Stonehenges

So often we see ourselves as a lonely, cultural pinnacle, superior beyond all comparison. But if recent excavations at Stonehenge offer anything, they put our era in perspective, reminding us of an unbroken lineage shared across continents and cultures. We are simply an extension of an ancient age, living now in the next lost civilization.

This is from an article entitled Stonehenges all around us published in the L.A. Times. The author, Craig Childs, invites us to look around, not only at the numerous Neolithic sites that have been discovered around the world, but at the patterns of our own, current civilization. There are similarities. If you think about, why shouldn't there be similarities? After all, we're members of the same species that built Stonehenge and other, similar sites.

Step out of your house and you might notice your street is fixed on a cardinal grid: north, south, east, west. This pattern defines many American and European cities, as well as Neolithic sites such as Anyang in China and the Mexican city of Teotihuacan.

***

Looking at the way ancient people assembled themselves, archeologists see cults and primitive, celestial religions. But how primitive were these people's beliefs, and how different from them are we?

***

The same kind of architecture can be seen in Washington, where countless astronomical alignments are constructed into the Capitol and its surrounding buildings and monuments. Most recently, Gerald Ford joined a long line of presidents whose bodies have lain in state inside the majestic, symmetrical Rotunda. Will future archeologists imagine the worship of ancient leaders whose bodies were kept within circular chambers before burial?

Something to think about.
_______________________________________

Weird-ass Wednesday

Gazing into my crystal ball, I see ...

Ice.

You've probably seen the movie, The Day After Tomorrow, a mega disaster, end-of-the-world special effects extravaganza. Many people don't realize that it was based on the book, The Coming Global Superstorm.

Here's a blurb from Wikipedia:

The book posits the following theory:

* First, that the Gulf Stream and North Atlantic drift generates a cordon of warm water around the north pole, which in turn creates a cordon of warm air that holds in a frozen mass of arctic air.

* Second, that if the Gulf Stream were to shut down, that barrier would fail, releasing a flood of frozen air into the northern hemisphere, effecting a sudden and drastic temperature shift.

The book discusses a possible cause of the failure of the gulf stream: that the melting of the polar ice caps could drastically affect the salinity of the North Atlantic drift by dumping a large quantity of freshwater into the world's oceans.

The disaster they're talking about is this: The upper atmosphere's frozen air suddenly comes crashing down and instantly flash freezes everything in the northern hemisphere.

The book says this may have happened in ages past, as part of a larger climate cycle we know little about, and that the effects of man-made global warming are hastening the process in the current cycle. You know those flash-frozen green beans in the freezer? Well, it may be that Mother Nature flash froze some woolly mammoths a while back. They were unearthed thousands of years later with fresh food still in their mouths and undigested food in their stomachs. The article I've linked to gives the standard explanation that they "may have been trapped in bogs or quicksands and either died of starvation or exposure, or drowning if they sank under the surface. Though judging by the evidence of undigested food in the stomach and seed pods still in the mouth of many of the specimens, neither starvation nor exposure seem likely."

The movie depicts the same flash-freezing happening to humans and everything else.

So, how could the frozen air in the upper atmosphere suddenly come crashing down and instantly flash freeze every single green bean and human in the northern hemisphere? It's the "cordon of warm air" which prevents that from happening now. But if the air in the barrier is no longer warm, then the super-cold air slams to the earth (remember, warm air rises, cold air falls.)

The warm air barrier exists because of the "conveyor belt" effect of the Gulf Stream and North Atlantic Drift. The Gulf Stream's warm water is pulled northward by the North Atlantic Drift. The warm water sits atop the cold water of the Drift. The evaporation of this warm water as it drifts north warms the air, and thus, most of Europe (remember, England is at the same latitude as Canada, yet it is considerably warmer.) Simultaneously, the further north the warm water travels, the colder it gets. As it cools, it sinks (warm water rises, cold water sinks.)

This cycle of warm water evaporating and warming the air, then cooling and sinking as it travels north, and traveling back down to the Gulf, is called thermohaline circulation. Everything works fine as long as nothing drastically interferes with this cycle.

The disaster in the movie is caused by the shutdown of thermohaline circulation. If it shuts down, then warm water is no longer carried from the Gulf Stream to the North Atlantic Drift because the Drift is no longer circulating. No warm water means no evaporation to warm the air. Instead, only cold water is evaporating, cooling the air. No warm air means no barrier to keep the super-cold frozen air aloft. The super-cold air has nowhere to go but ... down.

What caused the hypothetical shutdown of thermohaline circulation in the movie? A change in seawater density. If you alter salty water by adding freshwater, you change the water's density. Freshwater is less dense than salty water, so it stays on top. What caused the massive influx of cold freshwater into the ocean's seawater in the movie? Melting glaciers.

Of course, that was just a movie, and we don't have anything to worry about. Unless the glaciers start melting. Oh wait. They are.

Unlike the book, the movie didn't take into account what would happen if vast amounts of trapped methane were released into the atmosphere.

Methane is the byproduct of decaying plants. In bodies of water, the gases produced by the decay process can't rise to the surface because the water is too dense. The water keeps the methane trapped.

Runaway Methane Global Warming

This anaerobic decay produces methane which gets trapped in the silt as methane hydrates until the conditions of water temperature and pressure change which can release the methane in vast quantities very quickly. Another form is a frozen slush/ice methane hydrate where the methane is trapped in an ice/water mixture which releases the methane when it warms up or the pressure on the ice is reduced. Frozen methane hydrates can contain 170 times their own volume of methane. These frozen hydrates occur in the seabed deposits of the Arctic Ocean.

The same thing happens in the ground in permafrost.

Methane can also be trapped by permafrost layers which over-lay lower unfrozen layers of vegetable material that is decaying and producing methane which remains trapped by the frozen permafrost on top. If the permafrost layer were to melt then the methane in the layers below would escape into the atmosphere. Given the vast areas of permafrost in northern latitudes there is a significant potential for methane to be trapped that would be released if the permafrost melted as a result of global warming.

Well, it's a good thing the permafrost isn't melting. Oh wait. It is.

Well, have a nice day, everyone.
-----------------------------------------------

Well here's some good news

After my rather grim post the other day, here's a little ray of sunshine for you (who luvs ya, Baby?):

A Crisis of Political Faith for Evangelicals

By Shawn Zeller Mon Sep 17, 9:40 AM ET

GOP hopefuls will get no free passes this time from a religious base angered by tepid progress on its agenda

In almost every presidential election of the past three decades, social conservative and evangelical voters didn’t need anything like their own debates or special summit meetings with the candidates. That’s because their choices were so obvious early on: In 1980 there was Ronald Reagan, who coyly told the members of the evangelical Religious Roundtable that, while he understood its membership was barred from endorsing him, he felt free to endorse them. In the past two elections there was George W. Bush, who describes himself as a born-again Christian and won his second term with the support of four out of five evangelicals.

So far in the 2008 campaign, though, evangelical conservatives have been facing a very different prospect: No obviously viable candidate to rally behind and an increasingly restive mood in their ranks.

So political leaders of the religious right are stepping up efforts to find a consensus choice, starting this week by staging the first-ever Values Voter Presidential Debate for the Republican candidates. The debate, in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., will be moderated by Joseph Farah, who edits the conservative online news site WorldNetDaily, and the questioners will include such old lions of the movement as Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation and Phyllis Schlafly of the Eagle Forum.

And next month, the Family Research Council, one of the most influential conservative advocacy groups in Washington, will hold a Values Voters Summit that at least four GOP aspirants — former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, Rep. Duncan Hunter of California and Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado — have pledged to attend. Afterward, the 2,000 or so council members who are expected to attend will be asked to participate in the group’s first straw poll.

But at the moment, the council’s president, Tony Perkins, says it’s shaping up to be a rather dour political season for the evangelical right. “Clearly, there is disappointment” in the movement’s ranks, he said.

With the GOP having controlled the White House and the House for the previous six years — and the Senate for the previous four — social conservatives expected much more progress on their agenda in Washington. Although they are happy that Bush has used his veto power to stop an expansion of federal stem cell research, signed a law banning the procedure opponents call “partial birth” abortion and won confirmation of two solid conservatives to the Supreme Court, the Christian right’s rank and file say they’re frustrated that Washington has not pushed for more-sweeping restrictions on abortion and gay rights.

Meanwhile, the president’s support for granting a path to citizenship for those who entered the country illegally has further strained the GOP’s relations with the evangelical base — a voting bloc Perkins estimates as one-third of voters in the GOP primaries, enough to make or break any candidate. And the past year’s trio of Republican A-congressional sexual scandals — centered on Rep. Mark Foley of Florida, Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana and Sen. Larry E. Craig of Idaho — has only fed the climate of disillusion. “Certainly,” Perkins said, “there is reason to be concerned about the future of the relationship” between social conservatives and the Republican Party.

And that has led Perkins and other religious leaders to push for the closer-than-usual examination of the GOP aspirants. “What I hear and see is that if you were a Republican candidate in the past, you got a pass on close scrutiny on key issues,” Perkins said. “I don’t think that’s going to be the case anymore. They are going to have to verify their credentials in order to gain the support of social conservatives.”

While these leaders hope that a consensus candidate will emerge, they are also openly concerned that evangelicals are now in danger of fragmenting at various points on the political spectrum. That’s because more than the composition of the Republican field has changed; evangelical voters are changing as well. Some, while still traditionally conservative in their beliefs, are weary of what they see as a pattern of disrespectful treatment from GOP candidates: lip service during campaigns followed by a dim interest in their agenda once in power. But other religious voters are embracing causes not traditionally identified with American conservatism, such as global warming, human rights and poverty relief.

‘A New Guard’

This new, more tentative phase of evangelical activism also coincides with something of a leadership vacuum. Jerry Falwell, the leader of the iconic Moral Majority, died in May, and onetime presidential hopeful Pat Robertson, founder of the Christian Broadcasting Network, has lost almost all his political clout. Other figures are vying for a more influential voice on a bigger national stage. Among them are Perkins, Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, and James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family.

But none of these figures is likely to emerge as a singular leader in the mode of Falwell, for the simple reason that the future evangelical movement will probably be less unified than its predecessors. As a result, political strategists may soon have to stop thinking of “the evangelical voter” as a shorthand term for a right-leaning voting bloc. “I’m sensing the emergence of an old guard and a new guard,” said Amy E. Black, a political scientist at Wheaton College, an evangelical school in Illinois.

While the break is not exclusively along generational lines, Black says, many of her students — the school is among the most culturally conservative in the country — are more likely than their elders to question the GOP line on issues such as climate change and human rights. Many have also begun to pull away from their elders’ support for the Iraq War — and to distance themselves from President Bush as a result.

At the same time, a number of prominent evangelical leaders have successfully wedded a more liberal outlook to their religious message. Jim Wallis, the self-styled evangelical progressive who founded and edits Sojourners magazine, is a familiar leader in this leftward faction. Richard Cizik, the Washington director of the National Association of Evangelicals, has launched a high-profile initiative to publicize the importance of global warming and other environmental causes for Christian believers — provoking Perkins and other evangelical leaders to press unsuccessfully for his ouster earlier this year. More-centrist figures, such as the popular baby boomer minister Rick Warren, author of “The Purpose Driven Life,” have staked out high-profile “social justice” mission projects. Warren has embarked on an aid initiative to transform the war-ravaged African nation of Rwanda into a “purpose-driven nation” and drew harsh criticism from religious conservatives for inviting Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, a leading candidate for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, to speak at an AIDS conference at his Saddleback Church in Orange County, Calif.

A Buyer’s Market

Even movement leaders say the upcoming flurry of candidate forums points up how the playing field has changed from the days when Reagan was the only GOP presidential candidate to court Southern Baptists — or when the 2000 campaign of Sen. John McCain of Arizona collapsed after he ran afoul of Christian conservatives.

“In Washington and outside the Beltway, it’s really a buyer’s market,” said Bob Knight, who is scheduled to speak at the council’s summit and who serves as director of the Culture and Media Institute, a socially conservative media watchdog in Washington. “We’re waiting to hear a candidate convey our message. That hasn’t happened yet, and that’s why there’s no clear choice.”

It’s not for lack of trying on the candidates’ part. Leading GOP candidates such as Romney and former Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee are actively vying for the evangelical vote. Even McCain, badly burned from his apostasy seven years ago, has made pronounced overtures to Christian conservatives. Still, most leading candidates have had to explain away evidence in their records suggesting that they may not, in fact, be true believers: Aside from being a Mormon, Romney was clear in his support of gay equality and abortion rights while running for governor of Massachusetts; Thompson, meanwhile, did legal work in the 1990s for an abortion rights lobbying group and has sent mixed messages regarding his views on amending the Constitution to ban gay marriage.

Meanwhile, the early leader, former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, has run openly — if respectfully — out of step on many of the evangelical right’s litmus-test issues. But he is polling well among them, at about 25 percent, according to a September Washington Post/ABC poll — although the same survey showed him losing support to the just-announced Thompson. Movement leaders A-attribute A-Giuliani’s level of support to a desire among religious voters to field the strongest possible GOP candidate, whatever his views, against the Democratic front-runner, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York. “There’s much more opposition to Sen. Clinton than there ever was to her husband” among evangelicals, said Land of the Southern Baptists. “Rudy Giuliani has going for him the fact that he continues to be either running ahead of her or even with her.”

Democratic Gains?

Of course, still relatively early in the campaign, some evangelicals may be picking Giuliani out of name recognition alone, or because they approve of his leadership after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and his success in helping reduce crime in New York. Perkins argues that most voters aren’t aware of his support for abortion and gay rights. But Land takes a more pessimistic view: that some in his traditional constituency are ready to set aside their strongly held views on social issues to support the most electable Republican.

Land is acutely aware of the long-term political costs of such a calculation. Giuliani as the nominee could crack the united front that backed Bush in 2004, he said, meaning that Clinton or any other Democratic nominee would then have “a license to go hunting for evangelical votes.”

That may appear to be a lost cause, given that all the Democratic contenders support, for example, abortion rights and expanded civil rights for gays and lesbians. But Black of Wheaton College says that even if evangelicals aren’t going to vote Democratic for president next year, they may still come out to vote for the socially conservative congressional candidates the party has been recruiting for swing seats.

But the bigger setback for the GOP nationally could be a replay of what happened last year, when Republicans did not give social conservatives a strong reason to turn out. “We may be at one of those crossroads where people who feel disaffected with the Republican Party are beginning to take a step back,” Black says.

Bowing Out

One figure who advocates taking several steps back from the GOP is Richard Viguerie, the political direct-mail mogul who was an architect of the religious right’s initial surge into power with the election of Ronald Reagan. “Of all the problems that conservatives have had in the last 10 to 12 years, No. 1 has been that too many of our conservative leaders have gotten too close to the Republican Party,” he said.

In a dramatic departure from his past efforts, Viguerie now argues that social conservatives should bow out of presidential politics — at least until GOP leaders have more to offer them. Scanning the Republican presidential field, he says, “Not one of them was there for us” on the key issues to social conservatives: abortion and gay rights. True conservatives “should just sit on the sidelines” during the next election, he advised.

In lieu of electoral politics, Viguerie says evangelical leaders should set up faith-based groups and other socially conservative organizations, with membership that affiliates with both parties, to press their political causes.

Land and other leaders of the evangelical right urge caution in the face of such breakaway proposals — in part by contending that Bush has not neglected their issues as much as the rank and file laments.

Perkins of late has also touted the credentials of two second-tier GOP contenders, Brownback and former Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, telling readers of his daily Washington e-mail updates that they are the “most religious” candidates.

And both he and Land are downplaying concerns about the conservative bona fides of Thompson and Romney. Perkins says that although there is legitimate concern about the records of both, each is working hard to win over social conservatives. If Thompson and Romney “can show the potential to stand toe-to-toe with Hillary Clinton, you’re going to see Giuliani’s numbers drop,” Land said.

But it’s unlikely that any of the Republicans will re-create the strong bond that united so many evangelicals behind the incumbent president. “George W. Bush was elected as one of us,” says Black.

This story originally appeared in CQ Weekly.

[emphases mine]

After reading this, I felt just like Jon Stewart did the night he reported on Dick Cheney shooting a friend in the face - remember that? Jon reached down behind his desk and retrieved a tray. The tray held a pot of hot water, a cup and saucer, and a tin of International Flavored Coffee. There may have been a crumpet or two on the tray, as well. Yes, folks, moments like these are to be savored. Enjoy.

As many of you know, I'm a Pastafarian. Once in a while I like to check out the Hate Mail (and concerned criticism) section of the Prophet's (Bobby Henderson), website, The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM).

Here's a sampling:

It is my considered view that you are poisoning the minds of the worlds [sic] youth with your outrageous claims that a Flying Spagetti [sic] Monster (”FSM”) created the universe and not our Heavenly Father.

This is what happens when people don't read the fine print. Evidently, this person thinks the Prophet said that the FSM created the universe, but did NOT create "our Heavenly Father." (I love the "considered view" part.)

Here's one from a logical thinker:

Seriously think about this logically. How can a flying spaghetti “whatever” live or make something? If we are made in Gods [sic] image, I’m not spaghetti am I? you have probably ruined millions of people’s lives.

This one is at least instructive:

Woah…. [sic] that is just so..so…dumb. Really, it is. I hope no one actually thinks that that graph has any purpose, or credibility. Global warming and pirates have nothing in correlation. The reason global temperatures have increased is due to (not only just greenhouse gas, which actually do not contribute much overall) the earth’s natural process of heating and cooling. Pirate numbers have decreased because the practice is far less accepted and is more easily restricted.

My favorite title is:

I’m very against this site.

I like it even better than "jesus loves you bobby." I think what appeals to me most is the combination of the sophomoric "very" and the word "against," as if there's going to be a referendum on Saturday.

I hope you'll enjoy browsing as much as I have today.

May you be touched by His Noodly Appendage,
RAmen.

It's Official

It's Official

Global Warming: real, man-made, irreversible.

Hmm. Pat Robertson, to whom God speaks personally, said he doesn't "believe in" global warming. Ya think he could have been wrong?

Meanwhile, in civilization, the British will begin showing An Inconvenient Truth to school children. Ya think that would ever happen here?

Finally, as always, please remember what they say about yellow snow.

Multi-Topic

Another Savior Bites the Dust

Iraqi cult leader killed in Najaf battle
Some highlights from the article (copyright Reuters):

The leader of an Iraqi cult who claimed to be the Mahdi, a messiah-like figure in Islam, was killed in a battle on Sunday near Najaf with hundreds of his followers, Iraq's national security minister said on Monday.

Women and children who joined 600-700 of his "Soldiers of Heaven" on the outskirts of the Shi'ite holy city may be among the casualties, Shirwan al-Waeli told Reuters. All those people not killed were in detention, many of them wounded.

These "Soldiers of Heaven" are not to be confused with our own homegrown "Soldiers of God," "Army of God," or "Soldiers of Christ."


Global Warming Climate Change

Experts slam upcoming global warming report (article copyright AP)
When I first saw this headline I thought, oh great, more "experts" in denial about this. But the article is about real experts "slamming" the upcoming report because it is "a sugar-coated version." They are saying it doesn't accurately reflect the extent of rising water levels and higher temperatures. A couple of excerpts:

Those calculations don't include the recent, and dramatic, melt-off of big ice sheets in two crucial locations:

They "don't take into account the gorillas -- Greenland and Antarctica," said Ohio State University earth sciences professor Lonnie Thompson, a polar ice specialist. "I think there are unpleasant surprises as we move into the 21st century."

***
In the past, the climate change panel didn't figure there would be large melt of ice in west Antarctica and Greenland this century and didn't factor it into the
predictions.

They didn't figure in these large melts because they didn't think those would happen this century. We are only in January of the seventh year of this century, and it has already happened. I don't think this is good, people.

Even the Weather Embarrasses This Administration

White House said to bar hurricane report

Apparently, global warming, like evolution, is:

. something one has to "believe" in, and

. politically damaging to the government

What does this remind you of, this suppression of science because its findings contradict the king pope politboro president?

DON'T THINK. BELIEVE.

Fellow FSM Believers,

Last night I was touched by the Prophet of His Noodly Appendage Himself, for into my Inbox was thrust the following communique, like unto an e-mail.  This is indeed a Holy Day.

Fellow Believers,

Our day has finally arrived! The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is at last here. Maybe not inscribed on stone tablets, but it is a book.  And maybe not THE Good Book, but at least A Good Book.

Delivering His Divine Message is my life�s work, and as I�ve said before, all proceeds from the book will go toward our pirate ship fund. Because as you know, global warming is the direct effect of the declining number of pirates, and His Noodliness, while he endorses boiling pasta, is against boiling the planet.  With your help, and with the sails blowing on our bad-ass pirate ship (with flags, cannons, and weevils in the flour barrels below deck), we can spread His Word and save the environment at the same time.

Remember that ours is a small boutique religion, but we have BIG ideas (some, arguably a bit al dente) and we must share this rich booty of ideas with others. Within the pages of The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, you will find FSM history, helpful propaganda, scientific evidence of His existence (including the 100% verifiable fact that no one has sued any school boards about us), as well as pictures and illustrations that surely test the limits of copyright law. But as pioneers we�re not afraid of a little controversy.

Since The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster goes on sale tomorrow, March 28th is a Holy day. I encourage you to dress in your Pirate�s best�paint one of your pant legs to resemble a wood finish, maybe wear an eye patch or get a parrot, and eat some cacciatore with a side of linguine. Then, go to your local bookstore to let them know that The Church of FSM is strong in your community. I can honestly say that if everyone on this e-mail list goes out and buys the book, it will be a bestseller. That would certainly get some people�s attention.

Our future is in our own hands.  And in His noodly appendage.
 
Ramen.
Bobby Henderson
Prophet

Available today at Amazon, B&N, and Powells.

 

Friends Don't Let Friends Vote Republican

You may have seen this one before, but it's worth reviewing.

Things you have to believe to be a Republican today:

Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.

Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him, and a bad guy when Bush II needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.

Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is Communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.

The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.

A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all humankind without regulation.

The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches, while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.

If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.

A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies, then demand their cooperation and money.

Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy, but providing health care to all Americans is socialism. HMOs and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at heart.

Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.

A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense, but a president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.

Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.

The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George Bush's driving record is none of our business.

Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.

You support states' rights, but the Attorney General can tell states what local voter initiatives they have the right to adopt.

What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant.

Feel free to pass this on. If you don't send it to at least 10 other people, we're likely to be stuck with more Republicans in '06 and '08.

Friends don't let friends vote Republican.

And, let me add a couple of recent ones my own:

We must respect the sovereignty of the Afghan government, but it was okay to oust the legitimate government of Iraq.

We will help rebuild the Mosque that was bombed in Iraq, but our own citizens are still living in tents in Louisiana and other Gulf coastal states.

Miserable Winter

Miserable winter we're having ... high of 81 F. today ... lots of sunshine ... a REALLY FAT and sassy squirrel just scampered along the fencetop outside my window ... last night, I was bitten twice by a REALLY FAT and sassy mosquito - gotta watch those December mosquitos! ... just like those December hurricanes with names like "Episilon" - they'll sneak up on ya ... wait a sec ...

December WHATS???

The grass in my yard is still green. Joggers jog by in shorts.

Did we cause global warming, or is this part of a natural cycle that would have occurred with or without our influence on the planet? According to Whitley Strieber, co-author of The Coming Global Superstorm, we are in the midst of a natural cycle that will end our civilization. His novel about this coming Ice Age event, The Day After Tomorrow, was made into a TV movie.

Let's assume for a moment that Strieber didn't actually need to sell more books or make another movie deal. Question: If you truly believed you knew of some coming terrible event that would end Civilization As We Know It, would you tell everybody, like Strieber, or would you keep it to yourself?