Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

What the Clams Know: Warming Waters

—

by

Peter Galuszka
in , , , , ,

atlantic surf clamBy Peter Galuszka

Are warming seas forcing fish to migrate to cooler waters?

That’s the thrust of an intriguing report in Nature magazine as covered in this morning’s Post. The impacts on the seafood industry are already playing out. New England fishermen after cod and haddock report having to move farther north to catch them.

There are impacts in the Mid-Atlantic as well. According to The Post, warmer waters from Delaware to Virginia are pushing Atlantic surf clams to move farther north, and this has resulted in the closure of a clam processing plant in Virginia. Atlantic surf clams are a popular variety used for fried dishes or in chowders

I tried and failed to find out what plant it was. I did find one that was shut down in recent years near Mappsville on Virginia’s Eastern Shore but could not confirm the reason. The firm, Eastern Shore Seafood, was bought by Maryland-based Seawatch International which later shut the plant down.

I spoke with Mike Hutt, executive director of the Virginia Marine Products Board who had seen The Post story but couldn’t confirm details of any related plant closings or the impact of warming waters regionally

It would seem that warmer waters will add further stress to the region’s troubled seafood industry, especially for certain species. I’m not certain how it would affect favorites such as blue crabs that seem to thrive in tepid waters much farther south or oysters, which are struggling make a comeback in Chesapeake Bay. My guess, and I am no expert, is that other prized species such as bluefish and rockfish (striped bass to Northerners) might change their migration patterns because of climate change.

If the Nature research is correct, the fish may be sending us a powerful message that many haven’t figured out yet.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

31 responses to “What the Clams Know: Warming Waters”

  1. James A. Bacon Avatar
    James A. Bacon

    Meanwhile, in other news…. Arctic sea ice is melting more slowly this year than at any time since 2002, according to the Danish Meteorological Institute, which, the last time I checked, had not been bought and paid for by the Koch Brothers.

    If the Danish measurements are right, the Arctic ice mass may be sending us a powerful message that many haven’t figured out yet.

  2. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Gee, I decided the fact check Bacon as he usual needs to be and found citings about the Danes saying year after than global warming is a hoax.

    You also find URLs like this:

    http://www.thefreepressonline.co.uk/news_print/1/1107.htm

    It’s far right nonsense with survivalist ads urging you to buy gold now and attacks on the Catholic church for what the British authors (pictured among Union Jacks!) claim are its erroneous Biblical teachings.

    In my posting, I mention Nature magazine which is on a slightly higher intellectual level than this crap Bacon comes up with. He must be on some subscriber list.

  3. James A. Bacon Avatar
    James A. Bacon

    What? Peter, you’re too old to be dropping acid!

    The Danish website contains no web ads. I have no idea what you stumbled upon, but I would advise readers interested in ascertaining the truth to follow my link and check it out for themselves.

    Here’s the Institute’s description of itself: “The Centre for Ocean and Ice is DMI’s department for marine information and consultancy. Our main activities are storm surge warning, ice charting, waves, ocean currents, ocean monitoring by satellite, the climate of the ocean and marine data. The Centre is headed by Erik Buch.”

    “We are more than 20 scientific employees being oceanographers, climatologists, meteorologists and geographers. The Centre manages the Ice Patrol, Narsarsuaq, Greenland. The Ice Patrol is manned by navigators experienced in navigation in icy waters. Two navigators are also part of the daily ice charting in Copenhagen.”

    I think these guys know their Arctic ice levels.

  4. reed fawell III Avatar
    reed fawell III

    I’m compelled to note that the Washington Post has yet to publish a factually accurate and unbiased article on “global warming” since it gave up on its similarly hysteria reportage in the 1970s that we all would soon perish beneath monster Ice flows triggered by new Ice Age just around the corner.

    Beyond that fish love warm water. So everybody in the Chesapeake fishes off the Nuke Plant warm water outflows.

    As to clams, there’re so many clammers off my dock, four boats operators have been heavily fined by Fish and Wildlife folks in the past two weeks.

  5. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    when people don’t believe NOAA or NASA and in fact believe the majority of climate scientists are engaged in a global conspiracy – if GW is real (and virtually every scientist on the planet think it is) – then we are doomed from self-imposed ignorance.

    I have no idea what the ill affects might or might not be – that’s still a major item of discussion but for anyone to believe that the only impact will be “warner”, that’s just plain foolish.

    If this was the Ozone Hole in today’s “climate” environment, we would have never taken any actions… we would have just gridocked doing anything as we are now with GW.

    so basically, if GS is real – and it is – then we are committed to whatever impacts are going to happen because we have too many people who will do nothing – until the impacts are undeniable but we are too late to do anything.

    this is like a guy who smokes cigarettes who refuses to believe he can get cancer – until he does and in the meantime, he does nothing to prevent it.

  6. James A. Bacon Avatar
    James A. Bacon

    “If Global Warming is real (and virtually every scientist on the planet think it is)…”

    That’s a meaningless statement. There are so many facets to the GW debate that to suggest there is only one viable interpretation of all facets is patently absurd. Larry, you have reduced a scientific debate to a theological statement.

    Facet #1: to what extent have global temperatures increased, and to what extent are those increases unprecedented compared to warming cycles in the past?

    Facet #2: to what extent will global temperatures increase in the future?

    Facet #3: how good are the climate models that predict future temperature increases?

    Facet #4: to what extent is the increase in global temperatures caused by human activity versus, say, fluctuations in solar activity or other hypotheses that reputable scientists have proffered?

    Facet #5: what impact will rising CO2 levels and rising temperatures have on the environment and upon human social and economic systems? Will the impact be universally negative, as commonly portrayed, or will the impact be uneven and mixed?

    Those are all questions upon which scientific reasoning can be brought to bear. But let us not pretend that there no room for scientific debate. To suggest that the science is “settled” smacks of Lysenkoism.

    Facet #6: what options do we have to deal with rising temperatures and other aspects of climate change? This gets into the realm of economics and public policy. There is a lot of debate.

    Facet #7: what are the *best* alternatives to pursue? This is so far from the realm of science that it’s not funny. There is nothing resembling a consensus whatsoever.

  7. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    basically you’re accusing mainstream scientists around the globe of being wrong or lying.

    these Scientists have told you #1:

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.php

    2. – who would you trust to answer that question? would you believe hundreds of climate scientists around the globe many of who are PHD with decades of working on the issue?

    3. How good are Hurricane Models and you do you discount them because there are several and none are 100% correct 100% of the time?

    do you really understand how scientific models work? how much background do you have in scientific modeling? who do you believe when talking to others – the scientists or the “skeptics” most of who are non-degreed armchair “scientists”.

    5. again – who do you believe? I believe the majority of mainstream scientists who have reached some level of consensus – which in the whacky world today – mainstream consensus = global conspiracy.

    Jim – if you suspected that something you were doing had the possibility of causing your death – how serious would you take it? Would you dismiss it unless absolute proof was provided to you ? Would you want to take some steps, “just in case”, at least until you got more info that told you it was not the threat originally feared?

    how do you react to something that may be a threat ? do you just say “it can’t be true” by listing out “facts”?

    “facts” 6 and 7 (which like the others are not facts but assertions and questions with their foundations coming from skeptics not mainstream science”.

    Did you ask this question with CFS or Dioxin or PCBs guy?

    why do you believe that Kepone in the James will harm fish and humans ?

    why do you believe hurricane models?

    there is something almost genetic going on with Conservatives these days – not all of them – but a good many.

    they are willing to bet the bank on climate, disbelieve thousands of mainstream scientists – around the globe, and instead latch onto a small number of scientists, many of whom, one by one, have recounted their original skepticism.

    Science, by it’s very nature has always been “skeptical” until a consensus is reached. Even then it does not mean they can be 100% correct but to take a bet that they are largely wrong when what is at stake – is your life – is dumb.

    what is an intelligent “conservative” approach to info that clearly has dimensions that could mean profound changes for the planet?

    you don’t discount it guy. if we’re talking about the possible extinction of kumquats or dung beetles it’s one thing – when you talking about the planet and humankind – even if it’s just a possibility – like it was with CFC – you don’t just disbelieve it and accuse mainstream science of being corrupt on a global basis.

    “conservatives” are – no longer ‘conservative’. these days.

  8. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    ” what impact will rising CO2 levels and rising temperatures have on the environment and upon human social and economic systems? Will the impact be universally negative, as commonly portrayed, or will the impact be uneven and mixed?”

    why are you so willing to accept the consequences of the unknown and do nothing to proactively deal with it before-hand?

    if “uneven” means many more destructive storms like derechos that quadruple insurance rates – seriously impacting economic productivity – would you be okay with it?

    at that point – you can’t go back.

    you have what you have – but how do you know right now how bad it could be?

    why are you willing to bet that it will be “uneven” rather than potentially catastrophic?

    I’m not saying it will be catastrophic, I’m saying the potential for it to be that way – has not been ruled out at all and is a possibility.

    we had that same premise with CFCs. All the questions you now ask about GW, you could also ask about CFCs and if we had demanded to know the answers for CFCs that you now demand for GW – ahead of time – then what would have happened?

    when scientists tell you that one ounce of plutonian “could” kill a million people – why are you not a skeptic when you have no proof of it at all other than what science tells you?

    why are you not a plutonium “skeptic”? serious question ….ask the same 7 questions you asked but with respect to plutonium….

  9. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    I feel compelled to say that we’re wasting our time here. If Bacon wants to play King Canute that’s his privilege but given the vast body of knowledge out there among global scientists it is kinda silly to have the same old arguments once again by a history major who has zero science background.

    1. James A. Bacon Avatar
      James A. Bacon

      Instead, we should heed Peter’s arguments based upon his prodigious scientific background as… what was your major anyway?

  10. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    but Bacon is not alone. About half the American people are of a similar sentiment…

    and the interesting thing is that the “skeptics” do not represent the entire spectrum of political thinking; virtually all of it comes from the right.

    that’s remarkable and troublesome that a major portion of our society is becoming anti-science – not just on GW but other things also – like evolution.

    1. accurate Avatar
      accurate

      And what is equally interesting is that virtually all the GW supporters (those who think that man can do a damn thing about if the globe warms or not) are on the left. It’s even more amazing (to me) that every time the discussion (not yelling, shouting and insulting) comes up and the question arises regarding how warm Greenland, and Iceland use to be; how parts of the Sahara use to be lush rain forests and how all these climates changed LONG before the advent of the industrial era and before the discovery of the internal combustion engine … the libs ignore it, and go on about how mankind is destroying the planet.

      The globe has changed climates many times during it’s existance and it will continue to change REGARDLESS of what you do or don’t do – you just aren’t THAT important (or significant). Yes, I have no problem keeping pollution down, but is it causing GW; in a word – NOPE. I have no problem cleaning up what I can, but the extrapolations that have been made, and proven to not be accurate – is pathetic.

      1. larryg Avatar
        larryg

        accurate – what is your take on the ozone holes and CFCs and what we did about it?

        did you disbelieve the science ? did you not think CFCs were “pollution” ?

        do you think we over-reacted and that the Ozone and CFCs were a hoax concocted by a cabal of corrupt scientists ?

        1. accurate Avatar
          accurate

          The Ozone hole – not sure how that would have played out had we not done away with CFC – and to be honest YOU don’t know either. Have we had holes before, yes, and in the span of time they close back up, but again, less pollution isn’t a bad thing.

          Again, rather than face some of my questions, you deflect, like all liberals do on this question. So how come the Sahara had rain forests, but those stopped and changed before the advent of the industrial age? How come Greenland and Iceland had very green areas of land but are now covered with ice, and this change happened before the invention of the internal combustion engine?

          AND – this isn’t just something that we (America) or the mis-guided europeans can do something about. We have China and India running automobiles that spew out pollution worse than cars that we drove in the 50’s. We have folks in Africa and South America chopping down forests (rain forests and regular forests) for crops, for timber for many reasons and not re-planting and these actions have an impact, but you CAN’T CONTROL THEM – must bug liberals that they can’t control everyone and every thing, because they know that they know better than anyone else.

          Again, it’s a great big world despite our feeble attempts to make it small. There are a lot of people on this earth, and you can’t control them all. The climate has been changing before the existance of man and it will continue to change long after mankind exits the stage. To think that our pathetic species REALLY affects what this world does, is going to do … to me, this is part of when God is rejected, it makes man the top of the pyramid and he begins to ‘think’ that he really has more power and control than he does. Outside of nuclear bombs (and even after we set off one of those, the world re-organizes itself, dusts itself off and moves on) we don’t have that much affect, no matter HOW important we imagine ourselves to be.

          1. reed fawell III Avatar
            reed fawell III

            Well said – the only constant is the cosmos is everlasting change. The idea that we folks are going to halt that change and bring the earth into stasis is a fool’s errand.

          2. larryg Avatar
            larryg

            re: ” The Ozone hole – not sure how that would have played out had we not done away with CFC – and to be honest YOU don’t know either. ”

            the scientists were pretty sure there was a problem – and we agreed and we did something about it and in retrospect – the levels did stabilize and the consensus is that had they not – things would have gotten much worse.

            the point here is that we heeded the science, did something about it , AND we can back off of it if we decide it was less than a threat than originally feared.

            That’s a conservative and rational approach to a potential threat rather than betting the bank that there is no way for us to harm the earth.

            That’s the difference between then and now. Then, we did something. Now, we don’t.

            we now have a significant number of people who have become essentially anti-science – not only on GW but a number of other issues.

            we don’t imagine ourselves to be “important” Accurate. We imagine ourselves to be something more than just flat out ignorant herds of animals when science tells us there are potential problems with the earth – that we do know – that we can adversely impact by our activities.

  11. James A. Bacon Avatar
    James A. Bacon

    Peter and Larry have totally ignored the main point of my earlier comment, that is, there are issues related to the extent and causes of Global Warming that can be settled by scientific means, but that the *remedies* for global warming are public policy issues that have nothing to do with science whatsoever. Yet you continue to insist that the usual proffered remedies — re-engineering of the global economy by those who know best, liberals like yourselves — are blessed by “science” as well. I’m sorry, the so-called solutions are not science. They are a power grab. Indeed, the more almighty and all-knowing that you purport to be, the more convinced I am that you would take the country on a disastrous course.

    Solyndra, anyone?

    1. larryg Avatar
      larryg

      re: remedies. Actually I was commenting on whether or not one believes that climate is changing and allows for the possibility that such change may actually be harmful not just “different”.

      Why would you gamble that the bad stuff could never happen instead of accepting the idea that bad stuff COULD happen AND wanting to KNOW what the range of consequences – AND THEIR COSTS might be?

      It’s the denial that we actually have change happening and the refusal to examine what the consequences might be – based on the premise that it’s false to start with because the scientists working on it – are engaged in a world wide conspiracy to defraud people?

      Solyndra is proof positive of the any/all related issues are in the same pot.

      if you want to acknowledge crony capitalism as something not new then admit that the railroading of this country was by far a 1000 times worse than Solyndra in terms of defrauding taxpayers.

  12. reed fawell III Avatar
    reed fawell III

    Obviously, Professor’s Bacon’s “Laws on the Relative Ignorance of All PH.D.’s Settled Opinion on Carbon Dioxide” has been thoroughly peer reviewed.

    See for example letters to Editors re “Understanding Carbon Dioxide and Climate Change” in today’s Wall Street Journal.

    All of us should take comfort in this knowledge, i.e. “Be Happy as Clams”, instead of this endless carping and Woe is the Planet all the endless time.

    1. larryg Avatar
      larryg

      re: peer review – is not done by amateurs, it’s done by people with significant credentials and background on a peer basis that results in some kind of consensus – that is said to be a “conspiracy” by the amateurs who disagree.

      we don’t get “peer review” from non-degree zealots who have a bigger anti-govt agenda than just climate.

  13. DJRippert Avatar
    DJRippert

    It’s hard to argue with measurements of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The amount of carbon dioxide has been going up, up, up.

    It’s also hard to argue with deforestation. The forests of north and south america have been (and are) being deforested at an alarming rate. Since tress convert carbon dioxyde to oxygen, it seems obvious that deforestation will continue to escalate the levels of carbon dioxyde in the atmosphere.

    You have three choices when it comes to rising carbon dioxide:

    1. It will have a positive effect on the environment.
    2. It will have no effect on the environment.
    3. It will have a negative effect on the environment.

    Personally, I see a negative effect. The size and extent of the negative impact may be debatable but fast rising levels of carbon dioxyde are likely to change the environment of Earth in ways that will be detrimental to human existence.

    While the conservatives may be in denial the progressives have yet to put forth any cogent plan for the future. Their chicken little like screams of impending doom only serve to make everybody suspicious of their ulterior motives. I join those who wonder whether the hue and cry of global warming is a cover for yet another wealth transfer scheme by progressives who are convinced that the Unites States would be a better place if the needle between capitalism and socialism was given a good hard shove toward socialism.

    Solyndra was more a failure of government planning and execution than philosophy. Manufacturing solar panels in the west bay area of San Francisco was, shall we say, debatable. Intel makes a huge number of computer chips in San Jose. But computer chips are different than solar panels. And, more importantly, the San Jose that houses the huge Intel chip plant is San Jose, Costa Rica not San Jose, California.

  14. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    re: it’s hard to argue. Hell – these folks DENY these things are happening.

    CO2 is, in their view, not a pollutant, therefore it cannot cause harm – no matter it’s concentration is the logic in use…

    It’s like saying that since nutrients are good for soil that no amount can cause harm.

    but that’s the logic….

  15. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    ” The Earth Is Warming Faster Now Than It Has in 11,000 Years
    By Phil Plait

    Global warming is real.

    Let’s get that out of the way right at the start. Climatologist Michael Mann’s bombshell study from years back created the “hockey stick” graph, showing that in the past century, the Earth’s overall temperature spiked, like a case of planetary flu. This study was immediately attacked by climate change deniers, who continue to flail away at it today. It has withstood these attacks, and is no longer seriously doubted by scientists who actually study the climate.”

    And now, a new study shows that this spike in temperatures is unprecedented going back over one hundred centuries. They looked at global temperature anomalies—deviations from an average or standard temperature—for 73 sites distributed across the planet, using fossils in sediments as a proxy for temperature. The chemical and isotopic composition of the fossils yields a fairly accurate measure of the environment temperature at the time the animal or plant making up the fossil lived.

    What they found is simply stunning: The rate at which the globe is warming right now is far, far faster than it ever has going back as far as they could measure, up to 11,300 years ago. In fact, over the past 5000 years, the Earth actually cooled by about 1.3°F…until the last 100 years, when our temperature spiked upwards by about the same amount.

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/03/13/global_warming_new_study_shows_warming_is_faster_than_it_has_been_in_11.html

    this is what we are talking about – that the “deniers” are still denying.

    they make all kinds of excuses – like the sensor sites are bad or that scientists have dummied up on their models or that they are actually be paid to promote wrong info for an ideological reason – not just one or two bad apples but ALL the climate scientists – around the GLOBE – are engaging in a massive conspiracy…

    this is the kind of thinking that is coming from the right these days.

    I’m NOT advocating that we do a particular something – only that denying the science just delays us from doing something and that in not agreeing to do anything – that we are literally risking the future of the world as we know it.

    we blather on incessantly about leaving terrible boomergeddon debt to our kids but not a word about leaving them a world that could become a hellhole of adverse climate and weather events. We just flat deny that anything at all is really happening … that’s it’s all a hoax…..

  16. reed fawell III Avatar
    reed fawell III

    “The rate at which the globe is warming right now is far, far faster than it ever has going back as far as they could measure, up to 11,300 years ago. In fact, over the past 5000 years, the Earth actually cooled by about 1.3°F”

    The world’s been turning for a lot longer than 11,300 years with our kin aboard, thriving with far less than us now.

    So let’s relax, we got plenty of time.

    Meanwhile, we might even focus on something more practical – spend more time with the wife, maybe.

  17. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    re: ” So let’s relax, we got plenty of time.

    Meanwhile, we might even focus on something more practical – spend more time with the wife, maybe”

    did you think that with the Ozone Holes?

    what has changed between how we handled the Ozone holes and now?

  18. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    re: ” there are issues related to the extent and causes of Global Warming that can be settled by scientific means, but that the *remedies* for global warming are public policy issues that have nothing to do with science whatsoever. Yet you continue to insist that the usual proffered remedies — re-engineering of the global economy by those who know best, liberals like yourselves ”

    in a sane and rational world – public policy would be INFORMED by science as to the things that are causes of global warming – JUST AS WAS DONE with the Ozone Hole/CFC issue. Scientists were not accused of engaging in a global conspiracy to defraud citizens and bankrupt nations with expensive and ineffective solutions. Nope. Not to say there were not a few weirdos but their voices were not internet-powered like today.

    Notice also, we DO have the ability to go back to the old way of doing CFCs if it turned out the threat was not as serious as originally believed. We have that option but it turned out we did do the right thing.

    but just like the race and immigration (and other) issues on the right, the climate change issue has morphed into a wide diversity of opposition that range from outright deniers to folks that believe it’s real but nothing should be done, or others that believe the costs are too much to do anything so leave it alone and hope for the best, etc…. the one thing in common is their willingness to gamble that climate change is not real and even if it is – the consequences are not catastrophic. Why would anyone gamble on the side that dismisses potential catastrophe in a see-n0-evil style mindset?

    but the more germane point is, this group functions as an “anti” movement to basically stop in it’s tracks anything and everything so we do not go forward even on a compromise basis – we just gridlock – like other issues – like immigration, like health care, like gun violence, and more.

    the right cannot even develop compromise positions on these issues among themselves. There is no unified position other than “liberals” are wrong no compromise of any kind is desired.

    If we had an view from the right to take a particular approach – a competing approach – it would be a legitimate public policy process – a way to go forward even if slow and conservative.

    but what we have on climate change and a lot of other issues is to do nothing – just block anything but combining ALL of the opposition on the right – to include the deniers, the global conspiracy believers, and the anti-govt, anti-science groups – a monolithic “anti” movement.

    A society cannot function this way.

    those that defend the right on this are part of the problem – not a path forward.

  19. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Problem? We don’t have no stinking problem!

    http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/05/18/a-new-climate-could-destroy-even-the-biggest-energ.aspx

  20. reed fawell III Avatar
    reed fawell III

    Actually carbon dioxide levels are extremely low today versus the past.

    Likely this deficiency in carbon dioxide is why vast portions of our earth are today barren desolate hostile places that before were Gardens of Iden.

  21. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    Reed – can you cite a source for you belief guy.

    here’s one that says the opposite of what you say and it’s coming from credible people from NOAA and Scripts Oceanographic.

    do you disbelieve these folks? Why in the world would you just discount what they are saying and choose to believe something else?

    ” Scientific instruments showed that the gas had reached an average daily level above 400 parts per million — just an odometer moment in one sense, but also a sobering reminder that decades of efforts to bring human-produced emissions under control are faltering.

    The best available evidence suggests the amount of the gas in the air has not been this high for at least three million years, before humans evolved, and scientists believe the rise portends large changes in the climate and the level of the sea.

    “It symbolizes that so far we have failed miserably in tackling this problem,” said Pieter P. Tans, who runs the monitoring program at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that reported the new reading.

    Ralph Keeling, who runs another monitoring program at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego, said a continuing rise could be catastrophic. “It means we are quickly losing the possibility of keeping the climate below what people thought were possibly tolerable thresholds,” he said.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/11/science/earth/carbon-dioxide-level-passes-long-feared-milestone.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

  22. reed fawell III Avatar
    reed fawell III

    “Reed – can you cite a source for you(r) belief guy.”

    Why, of course, Larry. My sources are Yahweh’s Old Testament as inflected by the King James Version of the New Testament as elaborated upon by various prophets currently found in the Wall Street Journal.

  23. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    Reed – this is the reason you believe the opposite of what science is telling us about CO2 levels?

    Look guy. I believe in God. I’m a little leery of the various man-interpreted flavors but I believe there is a higher being than us and I believe further than he intends for us to use our minds to maintain the planet and not destroy it.

    that means we have to do things and it means we may have to change, cut back, stop things that have turned out to be harmful.

    science tells us a few ounces of plutonium can destroy the earth. It’s mostly scientific advice and computer models mind you. we’ve never actually tested the theory and let lose a bunch of plutonium to see if bad stuff predicted actually would happen but we generally heed the advice of people who specialize in this area of science and I’m sorry to say I do not think they consult the King James version to double check their calculations but even if they could consult with God directly – he’d probably tell us something like: ” Don’t be dumbasses”. “I’ve given you earth – a place that many of you only trade for Heaven and even then with reluctance so DON’T SCREW IT UP”!

Leave a Reply

Read More