Re: Weather-Manmade Global Warming Link Builds, Study Says

by **jmundie** 2012-04-13, 2:41 pm

Again - we got off on this tangent because of your dismissive stance towards climate change skeptics, of whom there is a broad spectrum, from those who believe in some man made global warming but other factors we don't yet understand probably contributing, to those who reject it entirely.

My biggest issue with all this is, if it is warming, that is certainly better, from a humanity coping standpoint, to massive cooling. If we go through another little ice age, from what I understand, it will be way worse than more frequent severe storms and rising oceans. The bread baskets of the world will become inhabitable for food production. That's a major problem.

My second biggest issue is, even if man is causing the majority of the warming, the solutions seem to be more about control of resources and "correcting" human behavior than anything else. I don't like central planning, because I think it harms people more than it helps.Most of the problems we're trying to fix now, pollution/dependence on cars/ etc, come from subsidies to effect behavior and development in the 1940s, 50s and 60s. The suburbs are a direct result of actions of the government.

I believe in letting a free market determine allocation of resources, un encumbered by military might subsidizing products, and letting things bedone on a local, rather than state level. That way, communities decide how they want to organize. Central planning always has unintended consequences, and its ripe for corruption. If carbon becomes a commodity, you can rest assured it will become a mechanism of wealth transfer from the poor to the rich, and it will become a tool of control of the masses by the state.

by **Stovepipe** 2012-04-13, 2:56 pm

snowdog wrote:
Stovepipe wrote:So you had the story wrong. It almost always pays to dig a little deeper before drawing conspiracy conclusions.

What part of the story is wrong? Singer is saying he himself had emails leaked by UVa. He doesn't say when or to whom. He also makes no specific claims about Michaels. I'm guessing he isn't lying about it though as the AGW side would love to pop him at any chance.

Also I've found that UVa had spent about $600,000 in defense of Mann and that was a year or so ago. Actually a private group has spent that money in defense of Mann through UVa, not taxpayer money. I'd be interested know who is privately pumping in the money to protect those emails.

Again, if what Singer is saying is incorrect about the ongoing case, it will quickly show up on a AGW blog.

Well, first of all there is no evidence that I've seen that any emails were actually released to Greenpeace, just publicly available information. Based on what I'm reading here from various sources, it seems the money by UVa was more to defend "academic freedom" than to keep climate change secrets hidden. They seem to be consistent with their FOI policies too if you read their responses to requests in that timeline. As far as Singer's claim of his own emails getting leaked, well a cursory google search doesn't turn up much on that. If the University did leak his stuff I'd imagine enough of a stink would have been raised that it would be easy to find out some details.

So again, for me, I see nothing here to get enraged over.

by **snowdog** 2012-04-13, 3:25 pm

Stovepipe wrote:Based on what I'm reading here from various sources, it seems the money by UVa was more to defend "academic freedom" than to keep climate change secrets hidden. They seem to be consistent with their FOI policies too if you read their responses to requests in that timeline.

UVa isn't funding the defense (or at least not the majority of it), it's coming from private donations. I think you are being naive if you think this is about "academic freedom". But hey, to each their own.

by **Stovepipe** 2012-04-13, 3:42 pm

snowdog wrote:

But hey, to each their own.

Yep.

by **Stovepipe** 2012-04-16, 11:35 am

As ice cap melts, militaries vie for Arctic edge

http://news.yahoo.com/ice-cap-melts-militaries-vie-arctic-edge-072343565.html

YOKOSUKA, Japan (AP) — To the world's military leaders, the debate over climate change is long over. They are preparing for a new kind of Cold War in the Arctic, anticipating that rising temperatures there will open up a treasure trove of resources, long-dreamed-of sea lanes and a slew of potential conflicts.

By Arctic standards, the region is already buzzing with military activity, and experts believe that will increase significantly in the years ahead.

Last month, Norway wrapped up one of the largest Arctic maneuvers ever — Exercise Cold Response — with 16,300 troops from 14 countries training on the ice for everything from high intensity warfare to terror threats. Attesting to the harsh conditions, five Norwegian troops were killed when their C-130 Hercules aircraft crashed near the summit of Kebnekaise, Sweden's highest mountain.

The U.S., Canada and Denmark held major exercises two months ago, and in an unprecedented move, the military chiefs of the eight main Arctic powers — Canada, the U.S., Russia, Iceland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland — gathered at a Canadian military base last week to specifically discuss regional security issues.

None of this means a shooting war is likely at the North Pole any time soon. But as the number of workers and ships increases in the High North to exploit oil and gas reserves, so will the need for policing, border patrols and — if push comes to shove — military muscle to enforce rival claims.

The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that 13 percent of the world's undiscovered oil and 30 percent of its untapped natural gas is in the Arctic. Shipping lanes could be regularly open across the Arctic by 2030 as rising temperatures continue to melt the sea ice, according to a National Research Council analysis commissioned by the U.S. Navy last year.

What countries should do about climate change remains a heated political debate. But that has not stopped north-looking militaries from moving ahead with strategies that assume current trends will continue.

Russia, Canada and the United States have the biggest stakes in the Arctic. With its military budget stretched thin by Iraq, Afghanistan and more pressing issues elsewhere, the United States has been something of a reluctant northern power, though its nuclear-powered submarine fleet, which can navigate for months underwater and below the ice cap, remains second to none.

Russia — one-third of which lies within the Arctic Circle — has been the most aggressive in establishing itself as the emerging region's superpower.

Rob Huebert, an associate political science professor at the University of Calgary in Canada, said Russia has recovered enough from its economic troubles of the 1990s to significantly rebuild its Arctic military capabilities, which were a key to the overall Cold War strategy of the Soviet Union, and has increased its bomber patrols and submarine activity.

He said that has in turn led other Arctic countries — Norway, Denmark and Canada — to resume regional military exercises that they had abandoned or cut back on after the Soviet collapse. Even non-Arctic nations such as France have expressed interest in deploying their militaries to the Arctic.

"We have an entire ocean region that had previously been closed to the world now opening up," Huebert said. "There are numerous factors now coming together that are mutually reinforcing themselves, causing a buildup of military capabilities in the region. This is only going to increase as time goes on."

Noting that the Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the globe, the U.S. Navy in 2009 announced a beefed-up Arctic Roadmap by its own task force on climate change that called for a three-stage strategy to increase readiness, build cooperative relations with Arctic nations and identify areas of potential conflict.

"We want to maintain our edge up there," said Cmdr. Ian Johnson, the captain of the USS Connecticut, which is one of the U.S. Navy's most Arctic-capable nuclear submarines and was deployed to the North Pole last year. "Our interest in the Arctic has never really waned. It remains very important."

But the U.S. remains ill-equipped for large-scale Arctic missions, according to a simulation conducted by the U.S. Naval War College. A summary released last month found the Navy is "inadequately prepared to conduct sustained maritime operations in the Arctic" because it lacks ships able to operate in or near Arctic ice, support facilities and adequate communications.

"The findings indicate the Navy is entering a new realm in the Arctic," said Walter Berbrick, a War College professor who participated in the simulation. "Instead of other nations relying on the U.S. Navy for capabilities and resources, sustained operations in the Arctic region will require the Navy to rely on other nations for capabilities and resources."

He added that although the U.S. nuclear submarine fleet is a major asset, the Navy has severe gaps elsewhere — it doesn't have any icebreakers, for example. The only one in operation belongs to the Coast Guard. The U.S. is currently mulling whether to add more icebreakers.

Acknowledging the need to keep apace in the Arctic, the United States is pouring funds into figuring out what climate change will bring, and has been working closely with the scientific community to calibrate its response.

"The Navy seems to be very on board regarding the reality of climate change and the especially large changes we are seeing in the Arctic," said Mark C. Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences University of Colorado. "There is already considerable collaboration between the Navy and civilian scientists and I see this collaboration growing in the future."

The most immediate challenge may not be war — both military and commercial assets are sparse enough to give all countries elbow room for a while — but whether militaries can respond to a disaster.

Heather Conley, director of the Europe program at the London-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, said militaries probably will have to rescue their own citizens in the Arctic before any confrontations arise there.

"Catastrophic events, like a cruise ship suddenly sinking or an environmental accident related to the region's oil and gas exploration, would have a profound impact in the Arctic," she said. "The risk is not militarization; it is the lack of capabilities while economic development and human activity dramatically increases that is the real risk."

by **snowdog** 2012-04-16, 5:13 pm

Here is a look at NH and SH ice as well as a total Global sea ice. Nothing all that dramatic to see here. There has been ice loss but it is mostly due to NH. SH looks to be pretty stable. Also the starting point of the late 70's doesn't help the NH graph considering some of those were the coldest winters we've had in a looooong time. This year NH ice looks to be rebounding very nicely. I'm guessing they didn't do any military exercises in the Bearing Sea this winter/spring. cold

Weather-Manmade Global Warming Link Builds, Study Says - Page 12 NSIDC%20GlobalArcticAntarctic%20SeaIceArea

by **jmundie** 2012-04-20, 1:56 pm

This article is another reason I'm skeptical of the AGW movement.

This kinda stuff is more and more common and it wreaks of agenda based science.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevezwick/2012/04/19/a-tennessee-firemans-solution-to-climate-change/

by **snowdog** 2012-04-23, 10:43 am

jmundie wrote:This article is another reason I'm skeptical of the AGW movement.

This kinda stuff is more and more common and it wreaks of agenda based science.

Typical crap piece. That guy is a clueless hack. You don't need a well funded propagandist to tell the models are crap. Any average Joe who can rub two braincells together can see it. The alarmists are really getting desperate as the warming is not responding as they predicted it would. The Roy Spencers of the climate world are starting to look better and better.

by **Toot** 2012-04-23, 8:18 pm

Now they're thinking about monitoring our personal CO2 output with satellite technology due to the myth that climate is controlled by trace gases in the atmosphere. Now we'll be constantly monitored and regulated.....YAY!!!!! yak

http://notrickszone.com/2012/04/20/european-big-brother-carbonsat-surveillance-satellite-aims-to-hunt-down-climate-violators-globally-by-2017/

by **Stovepipe** 2012-04-23, 8:23 pm

Lawdy mercy, now it's been downgraded to a myth. LOL!

rfl

by **snowdog** 2012-04-24, 10:00 am

Looks like AGW is losing one of the big boppers in the "consensus". Good stuff from James Lovelock, one of the bigger alarmists in the past and now he is changing his tune. The rats are now fleeing the sinking ship.

It will also reflect his new opinion that global warming has not occurred as he had expected.

“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,” Lovelock said.

“The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now,” he said.

“The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time… it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising -- carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that,” he added.

He pointed to Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” and Tim Flannery’s “The Weather Makers” as other examples of “alarmist” forecasts of the future.

LINK TO FULL ARTICLE

by **Stovepipe** 2012-04-24, 10:14 am

snowdog wrote:Looks like AGW is losing one of the big boppers in the "consensus". Good stuff from James Lovelock, one of the bigger alarmists in the past and now he is changing his tune. The rats are now fleeing the sinking ship.

Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better. lmao

One old coot changing his mind has no bearing at all on the science.

by **snowdog** 2012-04-24, 10:29 am

LOL. Typical response with the old coot reference. A lot of the science is hypothetical. The climate isn't responding the way the hypothetical science says it should be. You continue to find solace in your hypothetical science and hypothetical consensus, I'll continue to look at reality.

The old coot wanted a clean conscience before he departed this earth, maybe Hansen will follow suit in the coming years.

by **Stovepipe** 2012-04-24, 10:43 am

snowdog wrote:LOL. Typical response with the old coot reference. A lot of the science is hypothetical. The climate isn't responding the way the hypothetical science says it should be. You continue to find solace in your hypothetical science and hypothetical consensus, I'll continue to look at reality.

The old coot wanted a clean conscience before he departed this earth, maybe Hansen will follow suit in the coming years.

The old coot comment was tongue in cheek partner. I'm sure that old coot is brilliant and has contributed a great deal to his field over the years. Him changing his mind on this issue is all fine and good but it's not like the walls of the theory are crumbling down or anything like what you are suggesting.

I fall on the side with the most evidence supporting it. I'm more than willing to change my views in the future too as better understandings come about. That's how I roll.

by **snowdog** 2012-04-24, 11:07 am

Stovepipe wrote:Him changing his mind on this issue is all fine and good but it's not like the walls of the theory are crumbling down or anything like what you are suggesting.

He was one of the godfathers of the theory and he says we don't know what the climate is doing. That is a BOLD statement. He then goes on to say temps have been constant (when they should have been rising) since the millennium (they are actually falling over the last 10 years) yet carbon emissions continue to climb. Yet another BOLD statement.

What you are seeing, with Lovelock's about face, is cracks starting to form in the walls. If the cooling continues over the next 10 years there will be more like Lovelock who distance themselves from the theory. Then the walls will be falling.

I don't understand how smart people look at the same data as I do and continue to hold on to a dead theory. I don't deny that increasing CO2 causes warming or that doubling CO2 causes a 1.2C increase in temps, that is accepted science and I accept it as well. But there are other factors and feedbacks that either enhance or negate the CO2 effect. That is where the science gets murky and one has to start making some pretty big assumptions. What climate is showing us over the last 12 years is that the impact of CO2 is being negated and the assumptions in the science, made by the AGW proponents, have been in error. The models have made errors in enhancing the effect of CO2 with the positive feedbacks built in. It is easy to see in the hindcasting models with the warming period 1910-1940 and the cooling period 1940-1970.

by **Stovepipe** 2012-04-24, 11:17 am

snowdog wrote:I don't understand how smart people look at the same data as I do and continue to hold on to a dead theory.

Because maybe, just maybe, there is more to the science than what you can learn from reading a handful of articles and looking at a couple of charts. You're a smart guy, but you (and me) have a tiny fraction of the understanding of climate that any of the 1000s of Phds in the field do that have dedicated their life to studying it.

by **Stovepipe** 2012-04-24, 11:27 am

Interesting:

The Most Detailed Images of Polar Ice Cap Thickness Yet

http://gizmodo.com/5904607/the-most-detailed-images-of-polar-ice-cap-thickness-yet

In 2010, the European Space Agency launched Cryosat, a spacecraft designed to monitor changes in the shape and thickness of polar ice on Earth. It's taken the scientists behind the project some time to crunch through all the data—but they've managed it, and the new images offer an unprecedented view of the state of our ice caps.

While there have been previous satellite measurements of how quickly ice is disappearing, Cryosat is the first to be able to measure the volume of ice in great detail—which is crucial in forecasting the future changes.

In fact, the way it measures the ice thickness is pretty smart. Cryosat actually carries one of the highest resolution synthetic aperture radars every put into orbit. With that, it sends down microwave pulses, and then detects the reflection of the pulses from both the top and bottom surface of ice sheets, picking up information about cracks in the ice, too.

With a bit of simple math, that means the team can work out the thickness of the ice. Prof Volker Liebig, one of the researchers behind the project, explains to the BBC:

"The message is that Cryosat is working extremely well. Its data are very reliable and the measurements we have match reality. We now have a very powerful tool to monitor the changes taking place at the poles."

The newly released data shows an entire seasonal cycle for the Arctic ice—from October 2010 to March 2011—and pegs the total volume of sea ice in the central Arctic at 14,500 cubic kilometres in March 2011. There are years more data to come from Cryosat; let's just hope its results defy expectations. [ESA and BBC]

by **snowdog** 2012-04-24, 12:06 pm

Stovepipe wrote:Because maybe, just maybe, there is more to the science than what you can learn from reading a handful of articles and looking at a couple of charts. You're a smart guy, but you (and me) have a tiny fraction of the understanding of climate that any of the 1000s of Phds in the field do that have dedicated their life to studying it.

Even the studied PHD's only have a fraction of understanding of the climate (which Lovelock admits to), which is why their predictions are often times pretty bad. It is also why the models perform so badly. It is why those, like Roy Spencer, who don't jump to crazy assumptions with CO2 are winning the day right now.

Those of us on the sidelines can view the progress being made by comparing models/predictions to real world data.

by **jmundie** 2012-04-24, 12:17 pm

Yeah - "old coot" is what those in the debate community call an ad hominem attack.

Stove - would you be upset if it turned out the science is wrong about AGW? It seems like you've pretty firmly planted your flag in that camp... Why is it so important to you that AGW be validated?

by **Stovepipe** 2012-04-24, 1:32 pm

jmundie wrote:Yeah - "old coot" is what those in the debate community call an ad hominem attack.

Stove - would you be upset if it turned out the science is wrong about AGW? It seems like you've pretty firmly planted your flag in that camp... Why is it so important to you that AGW be validated?

Oh give me a break Mundie. I said I was joking about the old coot comment, lighten up Francis. Regarding the camp I'm in, I've stated my reasoning very clear numerous times in this thread. Even two posts up. Having trouble reading today?

I'm a science guy. I've studied science and believe in the scientific method. Science isn't perfect and it doesn't really set out to "prove" anything. Proofs are for mathematicians. My interest in this is just making sense of the evidence available. I believe there is enough evidence to take AGW seriously and that humans should make some changes to combat it, especially since most of those changes would benefit societies even despite climate change.

So yeah, this isn't religion for me and I really don't care about any validation of AGW. I'm just interested in the science and my views will change as the scientific understanding changes.

Science. rock on

by **jmundie** 2012-04-24, 1:49 pm

Stovepipe wrote:
jmundie wrote:Yeah - "old coot" is what those in the debate community call an ad hominem attack.

Stove - would you be upset if it turned out the science is wrong about AGW? It seems like you've pretty firmly planted your flag in that camp... Why is it so important to you that AGW be validated?

Oh give me a break Mundie. I said I was joking about the old coot comment, lighten up Francis. Regarding the camp I'm in, I've stated my reasoning very clear numerous times in this thread. Even two posts up. Having trouble reading today?

I'm a science guy. I've studied science and believe in the scientific method. Science isn't perfect and it doesn't really set out to "prove" anything. Proofs are for mathematicians. My interest in this is just making sense of the evidence available. I believe there is enough evidence to take AGW seriously and that humans should make some changes to combat it, especially since most of those changes would benefit societies even despite climate change.

So yeah, this isn't religion for me and I really don't care about any validation of AGW. I'm just interested in the science and my views will change as the scientific understanding changes.

Science.

That was intended to be further up in the conversation. I thouoght it posted, but Snowdog's post beat me, and there was a delay between when I wrote it and when it finally sent.

That being said, your attitude toward any scientific opinion that differs from the "consensus" doesn't quite line up with your latest statement.

There is compelling evidence that CO2 does effect global temperature. There are a very few people who don't believe that it does. The rub is in the how much, and whether or not other variables have a greater effect of warming or cooling. I've seen studies that indicate that in prior warm periods, CO2 was very high as well, and yet the earth eventually cooled again. Maybe melting of glaciers and the ice caps desalinates the oceans such that the gulf stream slows, or stops, causing widespread global cooling? I don't know, but I have to think, the earth has been here for billions of years, and it hasn't been destroyed yet. Its changed quite a bit, and life adapts. Its concerning to me that there are folks who would promote a widespread change in the way humanity operates based on our best understanding of the data we have. Our best understanding used to say that black folks were inferior, or that we should lobotomize people with PTSD. Forgive my skepticism at those who think they have things all figured out.

by **Stovepipe** 2012-04-24, 2:15 pm

jmundie wrote:
That being said, your attitude toward any scientific opinion that differs from the "consensus" doesn't quite line up with your latest statement.

I think that if you actually read through this thread, you'd see that I welcome skepticism on this issue if it is grounded in science. I've posted a ton of links to very objective peer reviewed papers that go out of their way to balance the evidence and some of that evidence doesn't make a strong case for AGW.

For example, several of those papers go into detail about the strengths and weaknesses of the modeling. Believe it or not, there is more model output than just a simple line graph showing global temperature. Some variables can be estimated with great accuracy and others not so much. It's an ongoing process and a very interesting one.

jmundie wrote:There is compelling evidence that CO2 does effect global temperature. There are a very few people who don't believe that it does. The rub is in the how much, and whether or not other variables have a greater effect of warming or cooling.

Ya think? That very statement has been made by several of us in this thread over and over. You seem to have very selective reading skills in here.

jmundie wrote:I've seen studies that indicate that in prior warm periods, CO2 was very high as well, and yet the earth eventually cooled again. Maybe melting of glaciers and the ice caps desalinates the oceans such that the gulf stream slows, or stops, causing widespread global cooling? I don't know, but I have to think, the earth has been here for billions of years, and it hasn't been destroyed yet. Its changed quite a bit, and life adapts.

If you want to talk objectively about these things, then I'm all for it. In fact nothing would make me happier than for this thread to be used for linking interesting science articles for or against AGW. Unfortunately you and snowdog seem to be more interested in cheesy ass gossip stories from crappy blogs than any real science. For the most part, though snowdog has contributed some good things too.

jmundie wrote:Its concerning to me that there are folks who would promote a widespread change in the way humanity operates based on our best understanding of the data we have. Our best understanding used to say that black folks were inferior, or that we should lobotomize people with PTSD. Forgive my skepticism at those who think they have things all figured out.

While you often have some grains of truth in your statements, you start veering off in more directions than I care to keep up with for a given post. Only you could bring up racism in a global warming thread. Smile

So once again I'll ask: Do you guys want to talk about science or do you want to talk about the latest gossip on Al Gore, James Hansen, and the Limousine Liberals? Wait a minute, that is one hell of an awesome band name!

by **jmundie** 2012-04-24, 3:15 pm

Its rather difficult to separate the politics from any discussion on the science of this given how its been politicized, no? If we were just talking about "is the globe warming or cooling and why" that would be one thing. But wrapped tightly into that is if its humankind, then humankind has to do something to stop it. Or more specifically, if its humankind doing it, its up to nation states or global "governing" bodies to determine who is emitting too much CO2 and punish them accordingly.

There are people on both sides of this who are skeptical, or believers, for their own reasons. I personally get nervous the more distance between me, and the people who are supposed to be representing me. I can go to my city councilmans house and tell him/her that they are doing something that is pissing me off. My opinions have no effect on the federal government officials, or most certainly the UN. I try to do environmentally responsible things with the means that I have. I've got curly lightbulbs, despite the flashing and weird color light. I have a rain barrel to save water in the summer. My wife and I both drive compact cars, even though they aren't as safe as an SUV. I buy a lot of locally sourced food, shop in my neighborhood as much as possible. And I do all that stuff because I think its the right thing to do. But what I don't want is for someone to force me to take a hit in my standard of living because he believes my carbon footprint is too big. That, combined with my rudimentary knowledge of weather and short term forecasting (and its limits) are why I'm skeptical of the science that's coming out. The climate is insanely complex, its existed in many different forms over billions of years, and even the best scientists are making educated guesses... maybe highly educated guesses... but they are still guesses, and they are all wrapped up in politics, which means I read them, and absorb what their saying, but I don't have blind trust in them.

That wasn't "racism" per say that I brought up. It was science. Eugenics. Accepted science has been, and will continue to be at times, spectacularly wrong. And while we should build on the knowledge and experimentation of others, we should be careful to make social decisions based on the best scientific understanding... because, as was noted, it doesn't always yield positive results for humanity.

by **snowdog** 2012-04-24, 3:27 pm

Stovepipe wrote:So once again I'll ask: Do you guys want to talk about science or do you want to talk about the latest gossip on Al Gore, James Hansen, and the Limousine Liberals? Wait a minute, that is one hell of an awesome band name!

I'll talk about both as both are important but I'll probably stick more to the science as I have through most of this thread. You can't ignore the obvious elephant in the room while discussing AGW, that being that Gore and to some degree Hansen (as well as others) have profited handsomely off this hypothesis.

by **Stovepipe** 2012-04-24, 3:38 pm

snowdog wrote:
Stovepipe wrote:So once again I'll ask: Do you guys want to talk about science or do you want to talk about the latest gossip on Al Gore, James Hansen, and the Limousine Liberals? Wait a minute, that is one hell of an awesome band name!

I'll talk about both as both are important but I'll probably stick more to the science as I have through most of this thread. You can't ignore the obvious elephant in the room while discussing AGW, that being that Gore and to some degree Hansen (as well as others) have profited handsomely off this hypothesis.

I'm trying to muster up some farks to give about Gore getting rich but I'm honestly unable to come up with anything. Same would go for someone getting rich off an anti-hypothesis speaking tour. Honest to God I do not see how that is relevant to anything. Obviously it bothers you, so keep drilling it home by all means, but I'm lost on the importance of it.

Weather-Manmade Global Warming Link Builds, Study Says - Page 12 2nta2xd

Weather-Manmade Global Warming Link Builds, Study Says - Page 12 2nta2xd

by Sponsored content