National Geographic: Six Degrees Could Change the World (2007)



Starring: Alec Baldwin Director: Ron Bowman Rating

Product Description
In a special broadcast event National Geographic explores the startling theory that Earths average temperature could rise six degrees Celsius by the year 2100. In this amazing and insightful documentary National Geographic illustrates one poignant degree at a time the consequences of rising temperatures on Earth. Also learn how existing technologies and remedies can help in the battle to dial back the global thermometer

Editorial Reviews
In the 2004 eco-thriller The Day After Tomorrow, director Roland Emmerich dramatized the potential consequences of accelerated global warming. By combining stock footage with computer-generated imagery, the National Geographic special Six Degrees Could Change the World serves as a sort of nonfiction counterpoint. As NASA climate scientist James Hansen cautions, even two degrees Celsius represents a tipping point (from which there is no return). Based on Mark Lynas's Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet and narrated by Alec Baldwin, the program roams from the bushfire-ravaged suburbs of Southern Australia to the drought-stricken farmlands of Nebraska to the rapidly melting glaciers of Greenland. In the process, aerospace engineers, marine biologists, and ordinary citizens share their experiences and predictions. In the end, it's the actual events--rather than the speculative scenarios--that prove most alarming, like the 30,000 deaths that resulted from 2003's European heat wave. While a skeptic might dismiss that tragedy as a statistical anomaly, every continent bears the scars of climate change, like the deforestation of the Amazon and the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina. In order to inject some levity, Six Degrees detours to look at a British grape grower who has actually benefited from his country's drier environment and the carbon footprint involved in the creation of that all-American favorite, the cheeseburger (suffice to say, it's considerable). While some of the special effects are hokey--Hansen sitting at a floating desk, for example--the preponderance of compelling data helps to compensate for such lapses. --Kathleen C. Fennessy








Other Reviews:




Spectacular. Professional. Visually Powerful. Life Changing., April 12, 2008


Robert D. Steele (Oakton, VA United States) - See all my reviews

This is a spectacular piece of professional work and so compelling as to be inspirational.

I watched this with my wife with no lights, and decided to take no notes. Here are the highlights from my memory.

1) Brilliant, utterly brilliant, history, photography, personalities (such as the Indian guru that has photographed the source of the Ganges for 50 years) and sequencing. I don't want to overdo it, but this may well be the single most important DVD of the century, and so worthy of both buying, showing to groups, and giving as a gift to others.

2) We are well on our way to 2-3 degrees rise, and if we do not begin to act sensibly now, toward six degrees. I absolutely loved the way this film developed, showing the changes one degree at a time. My wife had to point out the computer simulations, the producers and editors of this film are world class--they should share the Nobel with Herman Daly, Lester Brown, Paul Hawkin, and Anthony Lovin, Gore's Nobel was an ill-advised politicized award, he is in the fourth grade compared to this film and the serious people it focused upon.

3) Oceans as the critical carbon absorbing element, and coral as the "canary in the coal mine" really grabbed me The overall screenplay, photography, voice overs, everything about this is spectacularly professional and rivieting.

4) Amazon as the next most critical element, with riveting views of the Amazon river drying up in 2005, and the potential scenarios of drought, fires, more drought.

5) Increasing destructiveness of weather. Katrina as the first of what could become every month storms, instead of 100 year storms. In passing, the film shows the world-class levies built by the Europeans, and they do not show the downright retarded cement levees of the US Army Corps of Engineers, levees that are the laughing stock of the rest of the (sophisticated) world.

A highlight of the film was its focus on the one man that has figured out the total carbon footprint of the cheeseburger, to include the methane farts of the cows. I am not making this up. This film is AMAZING, it is spectacular, it is professional, it is precisely the kind of well-crafted material that We the People need to begin self-governing rather than entrusting war criminals and and cronies (both parties) who sell us out.

Here are ten links that augment the deep insight and value that this DVD provides to anyone able to see it.

High Noon 20 Global Problems, 20 Years to Solve Them
The Future of Life
Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization, Third Edition
The leadership of civilization building: Administrative and civilization theory, symbolic dialogue, and citizen skills for the 21st century
How to Change the World: Social Entrepreneurs and the Power of New Ideas, Updated Edition
Green to Gold: How Smart Companies Use Environmental Strategy to Innovate, Create Value, and Build Competitive Advantage
Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution
The Philosophy of Sustainable Design
Running On Empty: How The Democratic and Republican Parties Are Bankrupting Our Future and What Americans Can Do About It
Collective Intelligence: Creating a Prosperous World at Peace

Apart from these, allowed by Amazon, I recommend the many books on climate, catastrophe, etcetera. See my many lists.


Critical Eye:

informative but questionable, February 14, 2008


kris killarney - See all my reviews

This review is from: National Geographic: Six Degrees Could Change the World [Blu-ray] (Blu-ray)

I think a break down of the ratings speak for themselve a bit.

One person put a 1 because they found it offensive(perhaps they don't like the idea of spending money to find an alternative to dumping their company's waste in the river.)

The other person put a 5 (perhaps they bought everything this propa-documentary said and hate selfish people that are too profit motivated or believe everything the powers that be try to sell them.)

Well I thought it was informative. But I also noticed some things that attempted to manipulated the viewers thoughts and opinions, like showing the nuclear plant's exhaust while talking about carbon dioxide and fossil fuels. That exhaust is water vapor from cooling towers, not smoke plumes.
Same with the catasrophic weather and katrina. Yes it was a catasrophic storm, but a lot of the suffering in N.O. was partly to blame on gross negligence of the powers that be.

I did notice it had high production values. Which is also what annoyed me with the manipulative information. If you are going to invest that much time and money into a film why do you have to shape the truth? Can't we ever get documentaries that are only moderately biased so that we can decide for ourselves? These films just fall on deaf ears to some and make others look like tin foil hat wearers. Integrity was compromised.

I still learned a lot however.




National security issue., April 15, 2008


Preston C. Enright (Denver, CO United States) - See all my reviews 

It's a shame how militarists have so narrowly defined "national security" as an issue to focus us on war-making. But as ample evidence shows, we have security issues that involve building a sustainable economy, renewable energy, sensible transit, green architecture, new urbanism and much else.
I saw "Six Degrees" on the National Geographic Channel, and the author of the book was recently interviewed on C-SPAN's BookTV. As impactful as these media efforts have been, social change is being stalled by reckless voices on radio stations around the country (Limbaugh alone is on over 700 stations) who are misinforming millions of politically engaged people. These same people insist that we spare no expense when it comes to threats from foreign policy blowback, but they refuse to acknowledge the potential catastrophe of double-glazing the planet in carbon dioxide.
"Security" does not have to mean more profits for weapons contractors
Why We Fight. Security can come to mean more profits for businesses that work on wind, solar, and tidal power; as well as efficiency and conservation innovations Sustainable Industries.
Many of our energy "needs" have actually been manufactured and marketed by industries that want to maximize the use of their commodity. Overcoming the "perception management" campaigns of those entrenched business interests is a daunting task, but so much progress has already been made that corporatists are increasingly desperate in their media efforts. The general public may not have PR firms funded by Exxon to advocate for their interests
Everything's Cool, but we do have countless people who can write letters to editors, blog, call into talk radio (progressive and right-wing shows), post on message boards, share DVDs Refugees of the Blue Planet, subscribe to magazines Plenty Magazine, teach Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder, preach A Greener Faith: Religious Environmentalism and Our Planet's Future and invest green Green Investing: A Guide to Making Money through Environment Friendly Stocks.
True security doesn't mean designing evermore destructive weapons of war; but, rather, designing evermore constructive methods of sustainability
e2: Design Season 2.
"Humanity has entered into a condition that is in some sense more globally united and interconnected, more sensitized to the experiences and suffering of others, in certain respects more spiritually awakened, more conscious of alternative future possibilities and ideals, more capable of collective healing and compassion, and, aided by technological advances in communication media, more able to think, feel, and respond together in a spiritually evolved manner to the world's swiftly changing realities than has ever before been possible."
-Richard Tarnas, quoted in
Blessed Unrest: How the Largest Social Movement in History Is Restoring Grace, Justice, and Beau





6 Degrees Works in Both Ways, June 9, 2009


Michael Garzacarrot (Houston, TX) - See all my reviews

This review is from: National Geographic: Six Degrees Could Change the World [Blu-ray] (Blu-ray)

Six degrees works in both way. In the late 60's and early 70's environmentalist were preaching that CO2 would cause the earth to go into another ice age. Funny how they can reverse this theory when we go through a few years of hotter than normal temperatures. Guess what? We're going through cooler temperature again for the next several years and their regrouping again even trying to explain why the perma frost will not melt as quick as they had predicted. What's next?


Very depressing..., November 6, 2008


Michael Valdivielsocarrot (Alexandria, VA) - See all my reviews

Don't just change your light bulbs. Don't just recycle. You have to stop using oil, you have to stop eating hamburgers, you have to stop cutting down trees. Not tomorrow, not next year, right now. The idea is not just to save money, which we would, and also save nature, which we would, but we have to save ourselves. We have to change the way we live. We have to get away from plastics, coal burning, roads, cities, and beef. To just name a few things. In other words, we're pretty much doomed. But Alec Baldwin has a great voice, the packaging is a green-product and the extras really help you save money. Too bad the packaging sucks when it comes to HOLDING the DVD in place but you can't have everything.


Belongs in the science fiction section, not the documentary section,
September 10, 2011 By

Roger McEvilly (the guilty bystander) (Sydney, NSW Australia) - See all my reviews

This review is from: National Geographic: Six Degrees Could Change the World (DVD)

Since this documentary is so way-over the top, a few critical words about it.

If shows climate effects that are expected, by some scientists (though not all), to occur as a result of C02 produced from human activities over the next century, with a section devoted to each 1 degree celsius of warming projected, except that the last degree is left out-6 degrees of warming-which according to the documentary "scientists don't know what will happen... and don't want to find out". (Well the world has been 6 degrees warmer before and it didn't end, but anyway).

To begin with, as a professional geologist who is aware of past geological changes, I don't necessarily think they have got most of the worst case scenarios here wrong, it's just that I do tend to suspect they have got the rates wrong, and that the effects depicted in this film will take a lot longer to occur than is depicted (think in terms of hundreds or even thousands of years, not in decades) based on past rates of geological change and the buffering capacity of most earth processes. Such views should be more investigated in the scientific literature and in films such as this, (the father of modern geology- James Hutton- after all was also a strong believer in gradualism, who probably would have thought much the same thing).

The film claims to use past earth history to project what might happen, but fails to mention that these past earth changes took thousands and even millions of years to occur in the vast majority of cases (eg past volcanic C02 producing greenhouse over millions of years, not decades). But why should the earth produce the same large-scale changes, but just all speeded up, just because WE are here, like in some 'Day After Tomorrow' disaster movie?

The assumption pervading this film is that:
`oh yes large-scale climate changes in the past took thousands to millions of years, but we are doing these things- like adding c02 to the atmosphere-much faster than nature ever has'" (actually questionable),

but this statement doesn't mean that the earth will necessarily REACT faster to increased inputs. There is a concept in chemistry called 'buffering', which basically means just because you increase the rate of something, doesnt mean the rate of change budges much at all. So just how much are the earth various climate system's buffered to change? The geological record suggests they are nearly always very slow to change, even regardless of input rate. This implies that they are strongly buffered to fast changes.

To take an example where the film has got this 'rate' effect completely wrong, they use the UN IPCC's Himalayan glacier (propaganda) statement that they "could all melt by 2035", which turned out to be a date put in the IPCC report by politically-biased IPCC scientists, and nothing to do whatsoever with any scientific data or review. The UN's IPCC has since admitted and retracted the statement, which even under the worst case scenarios won't occur for hundreds or even thousands of years.

Are the rest of the scenarios shown in this film (and in the IPCC report) also not likely to occur for hundreds or even thousands of years? How does one know, for example, that the IPCC hasn't done much the same exageration and other rate errors in the rest of the IPCC report, but which are just more difficult to prove as false or exaggerated?

The geological record suggests it generally takes very long time periods for the earth to move in such directions as in this film (sea levels, ice melting, etc), and often regardless of increased rate of inputs. Such scientific evidence from the past is routinely ignored by some, I suspect for the same reason the IPCC scientists ignored criticism that the Himalayan glacier melting rate was wrong before the report was published (and ignored later also by the Chair of the IPCC) even when it was pointed out to them, for political reasons. "We wanted to highlight its importance to the we kept the statement in..." (IPCC scientists), ie they kept the statement in there for political reasons, not scientific ones (they would have made good directors of disaster movies). They wanted to do what they believed was the right thing, so they ignore valid critical review. The Chairman of the UN's IPCC described the Himalayan glacier criticism as "voodoo science", without bothering to investigate, but which just happened later to turn out to be entirely valid criticism and dead wrong. Is there an attitude problem with such scientists upon which these sort of statements and films are based?. The answer would have to be yes, by their OWN words.

To take the glacier example again, there is no physical way to melt that much ice that quickly under ANY climate circumstances, even if the rate of warming vastly increases. This is now admitted by the IPCC. The same is true of Greenland ice, it is physically impossible to melt that much ice in less than hundreds or even thousands of years in even the worst case scenarios.

Other questionable things in the film: New York subway 25 feet underwater more or less permanently, deserts widespread in the western US, numerous world cities drowned by rising sea level, millions of climate refugees from places like India which has run out of government-propaganda water, etc etc. (By the way, one of the UN's environment programs also predicted that by this last year- 2010-2011- there would be hundreds of thousands of 'climate refugees', so far: ZERO, the statement has been withdrawn quietly from the UNs environment program website).

If some scientists consistently get statements and scenarios like the above 2 wrong, do you think they will get the past geological record right, which suggests at least, that the earth is strongly buffered to fast climate changes, which is perhaps why past large scale changes generally take thousands to millions of years to occur (rather than that the natural input rates were slower)?

One always hears about 'runaway greenhouse' this or 'runaway greenhouse' that, why doesn't one ever hear about the concept of `buffering'. The oceans are a good example, they are strongly buffered to chemical changes (not mentioned anywhere in this film). Just like the Indian scientists in the IPCC, highlighting the buffering capacties of the earth doesn't suit politically, just like the film `The Day After Tomorrow' slowed down 10,000 years would make a hell of a boring disaster film. Half the IPCC scientists would have to go back to their day jobs, such as the current chairman, -a railway engineer-who would have to go back to work on the railways (or his very thorough, painstaking investigations of `voodoo science').

Which would you prefer for your rental DVD? watching sea level rise 1.7mm/ year for thousands of years (the ACTUAL current rate, as well as the rate in many geological past changes, despite relative changes in inputs), or watching the Day After Tomorrow's storm surge swamping the New York subway?. That will be $5.95, and don't forget to return your DVD by tomorrow after you have watched the sea level rise 1/365th of 1.7mm/year for a couple of very boring hours.

I do think some scientists are mixing up science fiction with science, and can't tell the difference. This 'documentary' is a good example.


Excellent introduction to climate change, May 23, 2011


Learner (US) - See all my reviews

This review is from: National Geographic: Six Degrees Could Change the World (DVD)

I've seen several videos and read several books on climate change, and this is the clearest explanation I've seen so far.

From what I've learned from other scientifically-based sources, this video is accurate and not mere fear-mongering. It's true that nobody knows if these in fact are worst-case scenarios. But there is indication now that warming may be happening faster than predicted - the arctic, for example, is apparently melting faster than expected.

Usage of oil and coal - energy in general - is accelerating, not decreasing. The third world is only getting started on industrialization. The US shows little will to decrease it's carbon output. Overall, it appears to me that continued warming is now inevitable. The only question is how fast we want it to get really bad. This is my conclusion after studying the matter.

If you are in doubt about whether human-caused warming is occurring, I encourage you to look at all sides before you make a decision. From what I've found, on the "yes" side you have scientists for whom this is their expertise - geophysicists and such. On the "no" side you have mostly oil companies and people who are not specialists in climate science. A recent study shows that 97 percent of climate scientist say it is real. In the scientific community, the debate is over. The only place you see debate is in venues that have an agenda - and where you will often find the vested interests throwing up as big a smoke screen as possible, to try to obscure the scientific evidence.

If you want to read a good book, as a follow-up to this video, the best I have found is
The Climate Crisis: An Introductory Guide to Climate Change


Just Buy It and Watch It., January 6, 2011


Masha (Miami, Florida) - See all my reviews

Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)

This review is from: National Geographic: Six Degrees Could Change the World (DVD)

This movie is about 3 years old now, but practically everything shown for 2 degrees is happening now. You can watch the film, then read the news. Just buy it and watch it.



Was required to buy this; glad I did., August 18, 2010


Sandra M. Mcmullen - See all my reviews

Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)

This review is from: National Geographic: Six Degrees Could Change the World (DVD)

I had to purchase this for a class. I'm glad I did. I found it interesting..and a little scary. Really made me think. I've shown it to a few other people who weren't in school with me and they really learned something from it.


Absorbing documentary; read the book, too, February 18, 2010


Jazz fan from New England (Boston, MA, USA) - See all my reviews

Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)

This review is from: National Geographic: Six Degrees Could Change the World [Blu-ray] (Blu-ray)

Excellent, well-paced documentary; kept me watching all the way through. Of course it's advocacy. What do you expect? Most worthwhile discussions of political topics are advocacy. It's up to you to decide what to think about such discussions, based on the evidence and your own policy preferences. The same people who complain that films like this are one-sided are perfectly happy to get their `news' from Fox News. For them, one-sidedness is OK so long as it's their side.

And of course the film is simplistic. 90 minutes isn't enough for a PhD dissertation or academic paper. The film dramatizes the conclusions of a variety of climate scientists. The book it's based on (Six Degrees by Mark Lynas, who shows up quite a lot in the film) notes over and over that many of these conclusions, particularly the more extreme ones, are highly speculative; no one knows exactly what will happen in extreme conditions. (The film says this too, now and then). Of course. These are possibilities, only. Some scientists think they are serious dangers. It's worth listening to them.

The scariest things in the film for me, though, weren't the dramatic scenes of wildfires and super-storms and massive destruction of the Amazon. One of the scariest was a nice segment showing vinyards in England growing champagne grapes. English champagne! You have to have lived in England forty years ago to know just how wrong that sounds. No one had been able to make wine in England for centuries. Now it's a paying proposition.

The biggest problem in environmentalist films is the pathetic nature of the solutions offered. We are exhorted to drive smaller cars, turn off appliances, etc. How hollow and silly this kind of thing is is shown in the film itself. One scientist has spent years researching the carbon footprint of cheeseburgers in the US. Turns out it is bigger than the carbon footprint of all the SUVs in the US. Clearly we have a problem too big for individuals here, if junking every SUV would have less impact than eliminating one particular kind of meal.

The bottom line for climate change is that it really isn't about religion, ideology, or politics. You can argue about those topics forever, and there will never be proof to convince the true believers on the other side. With climate change, however, it is either happening or it isn't. If it isn't, environmentalists' arguments won't mean anything. But if it is, all the claims of the skeptics, all their advocacy, all the money paid by energy companies and others to support them, will not turn down the Earth's thermostat by a tenth of a degree. Climate change will simply be an accomplished fact. Of course, by then, it will be too late to do anything about it.


Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)

This review is from: National Geographic: Six Degrees Could Change the World (DVD)

This DVD and the book it was based on by Mark Lynas are the only attempt I know of to put together much of what scientists are predicting for the effects of global warming. They answer a question I have had since learning about the problem: what will happen if we let temperatures rise a certain amount? The answers are organized into one degree steps. The book and DVD overlap but each covers quite a bit that they other doesn't, so it is well worth getting both.

Some people will give one star to anything that conveys what climate scientists are saying about global warming. If you have already made up your mind despite the overwhelming evidence, don't bother watching this DVD or reading the book. They make no attempt to prove anything, they simply lay out what scientists are predicting. But if you can at least tentatively accept that what the vast majority of experts are saying might indeed be true, then you will want to know what they are predicting for our future.

Of course you can't expect everything scientists are predicting to be 100% accurate. But I have been following the science for several years, and I can tell you without a doubt that in the vast majority of cases where the scientists were off, they were too optimistic, often by a large amount. Global warming deniers criticize the computer climate model predictions, but in the wrong way. As a whole, they are much more optimistic than they should be, and the reason is that they don't know how to include the various positive feedbacks in their equations. The simplest proof of this is that when they run the models for years in the past for which we have paleoclimatology data, they consistently predict the changes will be slower and less drastic than what actually happened. If they do this for past changes, they will probably do so for future changes too. This DVD has predictions based on these models and on the paleoclimatic data. The scariest predictions come from paleoclimatology, and unfortunately those are probably more accurate. So keep that in mind as you watch it.

The data that has come out since the DVD was made already indicate that some things will be happening sooner than was thought then. For example, arctic sea ice is melting much faster than predicted, and coral reefs are dying off faster than anyone thought possible. Here is another thing to keep in mind. Because of thermal inertia, the albedo feedback that is already in full force, and because of global dimming effects, temperatures are already guaranteed to rise at least one more degree. The Amazon was carbon neutral over the past 10 years, and when it turns into a carbon source, that will cause the temperature to rise another degree. Two to three derees more warming are when other feedbacks are predicted to take over, pushing global temperature even higher. So please realize that we have very little time left to prevent the worst things shown in this DVD. Do whatever you can to convince Congress and the President to treat this threat as more serious and urgent than a world war. If we don't make at least the same quality of effort as we did when fighting past world wars, we will not win this battle, and the consequences will be far worse than if we had lost those wars. We all have a patriotic and moral obligation to do our part, and the most effective thing you can do now is make our leaders do their duty to protect our future.

P.S. Note to the person who thought the DVD showed a nuclear plant's cooling tower: coal power plants also use cooling towers. It would have been better to show a chimney, where the CO2 is released, but the footage probably was from a coal power plant.


Very depressing..., November 6, 2008


Michael Valdivielso (Alexandria, VA) - See all my reviews

Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)

This review is from: National Geographic: Six Degrees Could Change the World (DVD)

Don't just change your light bulbs. Don't just recycle. You have to stop using oil, you have to stop eating hamburgers, you have to stop cutting down trees. Not tomorrow, not next year, right now. The idea is not just to save money, which we would, and also save nature, which we would, but we have to save ourselves. We have to change the way we live. We have to get away from plastics, coal burning, roads, cities, and beef. To just name a few things. In other words, we're pretty much doomed. But Alec Baldwin has a great voice, the packaging is a green-product and the extras really help you save money. Too bad the packaging sucks when it comes to HOLDING the DVD in place but you can't have everything.


The ultimate alarmist's exaggeration, based on "what if" scenarios the latest IPCC's 2007 Report no longer supports, July 8, 2008


Emc2 (Tropical Ecotopia) - See all my reviews

This review is from: National Geographic: Six Degrees Could Change the World (DVD)

This documentary is based on Mark Lyna's Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet. I just can believe a reputable source as National Geographic supported this documentary. This is the kind of message that only helps to increase the distrust and more undesirable controversy regarding the theory of man-made global warming, and exaggerations not based on sound science only serve to provide ammunition for the radicals in the other side of the issue.

Any forecast up to 6 degrees for 2100 is completely outdated and corresponds to projections from previous IPCC's reports. The average surface temperature forecast in the 2001 Report (TAR) was an increase between 1.4 to 5.8C over the period between 1990 to 2100, with a sea level projected to rise by 0.1 to 0.9 meters over the same period. On the other hand, the 2007 Report (AR4) now predicts that sea levels will probably rise by 18 to 59 cm! The best estimate temperature rise is predicted between 1.8 to 4.0C, for best and worst case scenarios (B1 and A1FI respectively), with the intermediate more realistic scenarios ranging between 2.4-3.4C, and correspondingly see levels from 20-51 cm (see table SPM3 of the Summary for Policymakers Just check by yourself on the IPPC's 2007 Report (AR4)
Climate Change 2007 - The Physical Science Basis: Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC (Climate Change 2007) (the PDF version is available for free through the web) or just read the Summary for Policymakers.

This is a documentary not worth watching, unless you are interested in science-fiction or a documentary continuation of the 2004 film
The Day After Tomorrow (Widescreen Edition).

PS: I now rest my case. Read Mr. Lynas 2011 The God Species: Saving the Planet in the Age of Humans. He now took a less bold but more practical approach to the climate change issues. In his new book he explains many things that are wrong with green movement supporting a low-carbon society, but offering more realistic solutions. Highly recommended.


It is Your Turn! It is 2016 ten years later!

What has happened since 2006?

You write a review and post it on AMAZON.COM: