Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

How Scientists Got Climate Change So Wrong

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Roy View Post
    Maybe I worded it poorly. I mean that Germany as a whole was producing mire than East Germany or West Germany individually. No change in pollution.
    Got it.

    But here's the main point:
    Looking at the combined output of two countries (East and West Germany, or UK instead of England, Scotland, Wales) is just combining responsibility.
    Looking at countries vs semi-autonomous regions (Texas, California, etc, or Shanxi, Qinghai, etc) within that country is also just combining/dividing responsibility. Sure, there are certain decisions made at the higher level, but most pollution-related decisions are not. And anyway, national decisions in many countries are made by elected representatives who are (supposedly) carrying out their elector's wishes.
    Looking at states, provinces or territories instead of lower-level political divisions (counties, parishes etc) is also combining responsibility
    You can look at the emissions at different levels, and because countries, states, provinces, counties, parishes etc are changeable and often historical accidents, get very different results regarding where to focus efforts.

    For example, Brazil produces more CO2 than Australia, which would (if looking at total output rather than per capita) indicate focussing more on Brazil that on Australia for trying to reduce emissions. But because Brazil has 27 subdivisions and Australia only 8, Australian states and territories produce more CO2 than Brazillian ones, which would indicate the opposite.

    There's also the problem that some nations have boundaries that aren't really amenable to this sort of areal analysis. Why lump Alaska with the rest of the USA? Why lump the Hawaiian islands with North America? Why associate Corsica with France, but Sardinia with Italy? Why would you combine Wallis Island with part of Northwest Europe?

    Looking at national totals is combining responsibility based on historical happenstance. Why would you compare the output of 1.3 billion Asians with the output of 350 million North Americans and Pacific Islanders? That isn't likely to tell you anything other than 1.3 billion is bigger than 350 million, which you already know.* Better to compare the output of 100 million Asians to the output of 100 million Americans - that way you'll get a result based on pollution levels, not one based on arbitrary political lumping. Per capita measurements not only remove distortion due to differing size, they also allow meaningful comparisons regardless of scale (e.g. California vs the whole US).

    That's why per capita measures are used by scientists, but national volumes are used by politicians.



    *Though if you pick a different 1.3 billion Asians to compare to your 350 million NA&PIs, it tells you a lot.
    Agree with the math - but not the conclusion. Per capita, regardless of how it's divvied up, is far more political than scientific. We look to science for what's happening in the atmosphere; we look to politics for who's to blame.


    Which is best - because your scientific use of per capita is skewed to heck and gone. What else does it tell us? It tells us who has the highest standards of living - in fact it's weighted toward them (this is why we include Alaska if we're working politically). Basically, it becomes 'let's punish people for having an advanced standard of living' AS IF they did nothing to mitigate the effects of that - which is totally bogus. And far more to the point for the assumption of anthropomorphic climate change - extremely politically dangerous.

    Punishing people for affluence is beyond stupid - it has never worked and it has destroyed countries (hence socialism not working in practice). But that's not what's going south here at the moment - electorates throughout the West and the developed world are changing. They aren't willing to reduce their standards of living and are tired of being browbeaten when they are the ones paying untold trillions over the decades in development of a host of alternatives and other tech to mitigate - successfully in most ways - negative impacts.

    Telling already irritated people it's all their fault never works out well. And we have similar issues with overall volume measures - it's cruel and unfair to expect other people to stay at lower standards of living or even reduce them. No one ever said politics wasn't messy. But if you want people to continue to support global efforts on ACC, might wanna tone down the blame game.

    Just sayin' - my ball's in a different court.


    "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


    "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

    My Personal Blog

    My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
      Got it.

      Agree with the math - but not the conclusion.
      The conclusion is based on the math.
      Per capita, regardless of how it's divvied up, is far more political than scientific.
      That doesn't make sense. The measurement is scientific. The divvying up is political.
      Which is best - because your scientific use of per capita is skewed to heck and gone. What else does it tell us? It tells us who has the highest standards of living - in fact it's weighted toward them (this is why we include Alaska if we're working politically).
      I wasn't sure whether this was true - so I checked. I determined that there was a strong correlation between CO2 emissions and standard of living.* But also that there are countries which produce more CO2 than accounted for by their standard of living - those on the plot below that are above the trendline. Some produce considerably more.

      Palau and Trinidad are the worst. I've no idea why. The red dots are oil-producing states - Brunei, Oman, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrein, Kuwait and Qatar. The orange dots are those countries that produce a lot more CO2 than their standard of living would account for. These would be the countries which could reduce their CO2 emissions while still maintaining their standard of living. The countries which climate activists should focus on. No prizes for guessing which is the largest.

      CO2_vs_HDI.png

      Basically, it becomes 'let's punish people for having an advanced standard of living' AS IF they did nothing to mitigate the effects of that - which is totally bogus.
      No, it's 'let's change the behaviour of those who are not mitigating the effects of their standard of living, because they are producing more CO2 than their standard of living requires'.
      Telling already irritated people it's all their fault never works out well.
      It can lead to denial, blame-shifting and shirking of responsibility. But why would they be already irritated if it wasn't their fault?

      *using the Human Development Index values
      Last edited by Roy; 11-26-2019, 10:00 AM.
      Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

      mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

      Mountain Man: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
      Mountain Man: … this is how liberals argue these days, with labels instead of ideas.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Roy View Post
        The conclusion is based on the math. That doesn't make sense. The measurement is scientific. The divvying up is political. I wasn't sure whether this was true - so I checked. I determined that there was a strong correlation between CO2 emissions and standard of living.* But also that there are countries which produce more CO2 than accounted for by their standard of living - those on the plot below that are above the trendline. Some produce considerably more.

        Palau and Trinidad are the worst. I've no idea why. The red dots are oil-producing states - Brunei, Oman, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrein, Kuwait and Qatar. The orange dots are those countries that produce a lot more CO2 than their standard of living would account for. These would be the countries which could reduce their CO2 emissions while still maintaining their standard of living. The countries which climate activists should focus on. No prizes for guessing which is the largest.

        [ATTACH=CONFIG]41099[/ATTACH]

        No, it's 'let's change the behaviour of those who are not mitigating the effects of their standard of living, because they are producing more CO2 than their standard of living requires'.It can lead to denial, blame-shifting and shirking of responsibility. But why would they be already irritated if it wasn't their fault?

        *using the Human Development Index values
        In 2018 the US was The leading oil-producing country in the world...ahead of even Saudi Arabia. So, that probably accounts for some of the elevated per capita CO2 levels here in the US.
        "What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer

        "... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Littlejoe View Post
          In 2018 the US was The leading oil-producing country in the world...ahead of even Saudi Arabia. So, that probably accounts for some of the elevated per capita CO2 levels here in the US.
          It was. But once again, the US is also much much larger than Saudi Arabia.
          Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

          mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

          Mountain Man: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
          Mountain Man: … this is how liberals argue these days, with labels instead of ideas.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Roy View Post
            Palau and Trinidad are the worst. I've no idea why.
            I'd check the data.

            Where are you getting your CO2 (equiv?) figures from? Neither of them show up in the IEA stats or the UCSUSA tables.

            Worldometers lists Palau at 2.35 T CO2/pop with the pop itself at 17,235. It does show Trinidad and Tobago at 25.39 T CO2/pop, but they're off the coast of Venezuela and a major (relative to their size) oil producer as well. I've had a lot of students from Venezuela, and a few from Trinidad, too.

            [ATTACH=CONFIG]41099[/ATTACH]
            That's what I'd call a serious contribution to a science thread.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Littlejoe View Post
              In 2018 the US was The leading oil-producing country in the world...ahead of even Saudi Arabia. So, that probably accounts for some of the elevated per capita CO2 levels here in the US.
              The GHG contribution from oil states like Saudi Arabia is heavily slanted toward their industrial sector, especially refineries. The US mix is much more diverse, making it necessary to examine emissions by sector.

              Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks
              US by sector.jpg
              The primary sources of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States are:
              • Transportation (28.9 percent of 2017 greenhouse gas emissions) – The transportation sector generates the largest share of greenhouse gas emissions. Greenhouse gas emissions from transportation primarily come from burning fossil fuel for our cars, trucks, ships, trains, and planes. Over 90 percent of the fuel used for transportation is petroleum based, which includes primarily gasoline and diesel.2
              • Electricity production (27.5 percent of 2017 greenhouse gas emissions) – Electricity production generates the second largest share of greenhouse gas emissions. Approximately 62.9 percent of our electricity comes from burning fossil fuels, mostly coal and natural gas.3
              • Industry (22.2 percent of 2017 greenhouse gas emissions) – Greenhouse gas emissions from industry primarily come from burning fossil fuels for energy, as well as greenhouse gas emissions from certain chemical reactions necessary to produce goods from raw materials.
              • Commercial and Residential (11.6 percent of 2017 greenhouse gas emissions) – Greenhouse gas emissions from businesses and homes arise primarily from fossil fuels burned for heat, the use of certain products that contain greenhouse gases, and the handling of waste.
              • Agriculture (9.0 percent of 2017 greenhouse gas emissions) – Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture come from livestock such as cows, agricultural soils, and rice production.
              • Land Use and Forestry (offset of 11.1 percent of 2017 greenhouse gas emissions) – Land areas can act as a sink (absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere) or a source of greenhouse gas emissions. In the United States, since 1990, managed forests and other lands have absorbed more CO2 from the atmosphere than they emit.

              For comparison, the EPA also lists global GHGs by sector.

              Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data
              World by sector.jpg
              • Electricity and Heat Production (25% of 2010 global greenhouse gas emissions): The burning of coal, natural gas, and oil for electricity and heat is the largest single source of global greenhouse gas emissions.
              • Industry (21% of 2010 global greenhouse gas emissions): Greenhouse gas emissions from industry primarily involve fossil fuels burned on site at facilities for energy. This sector also includes emissions from chemical, metallurgical, and mineral transformation processes not associated with energy consumption and emissions from waste management activities. (Note: Emissions from industrial electricity use are excluded and are instead covered in the Electricity and Heat Production sector.)
              • Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Use (24% of 2010 global greenhouse gas emissions): Greenhouse gas emissions from this sector come mostly from agriculture (cultivation of crops and livestock) and deforestation. This estimate does not include the CO2 that ecosystems remove from the atmosphere by sequestering carbon in biomass, dead organic matter, and soils, which offset approximately 20% of emissions from this sector.[2]
              • Transportation (14% of 2010 global greenhouse gas emissions): Greenhouse gas emissions from this sector primarily involve fossil fuels burned for road, rail, air, and marine transportation. Almost all (95%) of the world's transportation energy comes from petroleum-based fuels, largely gasoline and diesel.
              • Buildings (6% of 2010 global greenhouse gas emissions): Greenhouse gas emissions from this sector arise from onsite energy generation and burning fuels for heat in buildings or cooking in homes. (Note: Emissions from electricity use in buildings are excluded and are instead covered in the Electricity and Heat Production sector.)
              • Other Energy (10% of 2010 global greenhouse gas emissions): This source of greenhouse gas emissions refers to all emissions from the Energy sector which are not directly associated with electricity or heat production, such as fuel extraction, refining, processing, and transportation.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Roy View Post
                The conclusion is based on the math. That doesn't make sense. The measurement is scientific. The divvying up is political.
                No, the calculation is math (so tempted to say merely math to watch the Strawberry's head explode! ). How it is used determines whether it is scientific or political. Here it tells us nothing about the climate; it is used to tell us who to blame. That's politics, not science.




                I wasn't sure whether this was true - so I checked. I determined that there was a strong correlation between CO2 emissions and standard of living.* But also that there are countries which produce more CO2 than accounted for by their standard of living - those on the plot below that are above the trendline. Some produce considerably more.
                I'll leave the data to you and the Strawberry to hash out (). But I see no reason that outliers should negate my point.

                Palau and Trinidad are the worst. I've no idea why. The red dots are oil-producing states - Brunei, Oman, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrein, Kuwait and Qatar. The orange dots are those countries that produce a lot more CO2 than their standard of living would account for. These would be the countries which could reduce their CO2 emissions while still maintaining their standard of living. The countries which climate activists should focus on. No prizes for guessing which is the largest.

                [ATTACH=CONFIG]41099[/ATTACH]
                *emphasis mine
                Sneaky - by what metric?



                No, it's 'let's change the behaviour of those who are not mitigating the effects of their standard of living, because they are producing more CO2 than their standard of living requires'.
                1) Been doing the anti-pollution thing since the Sixties throughout the developed world so the first part is simply wrong. What nations do you think are paying for all this global whatsis research, technology et cetera? Heck, last I heard (not swearing because I didn't look into it) the US was the only country to achieve compliance with Kyoto - and we weren't even signatories!
                2) Says who? Seriously, what metric are you using?


                It can lead to denial, blame-shifting and shirking of responsibility.
                I'm not trying to be mean, but:

                Do you really believe in anthropomorphic climate change?
                If so, do you want to see it stopped?
                If so, then let me explain that political winds can and do change - we have spent trillions of dollars on this and convincing the electorate that they are wasting their money will not result in the correction you want. You can have continued funding or you can have moral superiority - but the way I read current events, I do not see how you can have both, not long term.

                FYI: the climate change moralizing, while irritating, is not one of the factors in why I'm extremely skeptical. But the psy-op trick of using terms like 'denier' is.



                But why would they be already irritated if it wasn't their fault?
                Being treated like crap might have something to do with it. Very few people will tolerate being browbeaten - aggregates are weirder, but they, too, have limits. I think that after twenty years, the cracks are beginning to show.

                *using the Human Development Index values
                Last edited by Teallaura; 11-26-2019, 07:48 PM.

                "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


                "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                My Personal Blog

                My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                  No, the calculation is math (so tempted to say merely math to watch the Strawberry's head explode! ). How it is used determines whether it is scientific or political. Here it tells us nothing about the climate; it is used to tell us who to blame. That's politics, not science.
                  The maths tells us who is producing the CO2. That the US is one of the top producers whether measure by total volume, per capita or against comparable countries is science. Trying to divert attention elsewhere is political.
                  Sneaky - by what metric?
                  By comparing them with other countries that have the same HDI. Nothing sneaky about it.
                  1) Been doing the anti-pollution thing since the Sixties throughout the developed world so the first part is simply wrong. What nations do you think are paying for all this global whatsis research, technology et cetera?
                  All the major ones, including the US, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, Brazil, Australia, China and India. The US funds a lot of it, but the EU funds even more.
                  Heck, last I heard (not swearing because I didn't look into it) the US was the only country to achieve compliance with Kyoto - and we weren't even signatories!
                  2) Says who? Seriously, what metric are you using?
                  I'm going to ask you the same question. Says who? Who says The US was the only country to achieve compliance with Kyoto?

                  Everything I can find shows the exact opposite - the only countries that didn't meet their 2010 targets were Canada and the US. Europe, Japan and Australia did, albeit with help from a recession and in some cases via outsourcing. See e.g. here, here.
                  I'm not trying to be mean, but:

                  Do you really believe in anthropomorphic climate change?
                  If so, do you want to see it stopped?
                  If so, then let me explain that political winds can and do change - we have spent trillions of dollars on this and convincing the electorate that they are wasting their money will not result in the correction you want. You can have continued funding or you can have moral superiority - but the way I read current events, I do not see how you can have both, not long term.

                  FYI: the climate change moralizing, while irritating, is not one of the factors in why I'm extremely skeptical. But the psy-op trick of using terms like 'denier' is.
                  Yes and yes. I'm trying not to be mean too, but if you really don't want to be called a denier, stop ignoring actual data in favour of American nationalist fables.
                  Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                  mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

                  Mountain Man: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                  Mountain Man: … this is how liberals argue these days, with labels instead of ideas.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Roy View Post
                    The maths tells us who is producing the CO2. That the US is one of the top producers whether measure by total volume, per capita or against comparable countries is science. Trying to divert attention elsewhere is political.
                    Nope - that's all politics. Blame game, not climate.



                    By comparing them with other countries that have the same HDI. Nothing sneaky about it.
                    Was too.

                    Okay, back on point - we literally need a new thread. Wiki undermines it in its second paragraph. Suffice it that this is a contended metric and economics is now in play.




                    All the major ones, including the US, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, Brazil, Australia, China and India. The US funds a lot of it, but the EU funds even more.
                    There goes your 'not doing anything to mitigate it' argument.


                    I'm going to ask you the same question. Says who? Who says The US was the only country to achieve compliance with Kyoto?
                    Fair question - but this is precisely why I said I wouldn't swear to it.

                    Everything I can find shows the exact opposite - the only countries that didn't meet their 2010 targets were Canada and the US. Europe, Japan and Australia did, albeit with help from a recession and in some cases via outsourcing. See e.g. here, here.
                    Conceded. I don't think you can make a rational case for the US not having done anything but clearly I was either misinformed or misunderstood - well, sorta. The US isn't a signatory to Kyoto.

                    Yes and yes. I'm trying not to be mean too, but if you really don't want to be called a denier, stop ignoring actual data in favour of American nationalist fables.
                    You're incorrect - I don't believe in ACC because of the political forces around it - THOSE I know how to analyze and Denmark is more than a little rank. And the use of adjusted data rather than fixing the danged stations, not helping. I took statistics, too.

                    Why? Goes to credibility. The people telling us the sky is falling have ulterior motives. Are they misusing science or are scientists 'helping'? Appears to be the latter but uncertain at this point.

                    You wanna use mean words, that's on you - but you're damaging your case. Fine by me for the most part - there are so many political issues with this mess that I'm no longer inclined to consider it (but I will, haven't forgotten I promised to look at some of the data). But I could be wrong - if so, I'd rather not destroy the planet because we were more interested in placing blame.

                    Which is why I'm telling you per capita only hurts the political case. Need a balanced metric diet to avoid long term health problems.
                    Last edited by Teallaura; 11-27-2019, 04:52 PM.

                    "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


                    "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                    My Personal Blog

                    My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                      The maths tells us who is producing the CO2. That the US is one of the top producers whether measure[sic] by total volume, per capita or against comparable countries is science. Trying to divert attention elsewhere is political.
                      Nope - that's all politics. Blame game, not climate.
                      Measuring CO2 emissions and reporting the results is not politics.
                      Was too.

                      Okay, back on point - we literally need a new thread. Wiki undermines it in its second paragraph. Suffice it that this is a contended metric and economics is now in play.
                      Using the replacement IHDI doesn't make a lot of difference, except that many smaller countries and Middle Eastern states aren't included. Feel free to produce your own plot using a different metric. I doubt you'll see anything different.

                      CO2_vs_IHDI.png

                      There goes your 'not doing anything to mitigate it' argument.
                      But not my actual 'not doing enough to mitigate it' argument.
                      You're incorrect - I don't believe in ACC because of the political forces around it - THOSE I know how to analyze and Denmark is more than a little rank.
                      I'm not Danish, so I don't know why you mention this.
                      And the use of adjusted data rather than fixing the danged stations, not helping. I took statistics, too.
                      That just makes your dislike of per capita measurements even more unjustifiable.

                      Why? Goes to credibility. The people telling us the sky is falling have ulterior motives. Are they misusing science or are scientists 'helping'? Appears to be the latter but uncertain at this point.
                      What ulterior motives? Climate scientists aren't exactly getting rich. And do you think those who decry ACC don't have ulterior motives? That coal, oil and car companies don't to avoid reducing their profits? That people don't want to avoid paying more for power or transportation? Such naïveté.
                      Last edited by Roy; 11-28-2019, 06:58 AM.
                      Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                      mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

                      Mountain Man: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                      Mountain Man: … this is how liberals argue these days, with labels instead of ideas.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Roy View Post
                        I'm not Danish, so I don't know why you mention this.
                        ACT I SCENE IV

                        HAMLET
                        My fate cries out,
                        And makes each petty artery in this body
                        As hardy as the Nemean lion's nerve.
                        Still am I call'd. Unhand me, gentlemen.
                        By heaven, I'll make a ghost of him that lets me!
                        I say, away! Go on; I'll follow thee.

                        [Exeunt Ghost and HAMLET]

                        HORATIO
                        He waxes desperate with imagination.

                        MARCELLUS
                        Let's follow; 'tis not fit thus to obey him.

                        HORATIO
                        Have after. To what issue will this come?

                        MARCELLUS
                        Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Roy View Post
                          Measuring CO2 emissions and reporting the results is not politics.
                          Per capita is a statistical analysis. Purpose: assessing responsibility. Field: politics.



                          Using the replacement IHDI doesn't make a lot of difference, except that many smaller countries and Middle Eastern states aren't included. Feel free to produce your own plot using a different metric. I doubt you'll see anything different.

                          [ATTACH=CONFIG]41112[/ATTACH]
                          Always use best metrics in contentious politics - less crow to eat later. And be extremely leery of metrics that can be interpreted as self-serving - and heavily leftist. Not saying it is but 'you have a high SL, stop it' does not play well long term.

                          But not my actual 'not doing enough to mitigate it' argument.
                          That's not what you were arguing as I recall - at least not what you stated.

                          It's also a separate question, definitely political and maybe impossible to prove.

                          I'm not Danish, so I don't know why you mention this.That just makes your dislike of per capita measurements even more unjustifiable.
                          Shakespeare, silly! And I love per capita - there are thousands of applications where it is unquestionably the best metric. All I'm saying is the application to CO2 is going to be a long term self-defeating strategy.

                          What ulterior motives? Climate scientists aren't exactly getting rich. And do you think those who decry ACC don't have ulterior motives? That coal, oil and car companies don't to avoid reducing their profits? That people don't want to avoid paying more for power or transportation? Such naïveté.
                          Globalism (I didn't say scientists - I treated them separately), authoritarianism and socialism - an attempt to shift political power from the people to government. Obviously more complex than that and ACC is a new toy in an old arsenal.

                          Sure, there are agendas all the way around - but you're about ten years behind. Those particular examples are boogeymen at this point - only large energy companies can afford the infrastructural shift and they're now largely behind ACC - beady eyes glistening and hands rubbing at all those subsidy dollars.

                          The fact is, you're being far more naive than I.

                          Anywho, it's Thanksgiving here and I'm about to go kill myself moping the whole house - it's a Southern girl thing!

                          Happy Thanksgiving!!!

                          "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


                          "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                          My Personal Blog

                          My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                            Anywho, it's Thanksgiving here and I'm about to go kill myself [b]moping[b] the whole house - it's a Southern girl thing!
                            Most people contemplating that just find a corner....

                            Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                            Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                            sigpic
                            I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Juvenal View Post
                              ACT I SCENE IV

                              HAMLET
                              My fate cries out,
                              And makes each petty artery in this body
                              As hardy as the Nemean lion's nerve.
                              Still am I call'd. Unhand me, gentlemen.
                              By heaven, I'll make a ghost of him that lets me!
                              I say, away! Go on; I'll follow thee.

                              [Exeunt Ghost and HAMLET]

                              HORATIO
                              He waxes desperate with imagination.

                              MARCELLUS
                              Let's follow; 'tis not fit thus to obey him.

                              HORATIO
                              Have after. To what issue will this come?

                              MARCELLUS
                              Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.
                              Neat! Another fan of Shakespeare.
                              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                              go with the flow the river knows . . .

                              Frank

                              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                              Comment


                              • Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by lee_merrill, 11-23-2020, 10:25 PM
                                4 responses
                                36 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 11-22-2020, 08:25 AM
                                4 responses
                                58 views
                                3 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by TheLurch, 11-19-2020, 02:11 PM
                                1 response
                                30 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 11-10-2020, 08:50 AM
                                0 responses
                                18 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by shunyadragon, 11-09-2020, 06:36 PM
                                2 responses
                                17 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X