Climate Science

[TimG]

That's a first: "Margaret Thatcher invented Global Warming" !

http://www.john-daly.com/history.htm

The hypothesis of man-made global warming has existed since the 1880s. It was an obscure scientific hypothesis that burning fossil fuels would increase CO2 in the air to enhance the greenhouse effect and thus cause global warming. Before the 1980s this hypothesis was usually regarded as a curiosity because the nineteenth century calculations indicated that mean global temperature should have risen more than 1°C by 1940, and it had not. Then, in 1979, Mrs Margaret Thatcher (now Lady Thatcher) became Prime Minister of the UK, and she elevated the hypothesis to the status of a major international policy issue.

...

Mrs Thatcher could not have promoted the global warming issue without the support of her UK political party. And they were willing to give it. Following the General Election of 1979, most of the incoming Cabinet had been members of the government which lost office in 1974. They blamed the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) for their 1974 defeat. They, therefore, desired an excuse for reducing the UK coal industry and, thus, the NUMs power. Coal-fired power stations emit CO2 but nuclear power stations dont. Global warming provided an excuse for reducing the UKs dependence on coal by replacing it with nuclear power.

And the Conservative Party wanted a large UK nuclear power industry for another reason. That industrys large nuclear processing facilities were required for the UKs nuclear weapons programme and the opposition Labour Party was then opposing the Conservative Partys plans to upgrade the UKs nuclear deterrent with Trident missiles and submarines. Unfortunately, the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl accidents had damaged public confidence in nuclear technology. Then, privatisation of the UKs electricity supply industry exposed the secret that UK nuclear electricity cost four times more than UK coal-fired electricity. Global warming became the only remaining excuse for the unpopular nuclear power facilities needed for nuclear weapons. Mrs Thatcher had to be seen to spend money at home if her international campaign was to be credible.

Edited September 27, 2010 by TimG

[TimG]

okay my mistake there, but it doesn't change anything, it's still conspiracy in your view...

So you really believe that politicians support action on AGW because they believe CO2 is problem? Give me a break. Politicians see AGW as a way to push their pet economic policies. The only thing that has changed in 30 years are politicians on the right realize that pushing AGW plays into their hands of the left wing politicians seeking to increase government control over the economy. Edited September 27, 2010 by TimG

[wyly]

http://www.john-daly.com/history.htm

an opinion piece written by a coal mining employee posted in a denier website...I guess that makes it all true....

[TimG]

an opinion piece written by a coal mining employee posted in a denier website...I guess that makes it all true....

An opinion piece that includes enough concrete facts to make it a credible intepretation of the evolution of the AGW movement. I assume you have no facts that can refute this interpretation because you resorted to ad hom attacks.

[dre]

Did you hear the news about how China stopped shipping 'rare earths' to Japan because of a border dispute? The "rare earths" are metals that are required to build the high tech gadgets for alternate energy sources. 90% of the supply is in China. I would rather depend on fossil fuels because the supply is more widely distributed.

Clearly you know nothing of the economics of electricity generation. Renewables will never be more than bit players (<10%) unless there is a major techinological advance. There is no reason to believe that will happen anytime soon.

Modern coal plants are extremely clean - the problem are the CO2 obsessives that call CO2 'dirty'.

In any case, there is one tried and true way to determine which technologies work and which do not: the free market. If a technology can compete without government subsidies then it "works". If it needs subsidies to be viable it definately does not "work".

Clearly you know nothing of the economics of electricity generation. Renewables will never be more than bit players (<10%) unless there is a major techinological advance. There is no reason to believe that will happen anytime soon.

Thats horseshit you only spout becuase youre one of the ideologs I mentioned above. Its objectively false.

In any case, there is one tried and true way to determine which technologies work and which do not: the free market. If a technology can compete without government subsidies then it "works". If it needs subsidies to be viable it definately does not "work".

Problem is there has never been anything even remotely like a free market for energy. Theres NEVER been a major unsubsidized player IN HISTORY. Not oil, not coal, not nuclear, not hydro not ANYTHING.

[bloodyminded]

from your failure to answer the simple questions verifies I'm correct, percentage of CO2 increase must increase IR absorption in atmosphere, more heat more results in more water vapor it can do nothing else FACT...

you're a chem expert who won't answer basic chem questions and now want to deflect to spelling? here's a couple more for you... colour, color, neighbour, neighbor...still doesn't help answer the questions does it...

And the American versions are completely acceptable in Canadian usage anyway.

[bloodyminded]

Thats horseshit you only spout becuase youre one of the ideologs I mentioned above. Its objectively false.

Problem is there has never been anything even remotely like a free market for energy. Theres NEVER been a major unsubsidized player IN HISTORY. Not oil, not coal, not nuclear, not hydro not ANYTHING.

Right. So....no energy source has ever actually worked. This is honestly the first time I've eevr heard this hypothesis.

But when the "free market" is a religion, to which we must bow down, I suppose any conclusions are possible.

[TimG]

Thats horseshit you only spout becuase youre one of the ideologs I mentioned above. Its objectively false.

Based on what evidence? Can you show me on example of a self contained electrical grid with more than 10% renewables? (note: denmark does not count because it is not self contained and depends only the ability to import/export power). You won't find one and there will likely never be one in the next 50 years.

Problem is there has never been anything even remotely like a free market for energy. Theres NEVER been a major unsubsidized player IN HISTORY. Not oil, not coal, not nuclear, not hydro not ANYTHING.

It really depends on your definition of a subsidy. I use a simple definition: the amount of tax payer money used per KWh of energy produced. While it is true that all forms of energy have received subsidies of one form or another the total subsidy per kWh for fossil fuels is tiny. Even with nuclear the subsidy is fairly small. With renewables the subsidies are huge and mean the technology can never be deployed at the scale we need. Edited September 27, 2010 by TimG

[bloodyminded]

Based on what evidence? Can you show me on example of a self contained electrical grid with more than 10% renewables? (note: denmark does not count because it is not self contained and depends only the ability to import/export power). You won't find one and there will likely never be one in the next 50 years.

It really depends on your definition of a subsidy. I use a simple definition: the amount of tax payer money used per KWh of energy produced. While it is true that all forms of energy have received subsidies of one form or another the total subsidy per kWh for fossil fuels is tiny. Even with nuclear the subsidy is fairly small. With renewables the subsidies are huge and mean the technology can never be deployed at the scale we need.

The subsidies can be large to begin with, on the level of infrastructure for example, and then diminish over time. Thats' what happened with the ff industry, who not only were gifted with massive, tax-funded infrastructures (up to and including a universe-sized change in the road system), but also gained terrific political clout as well, which is a type of capital in itself. That's private industry having a disproportionate amount of influence over even foreign policy, by now a well-understood truism. They also have had direct influence over the decline of public transportation, since pt is less profitable.

You think subsidy can only be measured by total subsidy per kWh, as if there is no larger (and profitable) context.

[TimG]

The subsidies can be large to begin with, on the level of infrastructure for example, and then diminish over time.

This only makes sense if the infrastructure spending can plausibly lead to a reduction in production cost. In the case of renewables there is no plausible case to be made because of the physical limits of diffuse energy sources.

up to and including a universe-sized change in the road system)

It is absurd to call the 'road-system' as subsidy for fossil fuels. Roads existed long before fossil fuels and will exist even when they are replaced.

You think subsidy can only be measured by total subsidy per kWh, as if there is no larger (and profitable) context.

You are probably familiar with the basic rule of business: if the input costs exceed the revenue generated then the business cannot survive in the long run. The same rule applies to energy production. If the cost of producing the energy exceeds the economic value that can produced with that energy then the energy source is not sustainable. Externalities cannot change this fundemental equation. That is why per KWh subsidies are the only relevent metric. Edited September 27, 2010 by TimG

[bloodyminded]

This only makes sense if the infrastructure spending can plausibly lead to a reduction in production cost. In the case of renewables there is no plausible case to be made because of the physical limits of diffuse energy sources.

You aren't insisting there are no physical limits to non-renewables...are you????

It is absurd to call the 'road-system' as subsidy for fossil fuels. Roads existed long before fossil fuels and will exist even when they are replaced.

???

I specifically (and clearly...and unambiguously) was referring to changes in the road system.

You are probably familiar with the basic rule of business: if the input costs exceed the revenue generated then the business cannot survive in the long run. The same rule applies to energy production. If the cost of producing the energy exceeds the economic value that can produced with that energy then the energy source is not sustainable. Externalities cannot change this fundemental equation. That is why per KWh subsidies are the only relevent metric.

No....any subsidy, whether deemed "offically" a "subsidy" or not, is a relevant metric. Any money received, including money saved, or infrastructure designed to encourage consumption, or political policy geared towards future profit-making, is part of the formnulation.

The people who most benefit from the "free market" (and the ones most vociferously defended and supported by intellectual "free marketeers") tend to be the ones most supported by taxpayers and government intervention. Without the tax base, Big Business would scarcely be able to exist. This incontestably includes the fossil fuel industries.

[TimG]

You aren't insisting there are no physical limits to non-renewables...are you????

No I am saying that no amount of government subsidy is going to significanly reduce the cost of producing energy with renewables. What we will likely see is a point where the no-subsidy price of renewables is less than the no-subsidy price of fossil fuels but that will also only occur on a schedule dictated by the market - not by governments.

I specifically (and clearly...and unambiguously) was referring to changes in the road system.

There will always been a need for a road system but the shape of the system changes depending on the available technology. The road system is not a subsidy but an adaptation.

No....any subsidy, whether deemed "offically" a "subsidy" or not, is a relevant metric. Any money received, including money saved, or infrastructure designed to encourage consumption, or political policy geared towards future profit-making, is part of the formnulation.

Well, if you wantto throw in a bunch on unmeasureable intangibles you can justify anything you want and that is what most academics do. In the real world there is only one thing that matters and it is amount of wealth that can be created with an energy source. If you take money in taxes to pay for an economically unviable energy source you reduce economic activity buy more than can possibly be recovered.

The people who most benefit from the "free market"

Everyone benefits from the free market and everyone tries to rig the market to suit their personal interests. No one is innocent on that front. However, that is not an excuse to ignore the basic rules of economics.

[dre]

Based on what evidence? Can you show me on example of a self contained electrical grid with more than 10% renewables? (note: denmark does not count because it is not self contained and depends only the ability to import/export power). You won't find one and there will likely never be one in the next 50 years.

It really depends on your definition of a subsidy. I use a simple definition: the amount of tax payer money used per KWh of energy produced. While it is true that all forms of energy have received subsidies of one form or another the total subsidy per kWh for fossil fuels is tiny. Even with nuclear the subsidy is fairly small. With renewables the subsidies are huge and mean the technology can never be deployed at the scale we need.

Based on what evidence? Can you show me on example of a self contained electrical grid with more than 10% renewables? (note: denmark does not count because it is not self contained and depends only the ability to import/export power). You won't find one and there will likely never be one in the next 50 years.

You could have said the exact same thing about gas and oil, during the steam age. And in fact doubters made all the same claims about oil, gas, nuclear etc, before those technologies were fully developed as youre making now. The word for those people is luddites. It really just shows a poor understanding of how technology is developed.

It really depends on your definition of a subsidy. I use a simple definition: the amount of tax payer money used per KWh of energy produced. While it is true that all forms of energy have received subsidies of one form or another the total subsidy per kWh for fossil fuels is tiny. Even with nuclear the subsidy is fairly small. With renewables the subsidies are huge and mean the technology can never be deployed at the scale we need.

Gas, oil, nuclear... All of those technologies have recieved utterly massive ammounts of public capital investment over the last 50-100 years, not to mention indirect subsidies like government action, diplomacy to secure foreign supplies and contracts, etc. There isnt a single nuclear program in the world that does not recieve massive subsidies on an ongoing basis, never mind the huge role governments played in developing the technology in the first place. Now the nuclear industry wants the public to pay for the massive cost of storing spent fuel for hundreds of years.

Based on what evidence? Can you show me on example of a self contained electrical grid with more than 10% renewables?

Sure. The grid here in BC is more than 80% renewable. Powered almost completely by hydro-electricity.

[RNG]

from your failure to answer the simple questions verifies I'm correct, percentage of CO2 increase must increase IR absorption in atmosphere, more heat more results in more water vapor it can do nothing else FACT...

you're a chem expert who won't answer basic chem questions and now want to deflect to spelling? here's a couple more for you... colour, color, neighbour, neighbor...still doesn't help answer the questions does it...

Yes, increased CO2 levels means increased heat absorption. But we are talking a poor absorber increasing from 200 parts per MILLION to 350 parts per MILLION. At best a small fraction. And where do you get your timeline. CO2 is absorbed by every plant and is disolved into the oceans.

Water is in the atmosphere at the WHOLE PERCENTAGE level and is a way more efficient absorber. So a small increase in the steady state water content of the atmosphere would have a way, way bigger effect.

[dre]

No I am saying that no amount of government subsidy is going to significanly reduce the cost of producing energy with renewables. What we will likely see is a point where the no-subsidy price of renewables is less than the no-subsidy price of fossil fuels but that will also only occur on a schedule dictated by the market - not by governments.

There will always been a need for a road system but the shape of the system changes depending on the available technology. The road system is not a subsidy but an adaptation.

Well, if you wantto throw in a bunch on unmeasureable intangibles you can justify anything you want and that is what most academics do. In the real world there is only one thing that matters and it is amount of wealth that can be created with an energy source. If you take money in taxes to pay for an economically unviable energy source you reduce economic activity buy more than can possibly be recovered.

Everyone benefits from the free market and everyone tries to rig the market to suit their personal interests. No one is innocent on that front. However, that is not an excuse to ignore the basic rules of economics.

No I am saying that no amount of government subsidy is going to significanly reduce the cost of producing energy with renewables.

Objectively false again... both wind energy and solar energy are rapidly coming down in price. An installed watt of wind energy costs about 1/10th of what it did 15 years ago, and an installed watt of solar has come down about the same. In both cases one of the major factors has been public investment.

subsidy price of fossil fuels but that will also only occur on a schedule dictated by the market

The market only works that way when the full price of a product or service is passed onto the consumer. With energy the consumer has no idea of the real costs because the government is constantly intervening in the energy sector, and constantly doling out mountains of free cash to energy companies. Not to mention the public gets stuck with the bill for cleaning up the mess.

If you wanted traditional market forces to apply to the energy sector you would have to force energy companies to completely internalize all related costs and pass them onto the consumer. That means no more public money, and no more government action in the form of war or diplomacy to secure supplies, and it means that energy companies have to clean up their own environmental messes.

The fact is you dont even know how much a gallon of gas really costs... consumers dont even have a clue. They just know what portion they pay at the pump, which is not even CLOSE to the full cost.

[TimG]

You could have said the exact same thing about gas and oil, during the steam age.

So what? It succeeded in the end because the free market found ways to make it work. It did not succeed because some government official decided to subsidize it.

You It really just shows a poor understanding of how technology is developed.

Technology development is my business. I am sure I know a lot more about this process than you and I understand the technological and economic barriers which make moving away from fossil fuels a virtual impossibility at this time.

All of those technologies have recieved utterly massive ammounts of public capital investment over the last 50-100 years

per kWH subsidies which are tiny compared to what is being demanded for renewables.

Sure. The grid here in BC is more than 80% renewable. Powered almost completely by hydro-electricity.

Environmentalists (the uber luddites) do not count large scale hydro as renewable. I had assumed that you understood that from the context. Since you did not I will restate my question: give me one example of a self contained grid with more than 10% "greenpeace-approved" renewables (wind, solar, tide). Edited September 27, 2010 by TimG

[bloodyminded]

There will always been a need for a road system but the shape of the system changes depending on the available technology. The road system is not a subsidy but an adaptation.

It's both.

Well, if you wantto throw in a bunch on unmeasureable intangibles you can justify anything you want and that is what most academics do.

Except for right-wing economists. They stand bravely alone.

Everyone benefits from the free market and everyone tries to rig the market to suit their personal interests. No one is innocent on that front. However, that is not an excuse to ignore the basic rules of economics.

But if every single person and entity, without exception, does so--as you claim--then the point is rather moot.

[dre]

Technology development is my business. I am sure I know a lot more about this process than you and I understand the technological and economic barriers which make moving away from fossil fuels a virtual impossibility at this time.

Its my business as well. Im a technologist/consultant that has worked for most of the worlds largest oil companies. And that very statement is a contradiction. Nobody is saying we can move away from fossil fuels TODAY. There was technological and economic barriers to switching from a steam economy to an oil and gas economy as well but theres barriers were overcome with massive investment in R&D over time by both the private and public sector. But we can START moving away from it today, and we already have.

It will probably take a hundred years to build a global renewable energy system. Its the biggest and most expensive project in human history. But our future prosperity absolutely depends apon it. We have already reached a point where volatility is an impediment to economic growth, and if we arent ready to replace oil when it becomes cost prohibitive then youll see economic armageddon. And keep in mind we will reach that point a LONG time before we run out of oil. Oil will basically become cost prohibitive once supply outstrips exploration yields on an annual basis and thats not really too far off.

per kWH subsidies which are tiny compared to what is being demanded for renewables.

You dont even know what the per KWH subisides ARE because energy companies are the beneficiaries of so much public action, and public money in so many different ways, and through so many different channels. Youre making wild guesses, nothing more. Youre ignoring all the indirect costs. How much do you think being bogged down in the middle east for a century has cost? What are the incidental costs involved in being dependant on the middle east for oil, and the risk that cartells will try to fuck with the supply, or manipulate production to increase prices?

Environmentalists (the uber luddites) do not count large scale hydro as renewable. I had assumed that you understood that from the context. Since you did not I will restate my question: give me one example of a self contained grid with more than 10% "greenpeace-approved" renewables (wind, solar, tide).

Hydro-electric energy is a renewable source of energy in every sense of the word. So is biomass energy which accounts for a heft percentage of global energy supply now, and historically.

Edited September 27, 2010 by dre

[TimG]

But if every single person and entity, without exception, does so--as you claim--then the point is rather moot.

Not at all. In fact, going back to first principals is the only way to seperate the real economic benefits from the various claims made by rent seekers and carpet baggers.

[TimG]

There was technological and economic barriers to switching from a steam economy to an oil and gas economy as well but theres barriers were overcome with massive investment in R&D over time by both the private and public sector. But we can START moving away from it today, and we already have.

I don't disagree with what is written here. What I disagree with are production subsidies for any type of energy. i.e. funding one time costs like R&D is fine because it could lead to break throughs. Subsidizing solar panel installation or feed in tariffs for wind are unacceptable because they do not scale.

It will probably take a hundred years to build a global renewable energy system. Its the biggest and most expensive project in human history. But our future prosperity absolutely depends apon it.

Which is why an economically sensible approach is required. Forget about CO2. Focus on oil. Build super critical coal plants and nukes. Invest in thorium tech. Make sure we have reliable source of electricity. If costs are to be imposed on utilities they should be upgrading their grid - not on adding useless wind or solar capacity.

Hydro-electric energy is a renewable source of energy in every sense of the word. So is biomass energy which accounts for a heft percentage of global energy supply now, and historically.

Hydro and geo-thermal are geographically limited. In places where it is an option it is already used and therefore cannot do anything to reduce our need to fossil fuels. In most places they are not an option. Edited September 27, 2010 by TimG

[bloodyminded]

Not at all. In fact, going back to first principals is the only way to seperate the real economic benefits from the various claims made by rent seekers and carpet baggers.

You mean--again, according to your own claim--by every capitalist, without exception.

And how does your consulting work with the oil companies play into this, I wonder? They too, of course, are "rent seekers and carpet baggers." Was your job to enlighten them, and to encourage them to avoid public-funded profits in the name of the larger principles? Why do I doubt this?

Edited September 27, 2010 by bloodyminded

[dre]

You mean--again, according to your own claim--by every capitalist, without exception.

And how does your consulting work with the oil companies play into this, I wonder? They too, of course, are "rent seekers and carpet baggers." Was your job to enlighten them, and to encourage them to avoid public-funded profits in the name of the larger principles? Why do I doubt this?

And how does your consulting work with the oil companies play into this, I wonder?

It was me that posted that actually BM.

[bloodyminded]

It was me that posted that actually BM.

Gee whiz!

But if you think I'm fuzzy-headed now, you should have met me 20 years ago.

[Apologies for the mistake, TimG]

Edited September 27, 2010 by bloodyminded

[RNG]

The following is something I calculated about two years ago. Data used was as up to date as possible at that time. Scary stuff.

Like most people, I have been watching oil prices very closely, trying to figure out what is going on, and perhaps more importantly what is going to happen. And I have been thinking more and more about fuel cells and the push for a “hydrogen economy”. I have spouted off a few times about there not being an economically viable source of hydrogen several times. But ongoing talk about fuel cell powered cars, an aggressive advertising campaign by GM, and just my general interest caused me to do the following.

***Most of the numbers input here are from Wikipedia.***

There are 243 million passenger vehicles in the US. (2004). For ease of calculation, and probably viable given the growth in the past four years, lets say 250 million.

250 X 10E6, each driven 12000 miles and getting 25 mpg all divided by 365 = 329 million gallons a day of gas consumed. Interestingly enough, after all that thinking and math, I Googled “gas consumption” and got several hits in the 320 to 330 million gallon per day result. But I figured I’d show off a bit and include this analysis.

Now a more thorny problem. What is the efficiency of a current car. I couldn’t find good data for this. One article talked about a modern internal combustion engine being 40% efficient, but I think it was referring to flywheel output on a test bed where there was no other drain on the output, not even an alternator or water pump. The best I could get was an estimate for passenger diesel engines of 22% for “source to wheel” efficiency. Let’s use that.

Now, for the efficiency of hydrogen fuel cells. When I started looking at that I was very surprised. They generate a lot more heat than I had thought. Their equivalent to a flywheel efficiency is thought to be 60%. But on top of that, apparently they need pumps and blowers to work so the actual output efficiency drops to about 45%. Then Wiki says the electrical controllers, motor and power train all consume some power. Wiki goes one step farther and factors in the energy requirement to compress the hydrogen gas fuel and arrives at an overall source to wheel efficiency of 22%. How is that for coincidence. Sure saved me a bunch of calculations. The net result. You would need exactly the same energy equivalent of hydrogen as of gasoline to move the same mass the same distance.

Gas energy content varies slightly from batch to batch, source to source but is fairly close to 34.8 Megajoules per liter.

So you would need 34.8 X 3.79 l/gal X 330 X 10E6 = 4.35 x 10E10 Megajoules per day of hydrogen to replace the gas.

Wiki also tells me that electrolysis of water is about 60% efficient. So you would need 7.25 x 10E10 Megajoules of electricity a day to make that much hydrogen.

Wiki also tells me that the largest nuclear power plant in the US has an ouput of 1.25 gigawatts. My physics text tells me that 1 watt-hour is 3.6 kilojoules, or 1.25 gigawatts for 24 hours is 1.25 X 10E9 X 24 X 3.6 X 10E3 = 1.08 X 10E14 joules or 1.08 X 10E8 Megajoules.

So, 4.35 X 10E10/1.08 X 10E8 = 403

You would need the total output of 403 nuclear power plants to replace gasoline with hydrogen for the US only.

If electric batteries get to the point where they would be practical you would still need 243 nuke plants to supply the electricity, just to replace gasoline. This doesn't include diesel or jet fuel.

Edited September 27, 2010 by RNG

[dre]

I don't disagree with what is written here. What I disagree with are production subsidies for any type of energy. i.e. funding one time costs like R&D is fine because it could lead to break throughs. Subsidizing solar panel installation or feed in tariffs for wind are unacceptable because they do not scale.

Which is why an economically sensible approach is required. Forget about CO2. Focus on oil. Build super critical coal plants and nukes. Invest in thorium tech. Make sure we have reliable source of electricity. If costs are to be imposed on utilities they should be upgrading their grid - not on adding useless wind or solar capacity.

Hydro and geo-thermal are geographically limited. In places where it is an option it is already used and therefore cannot do anything to reduce our need to fossil fuels. In most places they are not an option.

Forget about CO2.

Youre not seeing the forest through the trees on this one. Whether AGW and climate change are a real problem in the way they have been described or not, CO2 concerns are one of the most important things driving energy research. CO2 "alarmism" has put the nuclear industry back on the map for example, and low co2 emissions were one of the primary reasons given for the US announcing the government would finance the first new nuclear plants in north america in more than 30 years. It has resulted in billions of dollars being spent on energy research and r&d. Its also one of the prime drivers of technology to build clean coal plants, and technology to make old dirty plants cleaner.

Like I said... AGW is one of the three most powerfull factors driving energy research right now. The other major ones being economic prosperity (which is in jeapardy right now due to price volatility), and geo-political concerns.

Even CO2 concerns are totally bogus (and Im not sure it is), I wouldnt care, because the phenomenon is extremely usefull and important.

Its sorta like religious people treating each other good! Who cares if they do so based on a deranged fantasy about a magic man in the sky... its still nice if theyre good to each other.

Edited September 27, 2010 by dre