Bubble Fusion Researcher Faces Fraud Trial 154
An anonymous reader writes "In 2001, Rusi P. Taleyarkhan shocked the world by claiming he had successfully produced a positive net energy bubble fusion reaction; cold fusion. The New York Times reports that a congressional hearing is now under way against Taleyarkhan, even though Purdue University has already cleared the scientist of any wrongdoing. Dr. Taleyarkhan said last night in an e-mail message that the subcommittee's report represents 'a gross travesty of justice.' He asked, 'Where are the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons of the Asian community during this episode that has caused this biased and openly one-sided smear campaign?' You can view the full (colorful) e-mail at Dailytech."
Clearing Up Confusion (Score:5, Interesting)
WOW, that's a loaded statement. Let me correct a few things:
1. Taleyarkhan didn't report his research until 2002.
2. I have never seen a source that claims that sonofusion is currently net positive. That's an incredibly difficult feat to achieve, and has been an active point of research.
3. Bubble Fusion is NOT Cold Fusion any more than a Farnsworth-Hirsch Fusor [wikipedia.org] is. In fact, the reaction is hotter than hades. (About 10 megakelvins, or about as hot as the center of the sun.)
This is a bit of a misstatement. According to TFA, the Congressional subcommittee that's responsible for funding various scientific endeavors into new energy sources asked Purdue to review its finding. So Purdue reopened the case, and is again putting Taleyarkhan through the wringer.
On a side note, shouldn't this be listed under "Science" rather than "Hardware"?
Re:Clearing Up Confusion (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Clearing Up Confusion (Score:4, Interesting)
You need to remember, Tokamak is basically a REALLY LARGE Farnsworth-Hirsch Fusor. It uses different technologies to accomplish its goal, but both devices perform plasma confinement to achieve fusion.
Re:Clearing Up Confusion (Score:5, Informative)
Tokamaks and Fusors do indeed work by plasma confinement, but the methods are so different that you can't really call a Tokamak a big Fusor. Tokamaks use magnetic fields to try to force the plasma together, while Fusors use the charge of the plasma itself [wikipedia.org] to keep it together. In addition, instead of inducing massive current in the plasma to heat it, Fusors simply accelerate the particles to the energies necessary, because of the favorable MeV/K conversion (for example, 15 keV = 174 megakelvins) [wikipedia.org], thus making the device far simpler and easier to operate (just compare the size of a typical Tokamak to that of a typical Fusor), as well as requiring much less energy.
Again, your point is valid, but Tokamaks aren't that similar to Fusors.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Clearing Up Confusion (Score:5, Interesting)
On another note. I always found it interesting that D+D = He4 fusion is rejected by the physicists because the resulting He4 would have too much energy and eject a neutron to become He3. So why then does He4 constitute 90-something percent of the naturally occurring helium? What is the reaction that is supposed to produce this atom? It's just a question, I'm not claiming anyone is right or wrong with this. I really want to understand where it is supposed to come from.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not necessarily. Using kinetic energy to overcome the electrostatic repulsion of nuclei would be hot.
Then there's also Muon catalyzed fusion [wikipedia.org]. Muons are basically heavier versions of electrons, and when they replace electrons in a hydrogen molecule, the two nuclei are forced closer together for easier fusion.
Re:Clearing Up Confusion (Score:4, Informative)
(1) H + H = D + positron + energy (since really H is all that is around initially)
(2) D + H = He3 + energy
(3) He3 + He3 = He4 + 2*H
From what I remember from the classes I've had covering this, there is a lot of energy considerations and collisional cross section issues that make it occur this way. 2 deuteriums would indeed make a He4 nucleus that is too unstable to last very long, so it undertakes this somewhat convoluted but more quiescent path. Also in these considerations usually H is in much better supply than D is, so the probabilities are better for (2) to happen than your way.
IIRC in certain situations (like a nuclear bomb) when you can do it there is also the possibility of
(4) Tritium + H = He4 + energy
but I'm pretty sure that you need to seed that with quite a bit of tritium to get it to work reliably.
CNO cycle - nuclear catalyst (Score:4, Interesting)
Just as a chemical catalyst reduces the energy needed to perform a chemical reaction, and allows certain reactions to take place that couldn't happen directly, so does a nuclear catalyst allow nuclear reactions to take place at lower energies than would otherwise be needed.
This also explains why oxygen, nitrogen, and carbon are so common, as well.
Re: (Score:2)
--
Get proton-proton chain fusion now! http://mdsolar.b [blogspot.com]
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Good question. A quick bit of research leads me to believe that, at least in stars around the size of our Sun, the answer is the proton-proton chain reaction [wikipedia.org]. It starts off with individual hydr
Big Bang Nucleosynthsis (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Food for thought -- just supposing Taleyarkhan really produced sonofusion (however much of a stretch that might be), who stands to gain and who stands to lose if someone really produces a net-positive energy fusion reaction? How quickly would Congresscritters bought and paid for by big oil want to shut him up?
I'm not saying he did or didn't do it -- it's just that I'm betting if
Re:Clearing Up Confusion (Score:4, Insightful)
They hedged that bet a long time ago.
So, fission, fusion, whatever the "ENERGY" companies have expertise and resources to do it on a huge scale, which will net them a profit...
Corporations are smarter than you think... for the most part.
Re: (Score:2)
a) stick it in our cars and stop buying gas (for the most part, they do not sell water, nor would it be nearly as easy for them to obtain a bottleneck on water distribution).
b) stick it in our homes and stop buying electricity from the grid
c) stick one in our business buildings and stop buying electricity from the grid
That pretty much covers 100% of the profitability
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is no way to prevent the massive quantities of multi MV neutrons from activating the car with the ~4feet of shielding you could provide around such a device inside a car.
Fusion produces significant quantities of radiation and significant quantities of radio active waste. You can't build a table top device that will safely create usefully amounts of energy so it's always going to be the domain of major power companies even if the core device
Re: (Score:2)
In a big plant it's easy to have several feet of shielding (it's just a wall) so it's not an issue for power plants but building something portable is much harder as they take up space and ar
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Plastics, LNG, nuclear fuels, bitumen mining, acoustics, imaging, and god knows what else goes on over there...
There will be no technology that will result in an energy utopia. The more energy we can efficiently make, the more we will learn to consume. Someone will have to manufacture th
Re:Clearing Up Confusion (Score:4, Insightful)
American big oil would LOVE commercial fusion. North America is the Saudi Arabia of coal, tar sands, and oil shale, which lack only cheap energy to turn them into quality liquid fuels and chemical feedstocks. Cheap energy is also a prerequisite for turning fossil fuels into value-added plastics and nanofibers. Small fusion reactors would be excellent for the business of international cargo ships, and might even be adaptable to rail locomotives if the neutron flux is low enough. Fixed-location fusion reactors could also take up much of the New England heating load, perhaps even by effecient steam distribution in dense cities, freeing valuable fuel oils for transportation use, and freeing valuable natural gas for chemical synthesis. Cheap fusion would also help alleviate the impending fuel crisis caused by China's booming industrialization.
What do these things have in common? They cut American, Chinese, and Japanese ties to Middle Eastern oil fields. That would leave graying, shrinking Europe as their last captive market, not an exciting prospect for an ambitious imperial theocrat or Saudi prince.
Sure, commercial fusion would hurt some Big Oil markets, but overall I think it would open more opportunities than it closes. In the long run, all fossil fuels are destined to become more valuable for manufacturing than combustion.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know if you remember but there was this one saudi family.. Bin something or other who was a personal friend of some politician guy they call dubya. The bins son got a lot of press a few years ago for co-ordinating some prank in NYC and some othe places. Well they are an influential member of OPEC and
A small nitpik (Score:3, Insightful)
By contrast, as an American living in Europe, I have watched the buying power of my savings in USD drop by 40% vs. the Euro since 2001.
Who is shrinking?
Re: (Score:2)
Native fertility is at or below replacement levels in much of Europe. There are lots of immigrants, but too many of them follow a religion that must not be named and/or are low-IQ Africans.
If I were an oil prince, I would not be happy for them to be my last remaining market.
Re:Clearing Up Confusion (Score:5, Insightful)
The more important error is that Purdue did *not* clear him of all wrongdoing, just of a sketchy authorship complaint. To quote the second and third freaking sentences of the article:
Re:Omitted himself? (Score:5, Informative)
Because it was supposed to be independent verification of Taleyarkhan's claims. If he really did coauthor the paper, then his research was NOT independently verified. If his research was not independently verified, then funding may have provided on false or misleading data.
I don't think that's good (Score:2)
Furthermore, I still don't think it's improper for him to omit himself. What counts is not whether he omitted himself or not, what counts is whether the people actually on the paper reproduced it. If they did, it's fine. If not, they committed fraud.
I think it would be a bad precedent to require everybody who has made a contribution to a paper to be on that paper if they don't want to be.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that two researchers using the same equipment but better neutron detectors couldn't replicate the results, and these guys were from the same lab (Oak Ridge). Taleyarkhan then moves onto Purdue where the "supporting" paper comes out. The authors of that paper are Taleyarkhan's students, whom are suspected of contributing very little to the work or the paper. This is in fact the situation that you think would make a bad precedent, but it is also the reason that there was a fraud investigatio
Re: (Score:2)
As with everything with scientific authorship, there are the theoretical rules and the real rules. In the real rules, there's nothing wrong with declining authorship because you don't think you deserve it or because you don't think the rest of the work is solid. This is a weird case where forgoing authorship might be regarded as unethical (although the university did
Re: (Score:2)
Palladium is only refined as a contaminant of platinum-containing ores.
Congress is just technical enough ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lost credibility (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Do Jackson or Sharpton cause white people to be incarcerated at higher rates than black people, and get longer sentences from courts? Do they cause whites with the same income levels as blacks to be refused bank loans more often? Do they cause police to routinely harass and shoot white people at a higher rate than black people? Are they responsible for higher levels of environmental pollution in white neighborhoods as opposed to black?
A classic sym
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Lost credibility (Score:4, Informative)
Sharpton and Jackson (Score:5, Insightful)
What Sharpton and Jackson do is insert themselves into situations where race is an issue for their own gain. They care nothing about the people involved - only the increase of their fame, wealth, and power. They frequently involve themselves in situations where their presence is not needed or wanted. The latest example is Jesse Jackson meeting with the Atlanta Braves because of the lack of black ballplayers on their roster. It's ridiculous to think that a professional sports team would want to hire any but the best players they can afford. If the Braves were in a position to hire Ryan Howard, Barry Bonds, and Derek Lee, do you think that they would hesitate because the players are black?
The worst thing about Jackson and Sharpton is that they insult blacks because they further the notion that blacks need help to get ahead.
Re: (Score:2)
And specifically, that blacks need their help to get ahead. I'll admit, Jackson has said some good things along the way
Re: (Score:2)
Your comments imply that if more black people commit crimes, white people must be racist. That is absolutely absurd. One could argue that these things could ha
Re: (Score:2)
It's all in how you say it. (Score:5, Funny)
congress? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But then due process would be required.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:congress? (Score:5, Insightful)
From TFA, it would appear that it has to do with the administration of research grant money. If you make false/exaggerated claims, manipulate your results, omit your name from being party to research that substantiates your claims, all while having your research federally funded (at least partially), is why congressional oversight is getting involved.
Re: (Score:2)
Haven't looked at academia in the last 50 years have you? It seems exaggerations and linking your research to the flavor of the week is essentially necessary t
Re: (Score:2)
So? Just because it seems like everyone else is doing it still doesn't make it right. He was called on it, and most unfortunately, there are many others out there who have even more agregious lapses in judgement and ethics who are not getting caught. If you're willing to play the game to hedge getting the rewards, then you darned well be willing to accept the risks and consequences that come with it.
Yes, I agree with you that the grant system is broke, just like a myriad of thousands of other programs
Re: (Score:2)
It's beyond broke. It actively punishes the honest by only granting to "keywords", "hot topics", and short term gain type of research. He's been cleared of any wrong doing already by his academic institution.
Science isn't about "getting something for you
Sonoluminescence is very, very cheap. (Score:5, Interesting)
Sonoluminescence is really one of the easiest, cheapest ways to achieve simultaneously high pressures and high temperatures in a controlled fashion. Seriously. All you need is a jar of (ideally "de-gassed" or boiled) water, a piezo-electric speaker, something to drive it with at a certain frequency, and another microphone to detect when you are in resonance. Heck, you don't even need a microphone (by the end of the summer, I had developed my sense of hearing that I could detect the resonance and achieve the sonoluminescence without a microphone and a scope).
Trust me, people don't understand sonoluminescence well enough yet to actually rule out the possibility that enough heat and pressure occur to produce a few fusion reactions. These are a few of the something like a half-dozen theories on the source of the light of sonoluminescence: the Casimir effect (relativistic accelerating refractive index interfaces... more unlikely than sonofusion), Bremsstrahlung radiation, smeared spectral lines, and plain old Blackbody radiation.
I am glad some research money went to this guy. I say he should get more! I mean, this is NOTHING like cold fusion, and I believe that money should be spread out when it comes to fusion research, not just concentrated into a money-hole like the ITER project, which if it produces any positive net-energy, it will be from burning the $100 bills of the tax-payers (not just US tax-payers, either).
Money for cold fusion (Score:2)
Well, yes, in a way. There was some lab space that was used, but the funding level was a few thousand dollars from a discretionary account. No salaries were paid.
I agree with you that diversity in research on fusion sh
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Ask the person running congress: Nancy Pelosi. So far, her agenda (in terms of how to use the waking hours that congress has to do things) seems to be more or less entirely centered around pointless political spectacle. That IS the motive, and this would plug right into it... the appearance of gnashing their teeth over how federal money is spent, while simultaneously looking for ways to tack hundreds of millions in unrelated pork (spinach subsidies?
Jackson/Sharpton/Duke 3 of a kind (Score:5, Insightful)
Holy crap, I think the Asian community can do without the likes of people like Jesse "Heimy Town" Jackson and Al "Tawana Brawley" Sharpton. They represent their communities about as well as David Duke represents his...
Re: (Score:2)
When one belongs to a minority (Asians, gays, whatever), claiming discrimination due to that is a common tactics.
Whether one is sincere claiming that, and whether the discrimination really does play a role (two nearly independent things), is another story...
Nevertheless, the question is valid. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Which is interesting. The Asian community is a "victim", if you will, of positive racism. Meaning, folks automatically assume they are smarter than the rest of us. Who was the Asian guy on "American Idol" or one of those clones who wanted to sing and he was complaining that folks thought he was a chemist and not a singer? I thought that was a perfect example of that form of prejudice. It's
Sorry! (Score:3, Insightful)
Not that it's a bad thing.
Given that the US is generally an innocent-till-proven-guilty society, if it's case of fraud, the burden of proof is on the accuser, or in this case, the good (or bad) doc's teammate. But y'all knew that. Like lots of folks, I guess I'm puzzled why Congress should even bother: this is an academic tussle after all, and this is very far from settled science. Photo-op, maybe? Or,
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Given that the US is generally an innocent-till-proven-guilty society
That's true of our legal system, but the court of public opinion is guilty until proven innocent.
As far as congress, they are simply doing what will get their faces, and more importantly their names in the media, so that they will win their next election. They would be getting free campaign advertising out of it, more than money can buy. They look like they are serving the public interest, when there are more pressing issues, which are more difficult to navigate politically. This issue is 'safe'. If they
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And their white equivalents believe that Elvis is still alive.
Calling Al Sharpton a knight in shining armour riding to the rescue of a damsel in distress is like saying G
Re: (Score:2)
What I said makes fun of his statements, not the person making the statement.
Of course, you could make the case that what YOU said was ad hominem
Re: (Score:2)
Where, pray tell, did I say racism is a thing of the past? It's not - but that does NOT mean, nor does it even imply, that anything bad that happens between white & black is a function of racism. There are assholes in ALL races.
The key word in
Indian = Asian? (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
"Taleyarkhan" is asian? (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Haven't you ever... (Score:2)
Congressional Investigation over Paper Authorship? (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, mastershake_phd makes an interesting comment. "There must be something im missing here, what motive could congress have to investigate this guy? This isnt some major incident, most of the public hasnt even heard about this. I wonder what they are after."
Run your clock back a year ago. He was accused of spiking his experiment with Californium. Turns out that that whole assault was based on theoretical calculations and speculation. As much as some people wanted to "prove" that he had committed experimental fraud, they have so far, failed to make their case.
I suspect that there is much more to this story than reported by the Times. An inquisitive person who looks at the larger span of events, http://newenergytimes.com/BubbleTrouble/BFControv
As someone who has spent the last six years investigating controversial science, I have a good sense of the difficulties of new, poorly-understood science.
The challenge of replication in unchartered scientific territory is not to be taken lightly and readily dismissed as "evidence" of non-science. Many people in the field of science, when pushed, will admit that one can never prove a negative, no matter how may attempts fail.
I am also keenly aware of the multitude of human issues in high-profile science; among these, intellectual property, intellectual primacy, competition for funding and grants.
The bold, outspoken criticisms of respected scientists in the popular media do not always make it easy for the lay reader to distinguish between science fact and science politics.
The important question to ask here, is, why all the fuss, and why a Congressional inquiry about who is listed on a science paper?
Steven Krivit Editor, New Energy Times
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Hey, if something can't be replicated its cause its NEW science, not
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
All that aside, how did you get Arthur C. Clarke to write the foreword to your new book?
break even? (Score:2)
If you are referring to the point where fusion power created equals input power (ignoring the change in internal plasma energy), the reason is that no one is trying to do this. Most facilities cannot handle enough radiation to even run DT plasmas. The few places that can currently run DT plasmas can only do so in a very limited fashion, no where near enough to optimize the parameters. Reaching Q=1 is a easy as
Re:Congressional Investigation over Paper Authorsh (Score:5, Informative)
As someone who has actually done controversial science for a living, I have a good sense of how all science worth doing is new and poorly understood, and how little appreciation of that fact people on the fringe have.
In every experiment there are things that make you go, "Hmmm..." Almost all of the time they are irrelevant, and it is a matter of taste and good judgement as to when you spend the time and effort to follow up on them. People who have never done real experiments or who are very badly trained fail to appreciate this, and therefore ascribe to every anomaly a significance that it does not have.
There are several consequences of this: good scientists sometimes miss significant anomalies; bad scientists sometimes make important discoveries; good scientists spend almost all their time generating well-quantified reproducible results that accumulate to the betterment of humanity; bad scientists spend almost all their time pursuing irrelevant anomalies and telling everyone how smart they are.
Every experimental scientist knows that it is possible to prove a negative, and we do it all the time. They are called null results. The entire field of physics beyond the standard model has been generating reams of these for the past couple of decades. We know, for example, that neutrinoless double beta decay does NOT happen with a lifetime of less than some large number. The ABSENCE of a signal is the result. Likewise, we know that the 17 keV neutrino does NOT exist, and the experiments that proved it were designed in the manner of all such: they demonstrated that A=>B, and then showed !B, and therefore !A by modus tollens.
For example, if you have a working tachometer, and it reads zero, your engine is not running, because if your engine is running your working tachometer will read more than 100 RPM. Any such experiment involves a good deal of secondary experimental work to demonstrate that the tachometer really is working, and isolating it from any possible unexpected effects, but at the end of the day you are always detecting a phenomenon that is well-known, like a beta spectrum or the number of neutrons being produced, or in the case of a tachometer a spinning shaft.
Fringe scientists have a tendency to invoke "new physics" to explain why no one else measures the shaft spinning when they do. Good scientists understand that spinning is spinning, no matter what causes it, and that for the fringe scientist to be right everything we know about tachometers must be wrong, and that is simply not plausible.
HEH (Score:3, Informative)
I decided it is simpler to call it a good distraction for a few congresscritters so they don't attempt any real work and let it go at that
Re: (Score:2)
Correct response (Score:4, Insightful)
Instead Taleyarkhan responded with an Appeal to motive [wikipedia.org], a logical fallacy. Big red flag in my book.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
An appeal to motive is what an accusation of fraud is. They aren't just questioning his results or theory, they are questioning his integrity. He is perfectly right to question their motives and not just their assertions, since they are questioning his.
Re: (Score:2)
Here, let me clarify:
Not appeal to motive: "Rep. Miller's office intentionally omitted the positive findings and supporting evidence."
Appeal to motive: "Why did this memo/letter from Rep. Miller's office intentionally
omit ANY/ALL mention of the positive findings and supporting evidence? [...] Is this the American system we are to follow, or is it just politics as usual?"
Re: (Score:2)
What if Rep. Miller is playing politics and isn't motivated simply by his love and devotion to scientific truth? Isn't that a valid accusation to make? How is it less valid than questioning the motivation of the professor? This isn't a we found "Y" situation, this is a you said "X" and we found "Y" and "X" depending on who you ask and we think it was "X" because you seem a little sketchy. That ain't science.
here is how I see it:
- S
Re: (Score:2)
The first statement presents facts which if correct directly refute the accusation. It is straightforward and provably true or false.
The second statemtent, the one Taleyarkhan actually made, slides right past that refutation and instead asks the reader to envision the accuser as a corrupt politician whose statements cannot be taken seriously. Its argumentum ad hominem, specifically an appeal to motive. Its a false argument; the accusat
Re: (Score:2)
Accusation of fraud is a question of motive far more insidious than an accusation of political motivation. But you can prove fraud
Re: (Score:2)
Hardly. No judgement is offered as to why the experimenter falsified results; the accusation is merely that the results have been falsified. It can be directly demonstrated true or false by repeating the experiment per the notes and observing those results. If nothing even vaguely like the experimenter's claimed results appear in the new experiment then the original results were false. After ruling out other potential ca
Re: (Score:2)
No judgement is offered as to why the experimenter falsified results; the accusation is merely that the results have been falsified. It can be directly demonstrated true or false by repeating the experiment per the notes and observing those results.
No. falsify and false are two different things. You can prove that the results were false by repeating the experiment and getting different results, but you cannot prove that the results were falsified that way.
If nothing even vaguely like the experimenter's claimed results appear in the new experiment then the original results were false. After ruling out other potential causes (e.g. unrecorded error in one of the experiments) you're left with fraud.
No. Fraud must be shown by evidence that there was intent to falsify results. Testimony by a grad student, copies of the undoctored results, etc. Simply repeating the experiment and getting a different result is not enough.
As it happens, I was neither arguing for nor against the claim that Taleyarkhan committed fraud. I really don't know that answer. I was merely expressing my distaste at Taleyarkhan's use of false arguments in his defense when a more direct path should have been available.
I don't buy it. A person has a right to question the motives of their ac
They aren't civil rights leaders (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately, Jackson and Sharpton are simple charlatans using race as a springboard for their own agendas. Civil rights is color blind. It'd be handy if people we believe to be civil rights leaders would start practicing that.
Has anyone ever heard of a case where Jackson and Sharpton have acted in the interest of the Asian community? Hispanic? American Indian? Arab Americans? Yugoslavs? Romanians? Jews?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, if you don't work for the civil rights of all, then you're not working for civil rights. You're working for Asian rights, Jewish rights, Hispanic rights, etc. There's nothing wrong with championing Asian rights or Jewish rights or gay rights or whatever you want. Just don't dress yourself up as civil rights when you're not really in it for civil rights. As said by Pastor Niemoller: First
He's obviously guilty (Score:2)
The last thing Asians need (Score:2, Insightful)
Regardless... (Score:2, Insightful)
If the taxpayer was defrauded, then the local AG should be handling it.
If it is an issue of scientific misconduct or fraud, then the university should handle it.
If they handle it in an inqdaquate manner, then they will pay the price in reputation and future grants.
All congressional hearings will get you is more global warming.
what idiocy (Score:2)
Perspective (Score:2)
They'll die messily, in slow motion, in a flock of white doves scattering...
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
No, you're just anonymous (like me!), provide no details (verifiable or otherwise), and ask us to believe you on account of using the phrase, "I'm not kidding."
Did you guys know that a friend of mine saw the parent AC torture fluffy kittens in his backyard? I'm not kidding.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)