|
Post by MC Habber on Nov 20, 2006 21:32:37 GMT -5
World will end in 2 to 3 generations, 72 per cent of British Columbians fearQuick and drastic action needed to curb global warming, poll toldDarah Hansen, Vancouver Sun Published: Saturday, November 18, 2006Nearly three-quarters of British Columbians believe life as we know it will end in another two or three generations unless drastic and immediate action is taken to curb global warming, according to the results of an exclusive Vancouver Sun poll. The poll comes as world leaders meet in Nairobi to discuss climate change and what can -- and should -- be done to stop it. The poll -- conducted Nov. 10-16 by Ipsos Reid -- also found that most B.C. residents give themselves an above-average grade when it comes to assessing their personal environmental performance, but fewer than 10 per cent of respondents say they are doing all they can to help reduce their environmental impact. Roughly half (48 per cent) said they would be willing to pay more for gasoline to protect the environment -- the argument being that, as the price of gasoline rises, people are more likely to find alternatives to driving. Of those who are willing to pay more for gasoline, about half (46 per cent) said they would pay up to 10 per cent more, while 23 per cent said they would pay between 50 and 100 per cent more, the poll found. The poll also found that 72 per cent of British Columbians agreed that every individual household should have a water meter, so that everyone pays for the water we consume. The poll randomly sampled 300 adult B.C. residents, and is considered accurate to within plus or minus 5.6 per cent, 19 times out of 20. Pollster Kyle Braid said the results provide "a good snapshot" of the province on the issue of environmental action. In particular, Braid noted that 72 per cent of poll respondents agreed they were "desperately concerned" over climate change and that "drastic" action is required right now in order to save mankind. The figures exceed national poll results recorded by Ipsos Reid in September, which showed 63 per cent Canadians felt the same way when asked a similarly worded question. ( continued here [also here] )
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 20, 2006 22:21:08 GMT -5
You got to be kidding me! I don't know if this mass hysteria or.....or they are growing and consuming WAY TOO MUCH POT.
Here is a quick question.....
What OVERALL percentage of carbon dioxide are humans putting into the atmosphere?
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Nov 20, 2006 22:31:42 GMT -5
You got to be kidding me! I don't know if this mass hysteria or.....or they are growing and consuming WAY TOO MUCH POT. Here is a quick question..... What OVERALL percentage of carbon dioxide are humans putting into the atmosphere? Sharp rise in CO2 levels recorded By David Shukman BBC science correspondent Rocky mountains in Colorado Air samples have been taken from Colorado's Rocky Mountains US climate scientists have recorded a significant rise in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, pushing it to a new record level. BBC News has learned the latest data shows CO2 levels now stand at 381 parts per million (ppm) - 100ppm above the pre-industrial average.The research indicates that 2005 saw one of the largest increases on record - a rise of 2.6ppm. The figures are seen as a benchmark for climate scientists around the globe. The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) has been analysing samples of air taken from all over the world, including America's Rocky Mountains. The chief carbon dioxide analyst for Noaa says the latest data confirms a worrying trend that recent years have, on average, recorded double the rate of increase from just 30 years ago."We don't see any sign of a decrease; in fact, we're seeing the opposite, the rate of increase is accelerating," Dr Pieter Tans told the BBC. The precise level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is of global concern because climate scientists fear certain thresholds may be "tipping points" that trigger sudden changes.The UK government's chief scientific adviser, Professor Sir David King, said the new data highlighted the importance of taking urgent action to limit carbon emissions. "Today we're over 380 ppm," he said. "That's higher than we've been for over a million years, possibly 30 million years. Mankind is changing the climate." news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4803460.stm
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 21, 2006 1:53:28 GMT -5
The sky is falling............ The oceans and flora/fauna are EXCHANGING CO2 20 to 30 GREATER then human activity. In other words, depending on which study one reads, the discrepency between natural occuring CO2 exchange is 10 times larger then the ENTIRE human production. The hystrionicals only response to that is that we are upsetting the "balance". Since we do NOT know what the real exchange rate in nature, how do we know what that balance is? We are not talking about a few percent here, we are talking about a gap that is ten times larger then the entire human output. How many mini heating and cooling cycles has the earth had in the last 2000 years? Historical accounts show that there was a warm period at the middle Roman times followed by cooling off around the 5th and 6th century, corresponding to a huge volcanic eruption followed by warming period between the 8th and 13th century (vegetation in Greenland) followed by a mini ice age between the 13th century and the 17th century. Since then it has been continuous warming. In the last few years, there is strong evidence that volcanic activity put the entire planet into an ice age for a dozen years around 550 AD. There are historical reports of world wide crop failures and years of "day into night" from the atmospheric dust. The lag effect lasted more then a century. The last hundred years has been a period of unusually low volcanic activity. Only Pinatubo and Katmai had mild coughs. Correlation? Of course it is. Glacial ages occur between 8,000 to 12,000 years and we are now on our 13,000 year from the last one. Why? Are earths ocean the cause of global warming by releasing CO2? The oceans carry 96% of the water, contribute 85% of the percipitation and absorb 75% of the percipitation. They carry the vast majority of the heat content received by the sun. In other words, they have FAR more bearing on climate then CO2. How well are they understood? Not very. In fact, only recent climate models have attempted to to introduce oceans as a main variable. And we don't know much about them to begin with. As for Kyoto? Shove it. Never mind the suspect science behind it, the idea that we PAY for carbon credit to some third world country sounds more of a left wing socialist wet dream to skewer money out of the "rich West" then any real attempt to "stop global warming". In fact, China is exempt and is currently adding HALF the world wide yearly increase of CO2 emmisions. In fact, they will surpasss everyone within 4 years. In fact, they are buidling on average, one medium sized coal plant EVERY WEEK. Even if we get the science right, we still have no real control over it's production. And something else, China murders 10 to 12,000 miners per year getting that coal. Maybe China's excemption to Kyoto was an attempt to reduce China's population? Old age musings...... I am old enough to have read horror stories in the late 60's as to how we were all going to need mask and die from lung cancer by the year 2,000. It didn't happen. Back them it was smog and how it would blot the sun and drive us into the ice age by 2050. I doubt that is going to happen either. As a 15 year old, I was concerned enough to read loads of "studies" about it. What a waste...... No, wait, there's more.... In the early seventies, every excess snow fall in Montreal was due to the "cooling" the upper atmosphere by the reflective properties of smog. Every excessive warm summer day was caused by the heating by the greenhouse effect of smog, every heavy rain was caused by the heating of the local atmoshpere and the excess cooling of the upper atmosphere. I was so confused that I even stopped eating burritos lest my gases affected the climate. So mark me skeptical until there is CONCLUSIVE information taking into account, sun spots, ocean energy management, ocean CO2 management, ocean current cycles and variability, ocean-air energy exchange, volcanic activity and a hundred other variable that affect CO2 and the energy exchange that creates weather. Here is a sight with muted hystrionics. www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/viewTopic.do?o=read&id=501Here is an article that tells us that we still don't understand all the variables. www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/viewArticle.do?id=8839
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Nov 21, 2006 3:43:35 GMT -5
Chemicals impair kids' brains in 'pandemic' proportionsMargaret Munro, Vancouver Sun; CanWest News Service Published: Wednesday, November 08, 2006Industrial chemicals have impaired the brain development of children, knocked down IQs, shortened attention spans and triggered behaviour problems, says a new report that is calling for better regulation of 201 chemicals with neurotoxic effects. In a report warning of "a silent pandemic in modern society," a team from the Harvard School of Public Health says millions of children may already have been affected. "About half of the 201 chemicals that we list are high-volume production chemicals," says lead author Dr. Philippe Grandjean. The list includes aluminum and tin compounds, solvents like acetone and benzene, many organic substances and pesticides. The report takes a global view of the problem, but Grandjean says there is no question Canadians are exposed and affected. "Most of these chemicals occur in Canadian chemical production, in the environment, in consumer goods," he says. He also says Canada stands out for exposure to the neurotoxin manganese, which has been used as an anti-knock agent in gasoline. Health Canada declined to comment on the report, published today in the Lancet, or say how widely used the compounds are in Canada. But the department is promising action on thousands of chemicals that were introduced into use in Canada without adequate toxicity testing. "We will have something in the very near future," says Erik Waddell, press secretary for Health Minister Tony Clement. Critics doubt the government will go far enough, and predict it will be decades before the toxins are off the market. The Lancet report says one in six children has a developmental disability, many of them learning problems, sensory deficits and developmental delays that affect the nervous system. Mounting evidence has linked industrial chemicals to such neurological disorders, and the report deplores the way the chemicals are "not regulated to protect children." There are "great gaps" in testing of the chemicals, and regulators will only restrict compounds if there is a "high level" of proof of damage and problems, the report says, adding this puts vulnerable developing brains at unacceptable risk. ( continued )
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Nov 21, 2006 8:40:00 GMT -5
Like a lot of "hot" issues, global warming is one that is poorly understood by most people, yet most people seem to have a "solution."
"Why don't we sign Kyoto, why don't we save the environment, why won't we punish big business to save the children?"
The fact is, most people have a rather poor understanding of not only Kyoto (which will not and cannot work), but of what they think it will take to reduce these greenhouse gases everybody thinks needs to be reduced.
You want a solution? How committed are you? If you REALLY think the world is going to end in 50 years, then let's get serious. If the problem is as serious as these people seem to think it is, then we need a REAL solution. As it so happens, I got one for you - I can cut greenhouse gas emissions in half within five years, and here is how:
One car per household.
There. Done. You and your wife have two cars now? You got 5 years to get rid of one. You're teenage kid has one as well? Either they move out, or it's gone. No exceptions. One house, one car.
Trouble is, all the people weeping and wailing about how the government isn't doing enough would boot said government out of office quicker than you can say "uh, I wanted something done, just not by me." I have no desire to see such an act passed, and I would vote against it, but I like exposing the hypocracy of some of those on the "left." I suspect the 72% of British Columbians who think the world is going to end would vote against it too. Or at least the vast majority of them. And to me, that is a much more telling stat than anything else.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Nov 21, 2006 9:44:21 GMT -5
Trouble is, all the people weeping and wailing about how the government isn't doing enough would boot said government out of office quicker than you can say "uh, I wanted something done, just not by me." I have no desire to see such an act passed, and I would vote against it, but I like exposing the hypocracy of some of those on the "left." I suspect the 72% of British Columbians who think the world is going to end would vote against it too. Or at least the vast majority of them. And to me, that is a much more telling stat than anything else. Yup. Change the world. Everyone else's world, that is. Leave mine alone.
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Nov 21, 2006 16:51:33 GMT -5
Like a lot of "hot" issues, global warming is one that is poorly understood by most people, yet most people seem to have a "solution." "Why don't we sign Kyoto, why don't we save the environment, why won't we punish big business to save the children?" The fact is, most people have a rather poor understanding of not only Kyoto (which will not and cannot work), but of what they think it will take to reduce these greenhouse gases everybody thinks needs to be reduced. That's mostly true, but it doesn't absolve the government of it's responsibility to deal with the issue. Well that wouldn't cut it in half, since cars are not soley responsible for greenhouse gas emissions, and not everyone has two cars, and a lot of people with 2 cars mostly use one. But more to the point, the government should be supporting those sorts of decisions by, for example, providing better public transit. Assuming that's true, and it is an assumption, does that make them wrong about the climate change problem?
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Nov 21, 2006 17:06:26 GMT -5
I like exposing the hypocracy of some of those on the "left." This kind of rhetoric is extremely shallow and usually used to sidetrack debates or dodge questions. There are more than 2 political viewpoints. Branding people as "leftists" or "right-wingers" does not encourage political dialogue or action. These are the thin arguments which allow politicians to get away with the things they get away with. Sure I'm a crook and I'm incompetent, but at least I'm not a lefty. It goes both ways, of course.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Nov 21, 2006 18:18:41 GMT -5
Well that wouldn't cut it in half, since cars are not soley responsible for greenhouse gas emissions, and not everyone has two cars, and a lot of people with 2 cars mostly use one. But more to the point, the government should be supporting those sorts of decisions by, for example, providing better public transit.
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Nov 21, 2006 21:26:11 GMT -5
That's mostly true, but it doesn't absolve the government of it's responsibility to deal with the issue. That's also true. But should a government sign a deal that it knows to be bad, merely for the sake of "appearing to be responsible?" Or worse still, sign and abide by a deal that it knows to be bad for the country and largely useless, just to win some political votes? Well that wouldn't cut it in half, since cars are not soley responsible for greenhouse gas emissions, and not everyone has two cars, and a lot of people with 2 cars mostly use one. But more to the point, the government should be supporting those sorts of decisions by, for example, providing better public transit. There are apx 18.5 million cars in Canada, which has a population of 30 million. Using the 2001 census for data, 5.7 million are under the age of 15. Round it up to 6 million to account for the 15-16 year olds, and the 85+ crowd, and you'd be left with 24 million "drivers." Meaning that there are about 18.5 million cars, for a "drivable" population of about 24 million. Close to 1 per person, no? As for the "in half" part, perhaps you are right, but it still underlies the my main point; "yes, yes, cut the cars, but not mine, and shouldn't it be the governments job anyways, to provide more public transportation (for others)?" Assuming that's true, and it is an assumption, does that make them wrong about the climate change problem? Nope. But it does make them a major part of the problem. Again, "let others change." This kind of rhetoric is extremely shallow and usually used to sidetrack debates or dodge questions. There are more than 2 political viewpoints. Branding people as "leftists" or "right-wingers" does not encourage political dialogue or action. These are the thin arguments which allow politicians to get away with the things they get away with. Sure I'm a crook and I'm incompetent, but at least I'm not a lefty. It goes both ways, of course. Hence the "quotations" on the "left." I should have perhaps said "for lack of a better term" to be more clear. While I consider myself to be "right leaning" I am in fact, like most people, all over the map when it comes to "liberal/conservative" issues.
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 22, 2006 1:29:55 GMT -5
There are apx 18.5 million cars in Canada, which has a population of 30 million. Using the 2001 census for data, 5.7 million are under the age of 15. Round it up to 6 million to account for the 15-16 year olds, and the 85+ crowd, and you'd be left with 24 million "drivers." Meaning that there are about 18.5 million cars, for a "drivable" population of about 24 million. Close to 1 per person, no? . IF and WHEN they get the science right, there are ways to change thing that wont destroy our standard of living. Nuclear, heavier insulation, hybrid-diesels. I harve Benz diesel now and I get an average of 9 liters per hundred kilometers. That is head and shoulders above anything cimparable (4000 lbs and neither a slouch nor an "econo stripper"). The same manufacturers is claiming a hybrid-diesel will use LESS then 5 liter per hundred. That is two to three tmes better then the average car. A Prius hybrid gets 4 to 5 liters per hundred. A diesel Prius can get 3 to 4 liters per hundred. You don't have to eliinate half the cars, you just have to legislate extremely tight consumption figures. As for the "sky is falling" crowd..... Causes don't really have to have a totally scientific or rational basis. You ever hear the anti-globalist yelping? Ever hear PITA yodeling? There is a very specific demographic that yelps the loudest about global warming. One of the increasing louder voices are the baby boomer's who have reached or approaching retirement age. As people get older, whether by human design or by choice, they get a lot more self centered. It's about THEM and how they will face their "well deserved" golden old age. Then you have the younger spoon fed generation of which NOTHING is good enough. Of course it isn't cause mommy and daddy paid for it all and they don't know what work is all about...yet. And last but not least, you have parents who buy into it or go along with their precious ones. Nothing can be to good or too safe for precious gold child. This tends to be the funniest "green" crowd. They live in luxury and waste, but if they put SEVEN burger wrapper in the garbage can, replace FIVE regular light bulbs with fluorescent and read THREE articles, then they are bona fide greenie experts with credentials. BTW, you should hear their expert opinion of the "Hydrogen Economy". You have heard of the hydrogen economy? Right? It's the answer to everything. Even better then 42. Most of these people believe because they want to believe and events around them can be interperted for that belief. Hardly one in a hundred know anything more then what they hear on CNN or read in the local rag. They don't need too. Every weather event now has a basis for blame. Me, I am going to start my own climate saving crusade. I believe that we should ban burritos and save the planet. Do you realize how many tons of methane gas burritos cause? If we ban burritos, we may save the planet from that gaseous "tipping" point. You know that point that I mean, the one that causes the next hurricane...err I mean ice age.....err, I mean the next blizzard.......wait until it happens and I will point it out to you. P.S. Don't tell rooster Jack Layton about it otherwise he will take up the cause and we will no longer be the coolest guys with the latest cause............. P.S.S. You can no longer descriminate against socialist by calling them lefties. They are now "anti child poverty advocates". Lazy bums are no longer lazy bumbs and if you DARE argue that they should pay the consequence, you will get tortured with the all encompassing "we are not hurting them, we are hurting the CHILDREN". Your not a child hurter, are you? Is there any wonder why this --> <-- is my favorite icon?
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Nov 22, 2006 7:36:01 GMT -5
Me, I am going to start my own climate saving crusade. I believe that we should ban burritos and save the planet. Do you realize how many tons of methane gas burritos cause? If we ban burritos, we may save the planet from that gaseous "tipping" point. You know that point that I mean, the one that causes the next hurricane...err I mean ice age.....err, I mean the next blizzard.......wait until it happens and I will point it out to you. I read an article the other day that actually suggested that methane (I believe it was actually methane that was beneath the nothern ice and off the coast of Newfoundland) in a "frozen" form is the next wave of the future to meet energy needs. I wish I could find a link, but I thought it said that Canada has been more concerned about protecting our sovereignty in the north recently because of these methane reserves known to be in the ice. It also goes on to say it is a relatively cheap source of fuel and there is enough off the coast of Newfoundland alone to make Alberta's tar sands look like small potatoes.
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Nov 22, 2006 9:07:24 GMT -5
I read an article the other day that actually suggested that methane (I believe it was actually methane that was beneath the nothern ice and off the coast of Newfoundland) in a "frozen" form is the next wave of the future to meet energy needs. I wish I could find a link, but I thought it said that Canada has been more concerned about protecting our sovereignty in the north recently because of these methane reserves known to be in the ice. It also goes on to say it is a relatively cheap source of fuel and there is enough off the coast of Newfoundland alone to make Alberta's tar sands look like small potatoes. Saw the same article, or one very similar to it anyways. Also couldn't find it on the net, but did find something like it: www.suite101.com/article.cfm/chemistry/88066
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Nov 22, 2006 12:06:13 GMT -5
I read an article the other day that actually suggested that methane (I believe it was actually methane that was beneath the nothern ice and off the coast of Newfoundland) in a "frozen" form is the next wave of the future to meet energy needs. I wish I could find a link, but I thought it said that Canada has been more concerned about protecting our sovereignty in the north recently because of these methane reserves known to be in the ice. It also goes on to say it is a relatively cheap source of fuel and there is enough off the coast of Newfoundland alone to make Alberta's tar sands look like small potatoes. Saw the same article, or one very similar to it anyways. Also couldn't find it on the net, but did find something like it: www.suite101.com/article.cfm/chemistry/88066That's pretty much the same article I read , except it went on to explain the effect on the Newfoundland economy and an Engineer was interviewed that claimed producing this stuff is cheap but the companies are saying it is expensive...
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Nov 22, 2006 18:42:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Nov 22, 2006 22:36:49 GMT -5
Now Skilly..have a heart. The outer limits of temptation......Don't get me going about Newfies and methane gas!!! You try eating moose! Its my food sensitivities I tell ya!! ;D
|
|
|
Post by habmeister on Nov 23, 2006 15:08:08 GMT -5
so all the crap that we're putting into the atmosphere is a good thing? for anybody to argue that the emmissions that we're spewing into our air isn't having any effect has their head buried deep in the oil sands. when i'm in big cities that have bad air, la, ny, toronto, paris, germany, i can tell because my nose runs like a faucet, my eyes are itchy all day, and i have to pop allergy pills like candy. funny thing that, it doesn't feel good or healthy or natural for me to feel that way only in smoggy cities.
i would think it would be better to err on the side of caution and take care of our environment and the air we breath in than to just say lets' wait and see what science is proper. i don't need science to tell me that emmissions from cars are not a good thing. so let's just say we all stop driving our cars (impossible of course) and stop cutting down the trees that clean the air. what a terrible place we'd live in where children don't have respiritory problems in big cities.
and of course the rise in types of amounts of cancers have nothing to do with the chemicals that we're injesting in from the air or food either. thankfully there are still places where the air is clean (where i live in vancouver), and i can choose to eat food that isn't full of chemicals and hormones.
and second hand smoke doesn't do anything either.
who killed the electric car?
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 24, 2006 7:01:59 GMT -5
There is a difference between eliminating toxins, hormones and CO2. I am all for taking the toxins and hormones out of everything we eat or breath. Electric cars were not killled, they just where impractical. I am a "efficiency" fan and have been driving Diesels for the last 26 years. About two months ago, I was in the market for a mini-van (business) and while I was doing my "due process" I drove six different hybrids. I am now convinced that diesel-hybrids with electrical plug in are THE WAY TO GO! Not only are you getting extrremely high efficiency, you can also travel the first 20-40 km under pure battery power. Of course, the only truly reliable method to get that electricilty is to go nuclear and that will set some people into the twilight zone. And my huge pet peave..... Why on earth are we not reforesting every single ince of highway and empty place? My conservative estimate is that we can put in three million trees in greater Toronto area just on the major roads and overpasses. How many millions of tons of CO2 would be taken out of the air? I planted some pines in 1980 and they are now 50 feet tall. Do that on every highway today, combine it with diesel hybrids and it wil go a huge way towards emission balance. Damn it, since Gillett wont make me a coach or GM, I might as well try my hand at Energy Czar. Just be prepaired to pay $1.50 for feul, a ban on personal transportation that doesn't get at least 35mpg, train/trucking infrastructure (why the hell is a truck going from Toronto to BC when a train can do the same thing at 1/5 the fuel usage), mini-nuclear plants for local consumption (core is rail transported and can be recycled several times after which it can be buried/protected for several thousand years) and on and on..... What keeps us from better serving technology is stupid government and big industry. How are the car companies going to make a profit if they ALL have to stop making SUV's and pick up trucks? And how are we going to move forward if every solution has SOME people screaming their stupid little heads off? Canadian governments want votes, not controversy. Here is part of the future........ www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/analysis/nucenviss2.htmlwww.calcars.org/vehicles.html
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 24, 2006 7:10:10 GMT -5
Now Skilly..have a heart. The outer limits of temptation......Don't get me going about Newfies and methane gas!!! You try eating moose! Its my food sensitivities I tell ya!! ;D You eat moose? Does the Protect the Beautiful Moose Society know about you? Give me your address and I will have twenty cap wearing weirdos banging their signs and tambourines at your doorstep tomorrow....
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 24, 2006 7:12:30 GMT -5
I read an article the other day that actually suggested that methane (I believe it was actually methane that was beneath the nothern ice and off the coast of Newfoundland) in a "frozen" form is the next wave of the future to meet energy needs. I wish I could find a link, but I thought it said that Canada has been more concerned about protecting our sovereignty in the north recently because of these methane reserves known to be in the ice. It also goes on to say it is a relatively cheap source of fuel and there is enough off the coast of Newfoundland alone to make Alberta's tar sands look like small potatoes. Saw the same article, or one very similar to it anyways. Also couldn't find it on the net, but did find something like it: www.suite101.com/article.cfm/chemistry/88066And I read several articles that there is a "potential" of uncontrolled methane emissons from those sources.
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Nov 25, 2006 0:53:09 GMT -5
The only thing that is certain is change itself. Ice Ages. Global warming/cooling. Continents shifting. Earthquakes. Volcanos. Tsunamis. Asteroids. Comets. Craters. Canibalism. Nazis, Mongols, Spanish Inquisition, Crusades. Acid Rain. CO2, NO2, Ozone holes. Solar storms. The sun burning out. Disease. Big Macs. Global crop failures. Automotive recalls. We all will die someday. Twenty years? 2 million years? December 16th? Maybe three generations is optimistic?
The world will end when the Leafs win the cup, or hopefully at 19:59 of the third period of the final game.
|
|