Pentagon Weather Report

Greenpeace is circulating what it says is a top secret Pentagon report that predicts that drastic climate change is only a decade away--leading to famines, wars, and other mayhem. Britain would experience Siberian temperatures and sea coasts will be flooded, and so forth. Activists hope that President Bush, spooked by "national security" concerns, will at long last urge the Senate to ratify the the long stalled Kyoto Protocol. It will be interesting to see how the White House and Pentagon flacks handle this one.

[Thanks to David Ridgely and Paul Stifflemire]

Comments

[jack Wayne]

Greenpeace has gotten hold of a secret Pentagon paper? Suffering succotash, Must be real. Must be true. What will the Bushies do now that their Secret Plans have been revealed? Try googling the two authors and you might be a little less credulous.

[Jason Ligon]

Did they read the part in big red letters that says "IMAGINE the Unthinkable" (emphasis added)?

Maybe they skipped the part in the box immediately below where they talk about pushing the boundaries of environmental science to come up with contingencies?

[Umbriel]

I think it's best read in conjunction with the Pentagon contingency plans for alien invasion, referenced in the recent issue of Popular Mechanics

http://popularmechanics.com/science/space/2004/2/when_ufos_arrive/

And "leaked" to the press by the Lone Gunmen, no doubt...

[Glenn Reynolds]

Tim Blair has the scoop on this, which Greenpeace should find somewhat embarrassing.

[Shultz]

I invented the omlette.

[Eric]

If you can't trust the greenie weenies, who CAN you trust?

[bennett]

The flacks should handle this by roundly *ignoring* it.

[Jennifer]

Aren't there actual guys working for the Pentagon whose whole job is to invent various outlandish scenarios to determine how we'd respond if, say, an asteroid impact caused all of Antarctica to melt within the next hour?

I could do that job. Hard to believe this is the same government that discourages the use of drugs.

[titus]

In addition to all this, the Pentagon has (currently?) employed the 'aid'of remote viewing: see http://skepdic.com/remotevw.html .

Not exactly who I would turn to for sound science. Should be right up Greenpeace's ally.

[Brian]

If you can't trust the greenie weenies, who CAN you trust?

Well, clearly, the Pentagon. Duh.

[Gullible Idealist]

I thought Greenpeace was here to save us.
Am I wrong?

[Hydroman]

I thought the pentagon was full of chicken hawks,
not chicken littles.
I`m more conserned with my hemoroids than their
asteroids

[Jean Bart]

What is the saying by Bob Dylan about the weather? 🙂

[Franklin Harris]

Hey, the Pentagon was also worried about WMDs in Iraq. I'm sure "global warming" is as much a threat.

[Heather]

Another reason to love Libertarians
by, a Liberal

1. Equal opportunity snarking. Global warming is a greenie weenie myth AND the Pentagon is full of wackjobs. Hee! Part of me is saying, "Hey! Is so!" And part of me is saying, "The Pentagon has an emergency plan for alien invasion? They ARE insane! I KNEW it."

But more to the point, why do y'all not believe in global warming? Normally, I dismiss anyone who thinks it's a myth as, well, a weenie. But I've been reading this site for a while. Sometimes, you guys are right. Damn it! So can anyone explain why us greenies are so very very wrong? No really. No. Really.

[exasperated]

Heather, that's what comes from crying wolf too often - libertarians call you a weenie. I suppose if environmentalists had not dissembled, obfuscated, outright lied and generally played it fast and loose with the facts so often, I for one might be more willing to listen to them. Some, like thoreau, are not about to let simple exasperation with such nonsense get between them and the truth, though.

[Jason Ligon]

Heather,

Suppose someone came up to you and said something like:

"You know, it is scientifically indisputable that radiation from computer monitors is a man made phenomeon, and it is just as indisputable that over the years since Babbage, the amount of radiation from computer monitors has increased more than at any time in history. We know that radiation can have negative effects, just look at Hiroshima, for Chrissake. We have some computer models that predict that the entire human race will be turned into sludge in 100 years due to the release of this deadly radiation. Other people quibble that these same computer models have never predicted a single event or trend, and in fact are utterly contradicted by other models, but those people are just computer industry shills. Why should we answer their claims?

Anyway, here is the deal. If you surrender 20 percent of all of the wealth you would otherwise accumulate over the next 50 years, we can implement the Sanyo Protocol. This valiant measure will not prevent the entire world from being turned to sludge according to our model, but the sludge will certainly be more human looking, and we wouldn't want to say we didn't try, right? After all, what is a couple of hundred trillion dollars when weighed against no measurable effect but a clean conscience?

[Brian]

Heather,

I would never presume to speak for "libertarians" on any issue, but in a nutshell, here's the problem this libertarian has with global warming.

1. Not enough data. It is absurd to extrapolate any "trend" observed over a 100 or 200-year period in the context of a planet that is about 4,000,000,000 years old.

2. The "trends" that have been observed were not measured with the same instuments. No one can convince me that a thermometer used in 1904 is as accurate or reliable as one used in 2004. Working in a lab and seeing how often we have to recalibrate and/or replace modern thermometers makes me even more skeptical. A degree or two off makes all the difference if we're talking about an alleged warming that takes place a degree or so every few decades.

3. Even if the world is warming up, there is no reason to think that man has anything to do with it, in light of the major climatological changes that have occured throughout the planet's history without our help.

All that said, one need look no further than the skies over Los Angeles or Mexico City to see that we can have an impact on local air quality. This makes a very good case for reasonable, local measures to combat pollution. Not "global" solutions like the Kyoto protocol.

Hope that helps.

[Jennifer]

Since global warming does exist, and increasing levels of CO2 have been measured, why is it alarmist to recommend that we reduce CO2 emissions?

Just because a problem can't be solved by the glorious Unregulated Free Market doesn't mean the problem should be ignored or pooh-poohed away.

I remember a quote from The Onion: "I am opposed to Global Warming. I am also opposed to maiking any changes in my lifestyle to prevent it."

[david]

Brian, Jason: Wow. Very good, brief summation of my thoughts on this issue. Thank you.

[J. Alexander Lowman]

But is stifling the economy really going to help us create better technologies to help us clean up the damage already done and to aleviate any further damage in the future? I think everyone should do more to reduce waste and wasteful consumption, in general, but I don't think the answer is to make a carte blanche commitment to reduce CO2 emissions. I think the glorious Unregulated Free Market will eventually reduce CO2 emissions for us. 🙂

[Highway]

The problem with your comment, Jennifer, is that the 'problem', such as it is, CAN be solved with the Glorious Unregulated Free Market. If it actually is a problem. The real problem is the statist, anti-innovative, punitive suggestions for 'fixing' something that may or may not be a problem after all. Basing such restrictive public policy on a series of SWAG's (that's Scientific Wild-Ass Guesses) is just not a responsible thing to do, especially when those same SWAG models predict that the actual effect of such policies is between slim and none. They're talking what, 2 tenths of a degree lower if Kyoto was enacted?

People ARE making changes to their lifestyles, maybe not 'in response to' global warming, but because they can, and get other benefits as well. Like using more fuel efficient appliances and cars (like the hybrids I continually tout). Like planting more trees to act as carbon sinks, and then logging those trees to bind up the carbon. Like exporting better heating methods and accelerating the progress of the developing world away from the burning of wood, coal, dung, for heat. Like replacing horses and oxen and other pack and farm animals with motor vehicles (yes, like it or not, cars and trucks produce less CO2 per day than animals do).

Yes, these remedies COULD be forced on people by governments now, in order to achieve a miniscule reduction in whatever global warming is due to increased CO2 production. But it would be very expensive, and really only have a very small effect on temperature, while doing great harm to productivity and innovation, as more resources were pushed into the existing technologies and away from future research. But I think that if the problem starts to pan out the way the alarmists are saying (Floods! Famines! Droughts!), then the Glorious Unregulated Free Market will put more effort into those areas.

And isn't that just the way it's supposed to work?

[Jennifer]

The problem with planting trees to offset carbon use is that trees are only a temporary holding pen, so to speak; one good forest fire and that carbon's right back in the atmosphere. Hell, even having the tree rot away or be eaten by termites will send the carbon back.

Please understand: I am NOT a Luddite dreaming of the day when we all ride our bicycles from our solar-powered houses to our jobs as organic farmers. Nor am I saying that the CURRENT laws regulating CO2 emissions are the way to go. But surely at least some changes could be made without destroying our economy. Would it really destroy America if, say, we required all non-commerical passenger vehicles to get at least thirty miles to the gallon? This does mean people in Manhattan will have to give up their SUVs, but that would be a small price to pay.

At the same time I'll admit our own government is responsible for much of this mess, the way it basically subsidizes gasoline. If Americans had to pay four or five bucks a gallon for gas, as does the rest of the world, then the free market would have more incentive to decrease usage. Also, more public transit systems are needed, and eventually, America will have to re-think its love affair with Suburbia, and the idea that one must travel 100 miles a day just to get to work and back, or drive five miles just to buy a loaf of bread.

In one of his books, Kurt Vonnegut recommended that the last person left on Earth leave this message for future alien archaeologists: "We could have saved the planet, but we were too fucking cheap." Sometimes the cost of things must be measured in more than just money.

[cdunlea]

While I don't doubt that there are some consequences of spreading greenhouse gases at the present rate throughout the atmosphere, the Greenies do no one a service by making contradictory statements. How can they warn us about "Siberian temperatures" and "flooded sea coasts" at the same time? During Ice Ages, for example, the polar caps grow and the sea receeds, so flooding is not an issue.

Sounds like scaremongering to me.

[Jennifer]

Jason and Brian:

You made good points about global warming, but even if you ignore thermometer readings there's the fact that a lot of ice is melting; ice-free areas of the North Pole; glaciers vanishing in South America; pools of liquid water appearing on some areas of the Antarctic ice cap, et cetera.

The increased amount of carbon dioxide (the main greenhouse gas) in our atmosphere was proven by comparing CO2 levels from ice samples deep within Greenland's cap, and other such tests.

Global warming is real, though there is a tiny bit of room to argue whether it is man-made or just a natural cycle. Even if it is natural, however, I think we're making it worse.

Of course, the bit about the 'Sanyo Protocol" only holds up if you believe that computer radiation and nuclear radiation are identical.

Heather:

You questioned why libertarians often refuse to believe in global warming. I have a theory, though it will not make me popular on this site: pure libertarians love the idea of man Standing Alone. No social safety net! Sink or swim! Do it by yourself or don't do it at all! You can CHOOSE to help others, but you can't be forced to.

If Libs admit global warming exists, then they have to do something about it, but no one person can do it alone; it would require enforced co-operation, which is against everything True Libs stand for. (I myself am a Lite Libertarian.)

[Steve Wood]

The rest of the world pays four or five bucks a gallon because gas is heavily taxed. That is not a free market incentive to decrease usage. It is a behavior modifying (and revenue enhancing....) action of the part of governments.

[Rich]

If the "solution" is more painful than the problem than it is no solution at all.

[Jason Ligon]

Jennifer:

There are many questions about any non voluntary actions to reduce CO2:

1) How do you know you are having any effect? The flat cap on emmissions of CO2 that was Kyoto was, even according to its creators, completely ineffectual in reducing global warming.

2) What if, while we are all paying for something ineffectual but mandatory, the reduced growth of the economy slowed technological advances that would actually help? This argument is almost never considered by fans of government mandates. The opportunity cost of some decisions is huge.

You mention that eliminating SUVs would be a small price to pay, but my response is "... for what?"

[Jennifer]

Jason wrote:

"2) What if, while we are all paying for something ineffectual but mandatory, the reduced growth of the economy slowed technological advances that would actually help? This argument is almost never considered by fans of government mandates. The opportunity cost of some decisions is huge."

My counter-question is: are you talking about technological advances we actually have, or advances that you hope will be invented in the future?

This reminds me of a Simpsons episode: the teachers are on strike, the parents are horrified to be stuck with their kids all day, so a town meeting is called and Ned Flanders opens the envelope containing the "Emergency teacher strike plan" the town fathers had promoted: "Replace teachers with teaching robots that have hopefully been invented by now."

I will not defend Kyoto, since I already said I don't necessarily support current regulation, but I will ask this: since we agree that ice is melting and temps rising at the same time CO2 levels keep getting higher and higher, what do YOU suggest we do about it? Please limit your answers to things technologically feasible right now, rather than miracle stuff that you hope will be invented in time to save us.

[Jason Ligon]

"My counter-question is: are you talking about technological advances we actually have, or advances that you hope will be invented in the future?"

Both, and I think you are a bit unfairly blase about the latter category. Hybrid cars are out there, but they don't appeal right now because of their price point relative to size and other features. Nuclear is also out there, but people don't like it right now because the trade offs are unappealing to most Americans (the French think differently). With coal being the big daddie of emmissions, nuke reactors could help a lot.

"since we agree that ice is melting and temps rising at the same time CO2 levels keep getting higher and higher, what do YOU suggest we do about it? Please limit your answers to things technologically feasible right now, rather than miracle stuff that you hope will be invented in time to save us."

I balk at the 'we'. I might choose to do lots of things. As I mentioned, I think our aversion to nuclear power is wrong headed. I would buy a hybrid car if the price were right. I am not willing to force all of society to change their preferences just to satisfy my wants, though. The notion that people will need to give up on the burbs and live in apartments in the city is totally terrifying to me as a proposal. What you propose as a small cost to me reads as a monstrous intrusion into personal decisions, and again, I reiterate, for no certain benefit.

[Farley Warren]

I suggest you and the author check TechCentralStation.com for this date and read what real scientists say about this subject. It would be nice if "flacks" like Ronald Bailey would stick to talking about things they know soething about.

[Geotech]

I think Jennifer is a statist at heart.

[Jennifer]

Jason-

I expressed myself incorrectly; I am not actually recommending that we all be forced to live in camps, or apartments for that matter. However, I would not personally have a problem requiring all new cars built after next year to be hybrid. Or electric cars, with extra nuclear power plants to generate the electricity.

As for the charge that I am a statist; well, I couldn't hear how the word was pronounced but I assume I'm being called a STATE-ist, one putting the state above individual liberty, as opposed to a STAT-ist, one who works with statistics.

Neither word fits me, but I confess I do NOT subscribe to the belief that all human behavior should be entirely dependent upon free choice. I don't believe in 'might makes right,' either physically or economically. I think people should do whatever the hell they want so long as nobody is hurt (legalize porn, drugs, hookers, gay marriage, I don't see why not); however, behavior that hurts others should be outlawed.

You know why I never could get much respect for Ayn Rand? Because of the personal contradictions--this woman was an obvious misanthrope with a low opinion of the real-life people she met every day, and yet her whole philosophy was based upon the idea that Man is a Noble Creature Who Will Always Do Right if Left Alone.

No, I'm no statist, but I think anarchists and hardcore libertarians are as naive and-or willfully blind as those idiots who, when the Berlin Wall fell, serenely said, "Now history will be over because all of our problems are solved!"

[a sci-fi fan]

That's admirably cynical of you, Jennifer.

[Geotech]

Okay, for a situation that may or may not lead to a problem in the future, the government needs to force drastic and costly changes on the automotive industry and on the infrastructure of the nation, essentially at gunpoint. You're right, you are better than Ayn Rand. At least you're a consistent misanthrope.

[Jason Ligon]

Jennifer,

You are correct, we know the earth is warming. We don't know what the net effect will be, and we don't know if we can have an impact on it. Choose any model you want of the warming, implementing Kyoto amounts to spending a trillion dollars for no return.

The bit about the Sanyo Protocol was just to make clear my concerns that even according to the people demanding that we sacrifice 3% of GDP for 50 years under Kyoto, there would be no effect that you could measure on global climate.

[Highway]

I think my biggest problem with 'Global Warming' is the gigantic amount of extrapolation in the entire scenario. Especially based on such incomplete initial data. Has ANY climate model come anywhere close to predicting the global temperatures from 5 years ago, based on previous data? Last I looked, these models were thoroughly unable to 'predict' the climate changes that we've already been through. Therefore, running around predicting dire consequences on these models is just silly.

I know I personally might believe that overall the 'planet' is heating up, but personally I think it might have more to do with direct actions of people, like building more pavement. I don't particularly want to stop that. And I'm firmly in the camp that says that IF rising temperatures become a problem, resources and technology will be applied to that problem when it IS a problem, not just when it's a pet cause for people who don't like the way I live.

[Jennifer]

Geotech-
Yes, I am a misanthrope. But the main reason I think the threat is real rather than hypothetical is this: except for Bush and a few Americans who have political stakes in maintaining the status quo, every mainstream scientist in the world agrees on this threat; it's not just radical Greenpeace guys anymore. I am a misanthrope, but I am not so arrogant as to believe the following statement: "On scientific matters, I am right, and every other scientist in the world is wrong."

That's also why I believe tobacco is unhealthy, despite the many fine scientists of Philip MOrris who insist it's all inconclusive.

[Geotech]

From what I understand, the consensus among scientists is that that global warming is happening, and that it is being affected by human release of CO2. I haven't heard of any consensus that says it will lead to future catastrophes. I think that's what Jason Ligon means when he says it "may be" a problem. It may also be a result of the climate cycle, I know a geologist who firmly believes this. So anyway, according to your logic, we should drastically change industry and infrastructure to combat what may or may not be a concern in the future.

[Jimmy Antley]

"... every mainstream scientist in the world agrees on this threat;" No way, Jennifer. What scientists agree upon (because it can be measured) is that atmospheric CO2 has gone up pretty linearly over the last half a century, and, secondly, that the average surface T of the earth has gone up about a degree during the 1900's (it's not a really well-fit line though, and does not particularly show that the change is consistent with industrialization).

There are lots of scientists who do realize the the climate models used by other scientists are crap. This is due to many coefficients and factors that are just not known well enough (more research needed). Even if the model could be run to retro-actively show that it fits with changes in the last 10 or 20 years, that just may mean the fudge factors were set just right in that computer model.

I would believe a climate model only if it were developed by engineers (preferably mechanical), as engineers have to make things work. Scientists can bullshit till someone else disproves parts of their research papers. Who cares? The grant money is still coming in. But an engineer has to be right, due to the fact that actual physical objects will break or fail otherwise.

One more thing. Even if I believed our CO2, methane and water vapor products of combustion were definitely the cause of a global warming trend, I would not see a need to take action. How in hell do we know that we are not just slowing down the onset of the next freakin ice age? The changes in Earth's climate are just not understood completely yet, Jennifer.

Oh, yeah, one scientist can be right when all the others are wrong. Gallileo comes to mind.

[Fred]

Since we seem to be making multiple points per post today, here are mine:

1. Jean: Subteranean Homesick Blues was the best stoner song of all time.

2. I'm not into liberal bashing. Ideologist bashing, whole different matter.

3. You guys better quit being ideologic about global warming or I'm going to bash you.

4. I've said it before; we won't know the outcome of global warming until we are in the thick of it. Prediction is just that way.

5. Jason: Good satire. You should use your god-given abilities to annoy, not entertain. Think of all the money you could be making, or at least think of the children.

[Geotech]

Thanks for the nod to the engineers, Jimmy.

[Fred]

Just some half-assed thoughts from a half-assed guy.

[Pavel]

I firmly agree that there is no very solid evidence of global warming as of right now. I also think that if and when there is such a problem, our collective response to it will be exactly the same as it is now.

[Fred]

Highway: Spot on! Extrapolation is one of the problems with prediction, similar to the problem with simplifying assumptions. They are both necessary in order to make significant progress, but they don't lead to an exact and true solution. They lead to a solution.

I really could go on about this, the nature of problem solving...but I won't.

[Rich]

Short answer: Complex systems make for complex predictions. Science is great at making predictions when the number of factors in a model are small and the values are known, when the number of factors is greater, well, we've gotten pretty good at that now too thanks to IT but if the values are unknown or not known to certainty than we lose some predictive capability. When there are a lot of uncertain factors then the predictive model is near useless and certainly shouldn't be used as a basis for public policy.

I liken the problem to that of economic modeling and forecasting. Long-term economic models are notably inaccurate simply because the factors are hard to nail down and based largely on numerous assumptions made by the modeler. Another way to think about it might be some hypothetical biologist who wishes to make predictions regarding the future of x species based on the principles of darwinian evolution. While we all accept Darwin's basic model I think we'd all take any predictive model with a large grain of salt (at least if applied to more complex organisms, a model involving something like yeast would be less circumspect).

[rst]

The sky is falling, the sky is falling!

[Jennifer]

Jimmy-

Galileo wasn't fighting other scientists; he was fighting the church, so that metaphor doesn't quite fit here.

When I say "catastrophe" in this context I don't expect the end of human life on earth. However, the ice caps are melting and water levels WILL rise; that's a given. Here in North America this will merely be an inconvenience, but people who live in island or coastal countries will be basically fucked, and rapid displacement of huge chunks of the population is certain to lead to problems.

And I don't understand the logic behind the idea "We don't know what will happen, so rather than prepare for the worst and hope for the best, let's just assume it will all be fine?"

[Tybalt]

It's pronounced STATE-ist. It originally referred to one who uses statistics to prove his/her point.

However, since most everyone who used statistics used them for the purpose of expanding government, the word came to connotate "one who wishes to expand the power of the state."

Today, statistics are in such wide use that the old connotation has taken over: a statist is one who wishes to use power of government to solve our problems.

[Jacob]

People, from immemorial time, always feared there will be climate change, and the'll not have the rain or sun needed for survival. They also felt very strongly they MUST do something about it. So they prayed very hard. Some even sacrificed animals. Some even sacrificed human beings to the gods.
Some traces of those old attitudes survive to our days. But at least those people knew you need to be omnipotent like god to change the climate.

[Don]

"Please limit your answers to things technologically feasible right now, rather than miracle stuff that you hope will be invented in time to save us."

I predict that millions in America will starve in the early 1980s.

[Jason Ligon]

"And I don't understand the logic behind the idea "We don't know what will happen, so rather than prepare for the worst and hope for the best, let's just assume it will all be fine?" "

Because preparing for the worst is ungodly expensive. This is the problem with the precautionary principle. You can never achieve 0 probability of harm in any endeavor, and trying to do so makes every endeavor too expensive. If we build nuke plants, other people will start asking why we aren't tearing them down to "prepare for the worst" as in Chernobyl. There is also significant question as to how much difference elminating CO2 would make. Would you prepare for the worst by spending a hundred trillion dollars for a .05 degree difference in 50 years? You say that you want to 'do something', but you may be effectively doing nothing. We need to have some idea what we are talking about before we start throwing around requirements and other taxes on productivity.

[Jimmy Antley]

Jennifer, it's not a given that the ice caps are melting. Yes, if they do, sea level will rise. That doesn't worry me a darn bit either. If you really believe it completely, buy some land at the new circa 2020 water line in Florida - it'll be cheap, as the land slopes up very gradually in Florida, so you could get land that's only 10' above current msl that's mile inland. Then you can sell to poor suckers like myself at serious beachfront prices.

Put your money where your mouth is, is what Jimmy says ;-}

[Jimmy Antley]

dangit. WAS: "mile inland.
S/B: "miles inland" Maybe 5, at least.

[Highway]

I know it's a little late for responding, but just wanted to address some things. First, I DID recommend that the trees growing be permanent carbon sinks by logging.

Second, I think the main disconnect in this entire subject is that there are some people who think that ANY change in the planet's climate is a bad thing, and there are other people who don't think that. There are so many variables in the entire global warming discussion that we have no idea about, and probably can't even conceive of. There are many scales the earth's climate mechanisms work on. Some we've discovered, some we haven't, and some have not even manifested themselves. Like the research showing cloud windows over Amazonia, iirc, that allow more heat to radiate from the earth's surface than was previously believed. Who knows what other things will show up. Maybe those researchers will find that there are rapid periods of warming right before an ice age (like some are looking for). In that case, maybe we'll WANT some greenhouse effect around. We just don't know.

The current tech / future tech issue is also somewhat contentious. The problem with future tech is that we don't know what is going to be achievable. The problem with current tech is that we know it's cost-benefit ratio. So far, the benefit from all the tech we could apply, plus some, say to enact Kyoto, would be zilch! Those vaunted (flawed) models even say so. So really, what would be the point of spending all the money on the current tech? It's not a case of being too 'cheap'. It's a case of investing badly. In the future, we'd STILL be able to cripple the world economy to reduce greenhouse gases if we needed to. That 2/10 of a degree reduction is just a really bad incentive to cripple it now.

And how do you know that a warmer planet wouldn't be the best thing that happened to humans, ever?

[Walter Wallis]

Another Pentagon report just released says that, if you click your heels three times you will be back in Kansas.
Whatever happens in the future, the effect on mankind will be far worse if there is not a healthy, wealthy viable USA to, once again, haul the rest of the world out of the hole. Every solution proposed to eliminate global warming and its predecessor global freezing is to cripple industry with confiscatory taxes and ruinous over-regulation.

[the praetorian]

Solution to Global Warming

Jennifer never again opening her mouth.

[Open heart]

True or not,
makes one think about what we are doing to earth and each other. Why don't we open our hearts and love each other instead? The truth is in our hearts.
Peace, Light, Love