'econut' to see the foolishness in such sentiment......really.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
