Your views on climate change

[Great Nepal]

This is another red herring, similar to the one saying that the overall contribution of greenhouse gases by humanity is small. Yes, the temperature in the past has been higher, and yes, the temperature naturally fluctuates. This does not in any way provide evidence that humans are not contributing to current warming, or that simply because the earth may not get as hot as it has in the past, that a rise of one or two degrees C will not be devastating for our current environment or way of life.

The fact that it has been higher in recent past, does in fact show that current tempreature is natural, unless you belive somehow humans released huge Carbon Dioxide about 10,000 years ago. The fact that it has been higher in recent past, does in fact show that current tempreature is The fact that it has been higher in recent past, does in fact show that current temperature is

[Independant States of America]

The fact is climate change is 100% real. It is a natural phenomenon that has been constantly occurring since the Earth formed between 5 Billion and 6000 years ago (depending on your school of scientific thought, or religious thought). We know that the Earth has had several Ice Ages as well as several hot and moist Tropical Ages, and several hot and dry Desert ages. From the geological and archeological evidence we have, we find some of these changes occurred quite quickly, less than a century, while some were more gradual, over more than 1000 years. So yes the climate is always changing, and always will. That is a fact.

Now for the questions...

Q. Are human actions causing or contributing to a current climate change emergency?

A. No one knows. It is as simple as that. No scientific evidence has been discovered to which positively points to man's contribution to climate change in total or even in part.

Q. How is this climate change emergency different than previous natural changes?

A. No one knows if it is any different than the changes that have always occurred with the Earth's climate, just that there is no record of such changes occurring in the past 160 years. (but an overwhelming amount of historical records and scientific evidence it happened several times prior.)

Q. What is causing, or has caused in the past, changes in the Earth's climate?

A. Just a theory, since we have only been accurately tracking this stuff since the late 1860's, but how about solar activity? It seems that solar activity, i.e. flares and sunspots, seems to increase when the Earth's temperature rises, and decrease when the Earth's temperature falls. Since the Earth is not having this effect on the Sun, what if the Sun was having temperature affects on the Earth? What a novel idea! Pretty simple.

THEREFORE: Climate Change is real, but probably has little to do with human actions such as burning fossil fuels, and more to do with solar activity.

[Sabatina]

Since everyone seems to be blaming humans for climate change now I might as well blame them for the climate change in the Triassic.

[Bitchkitten]

I put climate deniers right on par bwith holocaust deniers. Except that a lot more people are going to die with even moderate change. Bad for humans. Catastrophic for many other species.

[Sabatina]

I put climate deniers right on par bwith holocaust deniers. Except that a lot more people are going to die with even moderate change. Bad for humans. Catastrophic for many other species.

I think most people on this thread do not deny climate change, they only debate about the primary cause.

[Great Nepal]

I put climate deniers right on par bwith holocaust deniers. Except that a lot more people are going to die with even moderate change. Bad for humans. Catastrophic for many other species.

Totally, we all died 10,000 year ago, when there was most steepest rise in temperature -- from -3 degrees to -1 degrees... or 100,000 years ago, when temperature was higher than today.

[Bitchkitten]

I put climate deniers right on par bwith holocaust deniers. Except that a lot more people are going to die with even moderate change. Bad for humans. Catastrophic for many other species.

I think most people on this thread do not deny climate change, they only debate about the primary cause.

If the human race was on trial for climate change in a court of law, I'd be a little iffy on convicting them. But people who don't want to try their best to mitigate it, regardless of cause, are just shortsighted idiots.

[Free Soviets]

Now for the questions...

Q. Are human actions causing or contributing to a current climate change emergency?

yes. this is not in question. in order for us to be wrong about this, we have to be wrong about basic facts of chemistry and physics, and we must be fundamentally incapable of measuring energy flows and carbon isotopes. there is no doubt that human impacts loom large.

Q. How is this climate change emergency different than previous natural changes?

there are no non-human climate forcing factors that can be blamed. the sun has not been giving off more energy, the earth's core hasn't suddenly started heating up, the continents haven't moved into a new configuration and redirected ocean currents, the earth's orbital wobbles aren't doing anything new, and there are no non-anthropogenic sources of new greenhouse gases being added to the atmosphere.

Q. What is causing, or has caused in the past, changes in the Earth's climate?

see above for the short list. i can give more detailed explanations if you like, too.

A. Just a theory, since we have only been accurately tracking this stuff since the late 1860's, but how about solar activity? It seems that solar activity, i.e. flares and sunspots, seems to increase when the Earth's temperature rises, and decrease when the Earth's temperature falls. Since the Earth is not having this effect on the Sun, what if the Sun was having temperature affects on the Earth? What a novel idea! Pretty simple.

THEREFORE: Climate Change is real, but probably has little to do with human actions such as burning fossil fuels, and more to do with solar activity.

you wanna know something fabulous? we can actually check these things. crazy, right? so, i wonder what the sun has been doing recently...

"Various independent measurements of solar activity all confirm the sun has shown a slight cooling trend since 1978."

this, of course, is precisely during a time when warming accelerated.



well, so much for that hypothesis. seriously. to quote a post at realclimate, “that’s a coffin with so many nails in it already that the hard part is finding a place to hammer in a new one.”

[Avenio]

I put climate deniers right on par bwith holocaust deniers. Except that a lot more people are going to die with even moderate change. Bad for humans. Catastrophic for many other species.

Totally, we all died 10,000 year ago, when there was most steepest rise in temperature -- from -3 degrees to -1 degrees... or 100,000 years ago, when temperature was higher than today.

Don't be obtuse. You know full well the differences in human technology and societies between 10 000 years ago and now, and, more importantly, the time scales at which those temperature changes occurred.

[Great Nepal]

Totally, we all died 10,000 year ago, when there was most steepest rise in temperature -- from -3 degrees to -1 degrees... or 100,000 years ago, when temperature was higher than today.

Don't be obtuse. You know full well the differences in human technology and societies between 10 000 years ago and now,

Yes, and thats why if they didn't die off with such primitive technology (which is proven by fact that we are here); we will do just fine, with our much more sophisticated technology.

and, more importantly, the time scales at which those temperature changes occurred.

Yes, one happened between 250,000 years ago to 200,000 years ago. Quite a steep climb; and entire temperature scale is full of similar fluctuations -- and current temperature spike seems like nothing compared to those.

[DaWoad]

Saying that the human contribution of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is relatively small is a red herring. The natural release of carbon dioxide is offset by carbon sinks. The human contribution pushes the amount of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere over that which natural carbon sinks can effectively handle, and is more than enough to cause significant environmental change.

Edit: To use an analogy, imagine you have filled up a bathtub with water to the very brim. Adding a gallon of water, a relatively small amount, will still cause it to overflow.

this, and said well. I still don't get how people don't understand the idea of systems in equilibrium.

[Avenio]

Yes, and thats why if they didn't die off with such primitive technology (which is proven by fact that we are here); we will do just fine, with our much more sophisticated technology.

Sophisticated technology requires sophisticated infrastructure, however, and that infrastructure is highly sensitive. Take, for example, global fish stocks. They've been declining for decades now as a result of overfishing, and, in addition to decimation at the hands of fishermen, the ocean, as a result of increased CO2 levels in the air, is becoming more acidic; this increased ocean acidity causes the calcium carbonate shells of plankton and other microorganisms in the ocean that are at the low end of the trophic scale. When those plankton die off en-masse, their death will reverberate up the trophic pyramid and cause mass extinction on a large scale. What this means is that within 50 years, the estimated 3.5 billion people in places like Africa, Pakistan, Indonesia and India will be short on food. Now, you're a bright person, tell me what you think would happen when those places, which are already relatively unstable, run out of food and employment for a significant portion of the population?

Yes, one happened between 250,000 years ago to 200,000 years ago. Quite a steep climb; and entire temperature scale is full of similar fluctuations -- and current temperature spike seems like nothing compared to those.

Those climate variations were long and cyclical, occuring over periods of 50 000 years or more. Milankovich cycles, glacial and interglacial periods, etc. We're seeing the amount of warming expected in thousands of years over the course of 150. That's the problem.

[Wikipedia and Universe]

I am skeptical of artificial climate change, and I am one of a rare breed calling myself a "liberal climate skeptic". That is, I'm not aligned with the conservative wingnuts who adhere to climate change skepticism for their own agenda. Since most climate skeptics are often assumed to be one of said wingnuts, I have taken some politically-charged heat for it. The first time I was introduced to the research behind it by my brother-in-law, I thought it was still being greeted peacefully as a valid "alternate viewpoint" and started telling people about it at the school I was attending at the time. I found out the hard way that this was not the case, the result being me having hard-cover textbooks lobbed in the direction of my head by over-privileged private school kids in the Patchouli Belt. I could understand that people would vehemently disagree with me, but no why they were so militant about it. Later on I came to realize that climate change skepticism was big in the conservative wingnut world. Because of these associations, I never really bring it up anymore, since there really no point if you're just going to get flamed before you can explain yourself. In turn, I now barely remember most of the evidence supporting my viewpoint, which puts me in a sort of catch 22 because now I can't really discuss it in depth. However, I am not going to change my views on the issue solely on account of the fact that the evidence supporting them has faded from memory. I think that the climate skeptic movement has basically been hijacked by conservative political circles and companies, and that sucks. I am quite opposed to the heavy politicization of this scientific issue, but I suppose not much can be done about that. I am a skeptic for scientific rather than political reasons. It's sad now, they recently had Bill Nye do a climate debate with someone, but who? Perhaps a physicist from the University of Pittsburgh who is skeptical of artificial climate change (that's not made up, I happen to know one)? Nope, our esteemed Mr. Nye went up against the likes of... a Fox News anchor? How lovely. One guy on here, when I mentioned my views, attacked me with a strawman insinuating that I wanted to destroy the Earth and not care about it. This is not true. Am I skeptical of artificial climate change? Yes. Does this mean that I don't think that there aren't other environmental issues we need to address, such as pollution, that I don't think anything should be done to protect the environment, or that I don't think we should work towards cleaner and more efficient energy? Absolutely not.

[Free Soviets]

Don't be obtuse. You know full well the differences in human technology and societies between 10 000 years ago and now,

Yes, and thats why if they didn't die off with such primitive technology (which is proven by fact that we are here); we will do just fine, with our much more sophisticated technology.

and, more importantly, the time scales at which those temperature changes occurred.

Yes, one happened between 250,000 years ago to 200,000 years ago. Quite a steep climb; and entire temperature scale is full of similar fluctuations -- and current temperature spike seems like nothing compared to those.

wait, are we talking the younger dryas and then the standard glacial changes?

[DaWoad]

I am skeptical of artificial climate change, and I am one of a rare breed calling myself a "liberal climate skeptic". That is, I'm not aligned with the conservative wingnuts who adhere to climate change skepticism for their own agenda. Since most climate skeptics are often assumed to be one of said wingnuts, I have taken some politically-charged heat for it. The first time I was introduced to the research behind it by my brother-in-law, I thought it was still being greeted peacefully as a valid "alternate viewpoint" and started telling people about it at the school I was attending at the time. I found out the hard way that this was not the case, the result being me having hard-cover textbooks lobbed in the direction of my head by over-privileged private school kids in the Patchouli Belt. I could understand that people would vehemently disagree with me, but no why they were so militant about it. Later on I came to realize that climate change skepticism was big in the conservative wingnut world. Because of these associations, I never really bring it up anymore, since there really no point if you're just going to get flamed before you can explain yourself. In turn, I now barely remember most of the evidence supporting my viewpoint, which puts me in a sort of catch 22 because now I can't really discuss it in depth. However, I am not going to change my views on the issue solely on account of the fact that the evidence supporting them has faded from memory. I think that the climate skeptic movement has basically been hijacked by conservative political circles and companies, and that sucks. I am quite opposed to the heavy politicization of this scientific issue, but I suppose not much can be done about that. I am a skeptic for scientific rather than political reasons. It's sad now, they recently had Bill Nye do a climate debate with someone, but who? Perhaps a physicist from the University of Pittsburgh who is skeptical of artificial climate change (that's not made up, I happen to know one)? Nope, our esteemed Mr. Nye went up against the likes of... a Fox News anchor? How lovely. One guy on here, when I mentioned my views, attacked me with a strawman insinuating that I wanted to destroy the Earth and not care about it. This is not true. Am I skeptical of artificial climate change? Yes. Does this mean that I don't think that there aren't other environmental issues we need to address, such as pollution, that I don't think anything should be done to protect the environment, or that I don't think we should work towards cleaner and more efficient energy? Absolutely not.

why are you skeptical?
-it's got scientific consensus
-it's occurring during a period where cool would be expected on the basis of historical trends
-it's during a period of solar decrease in output
-there's a mechanism
-there's evidence
what would it take to convince you?

[Free Soviets]

I am a skeptic for scientific rather than political reasons.

no you aren't. you don't have the expertise necessary for it.

[Wikipedia and Universe]

I am a skeptic for scientific rather than political reasons.

No you aren't. You don't have the expertise necessary for it.

I meant that my views are based on evidence to which I was introduced, rather than political motivations as with any number of conservative politicians. That said, my core views based on said evidence are dormant as my recall of what I learned is quite rusty. I have already shared my viewpoint as far as I could, and thus now I am going to bow out of this discussion and crash so that I may rest and refresh my body. Goodnight and cheers.

[DaWoad]

No you aren't. You don't have the expertise necessary for it.

I meant that my views are based on evidence to which I was introduced, rather than political motivations as with any number of conservative politicians. That said, my core views based on said evidence are dormant as my recall of what I learned is quite rusty. I have already shared my viewpoint as far as I could, and thus now I am going to bow out of this discussion and crash so that I may rest and refresh my body. Goodnight and cheers.

aw but I wanna know why you're skeptical

[TOMAIANIA]

climate change is real but humans don't do that much damage to the enviroment (humans creat 0.8% of the total co2 produced a year).
its mostly the oliptic rotation aruond the sun that changes every 100 or so years. that cuases the earth to heat up or cool down.
also there was 3 times as much co2 during the life of the dinosuars. but it is better to be safe than sorry.
also coal is running out. so now people are making renewable technologies so that it wont run out and we wont have to find new resources, examples of thease techs are wind farms, hydrodams, solar power, tidal and wave power or extracting power from any atom (from eletronic fields).
all this eco talk is good it makes the earth cleaner (but not by much)

the tempertures arent that high compared to other moments in history

[Infinite Harmony]

I would strongly suggest that anyone interested in "climate change" (a ridiculous term IMO as climate is always changing) read the book "The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud**And those who are too fearful to do so" by Lawrence Solomon. http://www.amazon.com/Deniers-Renowned- ... 0980076315

For a slightly shortened version, see http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blog ... niers.aspx


In summary, the author (a genuine long-term & respected environmentalist) decided on a whim one day to check out the best evidence against MMGL (man-made global warming) theory. While he expected to find nothing, what he found instead were highly respected scientists in every field related to MMGW theory who disagreed with the science as it related to their field.

The book has a 4.5/5 overall rating on amazon.com over 86 reviews.


From the top amazon.com review:

To read what is published by most of the popular media, which have jumped on the Global Warming bandwagon almost en masse, one would likely conclude that the matter is settled - indeed, that is presently the chief claim intended to squelch all argument on the matter. Hardly a day goes by that one interested in the question doesn't hear claims that practically all scientists agree that Global Warming is upon us and that mankind's technological overreach, especially in adding CO2 to the atmosphere, is the primary cause. (And we are seldom reminded of the fact that climate change, often of far greater magnitudes than anything human beings have seen, has been taking place throughout not only all of human history but virtually all of Earth history - which goes back not mere millions but billions of years before the first humans trod the Earth.)

Lawrence Solomon of Canada's National Post newspaper ably puts the present-day picture into perspective; he focuses on several dozen top-tier scientists in relevant fields from around the world and very readably describes their reasons for doubt on these matters, and never forgets to summarize the scientific facts behind them. ... Though Solomon at first set out to write only a few articles on a handful of these "deniers," the more he looked the more world-class research scientists he discovered among their ranks, and somewhat to his own surprise found these were hardly a fringe element but on the contrary at or near the pinnacles of their professions worldwide - notwithstanding being virtually ignored by much of the media and, importantly, by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But let Solomon speak on this in his own words:

"More than six months ago, I began writing this series, The Deniers. When I began, I accepted the prevailing view that scientists overwhelmingly believe that climate change threatens the planet...

"My series set out to profile the dissenters - those who deny that the science is settled on climate change - and to have their views heard. To demonstrate that dissent is credible, I chose high-ranking scientists at the world's premier scientific establishments. I considered stopping after writing six profiles, thinking I had made my point, but continued the series due to feedback from readers. I next planned to stop writing after 10 profiles, then 12, but the feedback increased. Now, after profiling more than 20 deniers [38 at last count], I do not know when I will stop - the list of distinguished scientists who question the IPCC grows daily, as does the number of emails I receive, many from scientists who express gratitude for my series.

"Somewhere along the way, I stopped believing that a scientific consensus exists on climate change. Certainly there is no consensus at the very top echelons of scientists - the ranks from which I have been drawing my subjects - and certainly there is no consensus among astrophysicists and other solar scientists, several of whom I have profiled. If anything, the majority view among these subsets of the scientific community may run in the opposite direction." ...

"Most of the deniers I have written about have suffered for their scientific findings - some have been forced from their positions, others lost funding grants or been publicly criticized. In writing about these ... , I have inadvertently added to their anguish. ... The word "denier," of course, is employed to tar scientists who dissent from IPCC convention. In other disciplines, dissent is part of what's called 'the scientific method' and lauded."

In summary, one has to read Solomon's profiles one by one to fully appreciate his fact-based approach, each succinctly and very readably expressed. After finishing the chapters - which can easily be read either serially or separately in one's own chosen sequence depending on particular preferences or interest - one will be left wondering how much of the media hype one hears is believable and how much may be gauze either inadvertently or deliberately pulled over one's eyes. At the very least it should stimulate the reader to think about these matters to which many may not have given much attention beyond a bland acceptance of the usual commentary one hears in so much of the media.



And from the publisher's description:

Al Gore says any scientist who disagrees with him on Global Warming is a kook, or a crook.

Guess he never met these guys

Dr. Edward Wegman--former chairman of the Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics of the National Academy of Sciences--demolishes the famous "hockey stick" graph that launched the global warming panic.

Dr. David Bromwich--president of the International Commission on Polar Meteorology--says "it's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now."

Prof. Paul Reiter--Chief of Insects and Infectious Diseases at the famed Pasteur Institute--says "no major scientist with any long record in this field" accepts Al Gore's claim that global warming spreads mosquito-borne diseases.

Prof. Hendrik Tennekes--director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute--states "there exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies" used for global warming forecasts.

Dr. Christopher Landsea--past chairman of the American Meteorological Society's Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones--says "there are no known scientific studies that show a conclusive physical link between global warming and observed hurricane frequency and intensity."

Dr. Antonino Zichichi--one of the world's foremost physicists, former president of the European Physical Society, who discovered nuclear antimatter--calls global warming models "incoherent and invalid."

Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski--world-renowned expert on the ancient ice cores used in climate research--says the U.N. "based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false."

Prof. Tom V. Segalstad--head of the Geological Museum, University of Oslo--says "most leading geologists" know the U.N.'s views "of Earth processes are implausible."

Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu--founding director of the International Arctic Research Center, twice named one of the "1,000 Most Cited Scientists," says much "Arctic warming during the last half of the last century is due to natural change."

Dr. Claude Allegre--member, U.S. National Academy of Sciences and French Academy of Science, he was among the first to sound the alarm on the dangers of global warming. His view now: "The cause of this climate change is unknown."

Dr. Richard Lindzen--Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., member, the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, says global warming alarmists "are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right."

Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov--head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academy of Science's Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Station's Astrometria project says "the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations."

Dr. Richard Tol--Principal researcher at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije Universiteit, and Adjunct Professor at the Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, at Carnegie Mellon University, calls the most influential global warming report of all time "preposterous . . . alarmist and incompetent."

Dr. Sami Solanki--director and scientific member at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, who argues that changes in the Sun's state, not human activity, may be the principal cause of global warming: "The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures."

Prof. Freeman Dyson--one of the world's most eminent physicists says the models used to justify global warming alarmism are "full of fudge factors" and "do not begin to describe the real world."

Dr. Eigils Friis-Christensen--director of the Danish National Space Centre, vice-president of the International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, who argues that changes in the Sun's behavior could account for most of the warming attributed by the UN to man-made CO2.

And many more, all in Lawrence Solomon's devastating new book, The Deniers.

[DaWoad]

climate change is real but humans don't do that much damage to the enviroment (humans creat 0.8% of the total co2 produced a year).

equilibrium equilibrium equilibrium.

its mostly the oliptic rotation aruond the sun that changes every 100 or so years. that cuases the earth to heat up or cool down.

not by this much annnnd we're past due for a cooling period not a warming one.

also there was 3 times as much co2 during the life of the dinosuars.

was there? what happened to it? and more importantly we're not dinosaurs, we're not evolved to handle those levels and, more importantly, neither is our flora or fauna.

but it is better to be safe than sorry.

agreed.

[Forster Keys]

I like to rely upon the knowledge of people who are experts in the field.

[DaWoad]

*snip*

It holds scientific consensus, if these people had any valid points it wouldn't and they would have pulled in all sorts of awards.
argument from authority doesn't worrk all that well.

[TOMAIANIA]

i believe in climate change but it is mostly cooling and warming up periods.
also read my updated reply from before.

by a wise and tactiful person with knowledge

[Death-Magnavox]

Basically as we all know climate change is a real occurance... however this is where most opinions stop, I personally beleive climate change has a small portion to do with human activity and is merely being exploted by governments as a way of incresing tax revenue and marketing for corporations.

I beleive we should be investing in newer fuel technology, better standards of living however i also beleive we should be doing this now, its obvious to see the whole carbon trade thing is a load of s**t and just a way of making money out of a problem, it generates billions a yeasr and for what? carbon emmmisions have actually gone up.

Then we have the issue with who actually makes carbon, my guess is that most of you think we make around 80% of the earths CO2, well...no, we actually make around 5% of the total global output of CO2, the majority comes from animals, decaying matter such as dead animals and plants and that in the ocean being re released, infact fossil fuels are as said a very small proportion of te total co2 output, then we have the next issue, co2 is not the worlds statistically speaking biggest greenhouse gas and one most effecting the planet, its actually water vapour which as you all know is beyond any humans control as we have giant factories emmiting this steam all the time... oceans covering 2/3 of the planet, of corse scientists would much ratehr focus the public on the small 5% of co2 we make and try to forget about the fact 95% is made from uncontrolable sorces and the fact we cant even control the biggest emmiter.

The whole take on climate change appears to be similar to someone lying on the floor after being shot in the neck then trying to bandage his foot because he cut it while falling... thats really going to help in the long run...

Personally I feel what governments should be doing is activly investing in alternative fuels and trying to simply outlaw fossil fuels as a fuel sorce, its been shown that within 20 years they could remove fossil fuels from use if correctly done so. They have done so for many other fuels for public use or under strict control why not fossil fuels (obviously this is due to the very wealthy multi billion oil corporations not being very happy about doing so).

Climate change is firstly not as bad as they made out about 5 years ago, now predictions are almost laughable to what they originally said (such as a very large sea level rise by 2050), governments are simply using it as a way of taxing people and generating extra income such as with the multi billion dollar carbon business and then lastly they seem to almost delibretly neglect obvious ways of fixing the supposed issues, if the planet will in effect be badly damaged as a result of this climate change why not ban fossil fuels, set up an international body to invest and support the development of alternative fuels or even do things as simple as supporting nuclear fuels or things that WILL be widely used, some crappy expensive wind turbines are not the answer, no really they are just apauling peices of technology.

thats is sucks,dosent,shit is the ultimate planet killer,better we satr to make starships,and send shit to the sun.