If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(AP)   NASA scientist: Mass extinction, ecosystem collapse only a couple of decades away   (ap.google.com) divider line 709
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

31402 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Jun 2008 at 5:12 AM (6 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



709 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2008-06-24 03:56:46 PM  
Snowflake Tubbybottom: Hell if I know but here's some analysis of his predictions: From this initial evaluation, it seems that to the extent that Jim Hansen's Scenario B has accurately anticipated global temperature increases since 1988, it has done so based on inaccurate assumptions about emissions paths. (new window)

Why not make your entire post a hyperlink? (new window)
 
2008-06-24 03:56:59 PM  
Do any of you think the greenhouse effect is false?
 
2008-06-24 03:58:04 PM  
Zafler: CanisNoir
No, the theory of Anthropogenic Climate Change is based on observation and, you know, scientific discovery. Despite the media hype, humans release far greater amounts of greenhouse gases than volcanoes, and the methane from cows is still miniscule compared to the forcing from our own greenhouse gases.


I beg to differ; it hasn't been codified into Scientific Fact because there's just as much, you know, scientific discover and observation to dispute it. It's just that any scientist that attempts to dispute it is immediatly demonized as one of those "being paid by the eeeeeeviiiill oil companies" and shouted down as being a "denier".

I freely admit to only knowing what I've read and choose to side with; I work with 'puters, not the Climate. I do however happen to think the planet has been around long before us and will be around long after we've moved on so the idea of "humans ruining the planet" is idiotic in my view. The climate has changed in the past, it will change again regardless of whether or not I drive a Jeep Wrangler. I also believe that when the climate shifts, be it man-made or not, there will be some chaotic shifting of populations, and some suffering; I just happen to think it's the same amount of chaos and suffering that will occur with the ennactions of the policies many want to put in place to "avoid Global Warming".
I just think I'll have a better chance at adapting to the change when I've got money in my pocket as oposed to being broke, and destitue living in the same house.

I see too many contridictions from that side of the debate.

\Global Climate Change is Bad because people will die (ooga booga)
\\Need to avoid Global Climate Change - We need less people.
-Just an example-
 
2008-06-24 04:00:53 PM  
Obdicut: LordZorch: Has anyone told this "scientist" that it's been cooling off for a decade?

Probably quite a few liars such as yourself have, yes.


Most of you, as ignorant as you are (lord zorch,) are really funny people. The rest of us can at least get a chuckle off ya, while you kill us with your SUV's, drugged out cow meat, and toxic farm salmonella. Its especially funny that "this scientist" is trying to save your dumb ass.
 
2008-06-24 04:01:27 PM  
maniacbastard

Jesus was a gay midget.

Graphs or it didn't happen!
 
2008-06-24 04:01:30 PM  
You know I used to love comming in and enjoying these threads where the Fanitical Worshipers of the Church of Global Warming would come out and crie over each other and beg the rest of us to listen to Al Gore, first Space Pope, but now it is just sad. Here are a couple of submissions which were not green lit due to the bias of the mods:

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=569586&p=1
This one discusses the positive effect of CO2 on the enviroment. It looks like the increased CO2 in the atmosphere is spuring increased growth of Biomass. Hmmm, I fail to be upset unless the plants decide to attack. The Happening sucked.

http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index . html
Yea, well you warmers will hate that link.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2007/03/28/global_warming_he r esy
Another guy who sees warmers as a religion. Not to mention warmers are a pawn of Socialisim.

Also, the warming trend stopped in 1998, or is that an inconvinant truth?
 
2008-06-24 04:03:38 PM  
Wow, I didn't realize you people were still at it! Yea, the Warmers are defending their religion, good for them.
 
2008-06-24 04:04:42 PM  
CanisNoir

The problem isn't the climate shifting, it is the rate at which it is shifting. The only contradictions are between the strawmen the people denying all the science behind ACC are erectng and what is actually occuring. The development of the world into a higher average global temperature is quite possibly going to cause much death and mayhem. The money in your pocket is worthless if the ecosystem begins to collapse, as there are indications of it doing so. The fact is, in the long run, it is cheaper in terms of cash and misery to shift to energy sources that are greenhouse gas neutral.

Destroying the rainforests and polluting our water sources (especially the oceans) also need to be addressed.
 
2008-06-24 04:05:41 PM  
AtikuX: Global warming or not, mass extinction of nature is going on because of us.
Mostly because of habitat destruction and fragmentation, over-fishing/hunting, pollution, introduction of alien species, ...

A lot of species are on the brink of extinction, many don't have enough individuals to ensure a diverse genepool.

That's what I don't like about the global warming "alarmists": they focus too much on "carbon". Like the article in Wired that said that we should cut down the old forests and plant faster growing species. Or cutting down rainforests to grow biofuels.

Many people say "who cares about a little bug/bat/bird", but the ecosystem is highly interdependent: some plants (like figs, Brazil nuts, durian, ...) can only be pollinated by one kind of animal. Remove that animal, and you lose the fruit/crop.

This planet is the only one we have, so why can't we take better care of it?


Thank you for your common sense awesomeness!
 
2008-06-24 04:07:20 PM  
baby_hewey

Wow, you're bringing up those old debunked BS claims? Why didn't you bring out the Oregon petition or the Mars is warming canard while you were at it?

I mean, seriously, how difficult is it to understand the basic science about the effects of greenhouse gases on the atmosphere? It's highschool freshman stuff.
 
2008-06-24 04:10:04 PM  
baby_hewey: Also, the warming trend stopped in 1998, or is that an inconvinant truth?

www.ncdc.noaa.gov
Source: NOAA.
 
2008-06-24 04:12:46 PM  
shivashakti: You know, even if global warming is a bit exaggerated and climate fluctuations are a part of the natural ebb and flow of this planet, wouldn't it still make sense that things like overindustrialization and the excessive pollution that comes along with it have deleterious effects upon our environment?

Possibly even catastrophic??

OK, I'm not going to say that Al Gore is unequivocally right..but even if he's wrong, it's still in our best interests to curb pollution and potentially harmful aspects of overindustrialization.


THIS!!! And clearly said much more eloquently than I can. Why is this so controversial, or part of an evil "environmental agenda," or whatever else? Is it just because people don't want to deal, and would rather fark the planet and their future rather than cause themselves the most minimal amount of discomfort now?

grrr, gets angry that any attempt to address how we are consuming our planet like a retard on pudding day gets thrown under the heading of global warming propaganda
 
2008-06-24 04:13:01 PM  
CanisNoir: I beg to differ; it hasn't been codified into Scientific Fact because there's just as much, you know, scientific discover and observation to dispute it. It's just that any scientist that attempts to dispute it is immediatly demonized as one of those "being paid by the eeeeeeviiiill oil companies" and shouted down as being a "denier".

Maybe they should, you know, publish their data in scientific journals. Hard proof tends to quiet those sorts of complaints. That's the central theme of the thread, really-- the climate crowd has reputable publications backing their claims, and the denier crowd has a lot of yelling and op-ed pieces.
 
2008-06-24 04:15:03 PM  
Hansen is an attention whore. He must have run out of that Heinz money he got a couple of years ago and is now trying to drum up some more. Why do you AGW morans even use him as a reference? He's not even a climatologist.

www.hrcapitalist.com
 
2008-06-24 04:16:42 PM  
CanisNoir: For those who call people "Deniers" a quick question for you. Since Man-Made Climate change is based upon a "consensus", how do you feel about the fact that there's a consensus regarding the existance of God.

It's based upon a consensus of published, primary studies, and the hard data contained therein. That's very different from a simple opinion poll.
 
2008-06-24 04:17:14 PM  
Zafler,

Who's the cute little sociolist? Zafler, you are so cute. I bet you didn't even look at the links in any depth. I also will bet that if I ask any real question you will rebuke me with the flawed Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report. Oh, and if I bring up the fact that both the first scientist to publish on AGW and the founder of The Weather Channel both have come out and said they were wrong about Global Warming you will say they have been bought by big oil.

Well, I won't even bother. You know why? Because you can't argue with a Religious Fanatic. It is true, it is just not possible to have a rational discussion about abortion with a Baptist or Global Warming with a Warmer. Some one really needs to come up with a better name for the belivers of Global Warming. Goreites maybe, or Belivers of the Sacred Climate Change Model, nah neither of those will work really well.

Also, Al Gore has as much credibilty for Global Warmers as Jimmy Swagart has for Promise Keepers, as in none.

Thank you for playing religious dogma.
 
2008-06-24 04:17:53 PM  
SharkInfested
shivashakti: You know, even if global warming is a bit exaggerated and climate fluctuations are a part of the natural ebb and flow of this planet, wouldn't it still make sense that things like overindustrialization and the excessive pollution that comes along with it have deleterious effects upon our environment?

Possibly even catastrophic??

OK, I'm not going to say that Al Gore is unequivocally right..but even if he's wrong, it's still in our best interests to curb pollution and potentially harmful aspects of overindustrialization.

THIS!!! And clearly said much more eloquently than I can. Why is this so controversial, or part of an evil "environmental agenda," or whatever else? Is it just because people don't want to deal, and would rather fark the planet and their future rather than cause themselves the most minimal amount of discomfort now?

grrr, gets angry that any attempt to address how we are consuming our planet like a retard on pudding day gets thrown under the heading of global warming propaganda


No shiathead. But propagating hysteria over something that was neither caused by, or can be corrected by man is not the way to do it.
 
2008-06-24 04:18:51 PM  
Oops, forgot my graph:

www.dgapchicago.org
 
2008-06-24 04:20:57 PM  
Savage Belief: Hansen is an attention whore. He must have run out of that Heinz money he got a couple of years ago and is now trying to drum up some more. Why do you AGW morans even use him as a reference? He's not even a climatologist.

I know this is the talking point of the week, and that you and Captain Moobs are just repeating what your masters have told you to repeat, but what would you call a person who has been publishing primary work on the topic of climate for 30+ years?

Hansen has his doctorate in physics, which is a very useful starting point for studying climate. The University of iowa doesn't have a department for "climatology" now, let alone when Hansen was there. But professional scientists generally introduce each other to one another based on their body of work, not their academic coursework.

Granted, I know from other threads that you're a hard-line Creationist, so I don't exactly expect that you spend a lot of time reading up on science.
 
2008-06-24 04:22:58 PM  
chimp_ninja,

Hehe, we've done this dance before Mr. chimp_ninja. You and I both know where that path leads and I just don't feel like shredding you again. More than 50% of weather stations which NOAA uses for those readings are improperly placed which causes higher, inaccurite readings. Why don't you pull the NASA global surver charts and see what they look like? And as for the other guy with the comment that my previous links were old and debunked, wrong. You can say it over and over, but that does not make you right.

There is change in the air that is true,
but it is people switching sides.
They are switching for mine and away from you!

There is some crappy poetry for you to pick on.
 
2008-06-24 04:23:16 PM  
Mark Twain said it best.

The scientist. He will spend thirty years in building up a mountain range of facts with the intent to prove a certain theory; then he is so happy in his achievement that as a rule he overlooks the main chief fact of all--that his accumulation proves an entirely different thing.


Remember "Science" once told us the earth was flat.
I know it has nothing to do with this ridiculous debate but it seems to be as open minded as most of these post LOL
 
2008-06-24 04:24:10 PM  
chimp_ninja
I know this is the talking point of the week, and that you and Captain Moobs are just repeating what your masters have told you to repeat, but what would you call a person who has been publishing primary work on the topic of climate for 30+ years?

Hansen has his doctorate in physics, which is a very useful starting point for studying climate. The University of iowa doesn't have a department for "climatology" now, let alone when Hansen was there. But professional scientists generally introduce each other to one another based on their body of work, not their academic coursework.

Granted, I know from other threads that you're a hard-line Creationist, so I don't exactly expect that you spend a lot of time reading up on science.


Granted, but when the "denier" side of the aisle presents information from a source that isn't a climatologist you all get your collective panties in a wad.

/Your own medicine.
//Take it.

www.ourfirsthorse.com
 
2008-06-24 04:24:30 PM  
baby_hewey
The ignorant troll is strong with this one. If you're lucky I'll take the time to debunk (again) your copy pasta.

/Ok, that was a arsehole comment...oh well.
 
2008-06-24 04:25:27 PM  
3_Butt_Cheeks: PANIC.

haha: that A Gallup poll "Figure II" image is from a 1997 report!
http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba230.html
 
2008-06-24 04:27:42 PM  
Tat'dGreaser 2008-06-24 07:07:34 AM

I just can't stand this notion that Earth was created for humans. It has gone through so many climate changes that we could be wiped out in a blink of an eye and this planet would still keep going. The universe was not made for us, we are a blip on the radar.

Speak for yourself - your mom told me you were a product of 5 shots of Yaeger and a broken condom.
 
2008-06-24 04:28:15 PM  
"Hi. Welcome to the future. San Dimas, California, 2688. And I'm telling you, it's great here. The air is clean. The water's clean. Even the dirt... is clean. Bowling averages are way up. Mini-golf scores are way down. And we have more excellent waterslides than any other planet we communicate with."

i292.photobucket.com
Disagrees.

/RIP Rufus
 
2008-06-24 04:28:16 PM  
chimp_ninja 2008-06-24 04:20:57 PM
Savage Belief
: Hansen is an attention whore. He must have run out of that Heinz money he got a couple of years ago and is now trying to drum up some more. Why do you AGW morans even use him as a reference? He's not even a climatologist.

I know this is the talking point of the week, and that you and Captain Moobs are just repeating what your masters have told you to repeat, but what would you call a person who has been publishing primary work on the topic of climate for 30+ years?

Hansen has his doctorate in physics, which is a very useful starting point for studying climate. The University of iowa doesn't have a department for "climatology" now, let alone when Hansen was there. But professional scientists generally introduce each other to one another based on their body of work, not their academic coursework.

Granted, I know from other threads that you're a hard-line Creationist, so I don't exactly expect that you spend a lot of time reading up on science.

Wow, I can't belive you just posted that. No, I really can't belive that you just admitted that your primary source supporting your belife in AGW is 1. Not a Climatologist, 2. Teaches at a University which doesn't even have a department dedicated to it. Wow, I used to think that you were pretty sharp. Now I can see that you are dupped into beliving in AGW some other way. Were you dating a chick and you started going to the meetings to score points with her?
 
2008-06-24 04:33:24 PM  
bughunter 2008-06-24 10:29:36 AM

[blah, blah, blah...]

You all deserve to die.


If I start to go, I'm taking you, your wife and your son out first! Ahahahahahahahahaha!

/Evil!
 
2008-06-24 04:34:21 PM  
baby_hewey: More than 50% of weather stations which NOAA uses for those readings are improperly placed which causes higher, inaccurite readings.

Hey! It's last year's talking point!

www.logicalscience.com
 
2008-06-24 04:34:30 PM  
Ahhhhh... The classic who am I going to believe: On the one hand we have chimp_ninja/Jon_Snow and their well sourced charts & their arguments with evidence presented and cited from reputable sources; Or, on the other hand, baby_hewey/Dancin_In_Anson with their unsubstantiated claims, ad hominems, & conspiracy theories? ... Who indeed?

The last true "skeptics" (like Micheal Shermer (new window)) abandoned the fail-boat that is now global warming denialism.
 
2008-06-24 04:39:28 PM  
chimp_ninja
Yeah, I think baby_hewey got off the troll train for a while and now is bored/getting payed again and is trying to use long debunked ones as if they were fresh. Haven't figured out why as yet.

To any lurkers: my 3rd post in here I included links to good places to get a basic understanding of what is occuring and why (most) people in charge think we should act to mitigate our impact.
 
2008-06-24 04:39:51 PM  
baby_hewey: No, I really can't belive that you just admitted that your primary source supporting your belife in AGW is 1. Not a Climatologist,

He's been publishing primary climate studies for three decades. He's a world-class expert on the topic by any realistic definition.

2. Teaches at a University which doesn't even have a department dedicated to it

James Hansen works for NASA, and has an adjunct faculty position at Columbia University's Earth and Environmental Sciences. Columbia doesn't have a "Climate" department. Neither do MIT, Stanford, or a host of other top-end universities. It's inherently an interdisciplinary field, which is why they recruit experts with a variety of academic backgrounds. This is true of most modern science.

Keep talking, though. I like when people get to see for themselves how moronic the denial crowd is.
 
2008-06-24 04:41:08 PM  
rackrent: ironic_followup: no polar bears in 50 years?

I can't get behind that.

/leafblowers! Is there anything more futile?


I want you to be you!

/Spit out the gum, it doesn't work.
 
2008-06-24 04:41:55 PM  
Zafler 2008-06-24 04:24:30 PM
baby_hewey

The ignorant troll is strong with this one. If you're lucky I'll take the time to debunk (again) your copy pasta.

/Ok, that was a arsehole comment...oh well.

Well, it was an arsehole comment, but nothing worse than what I have said in the past, so no problem from here. As far as debunking my comments, ok go ahead. I started out with the premis that no matter what I said the die hard belivers would not listen or accept anything I had to say. So to be frank I don't care what you belive, I just want to make the point that I don't accecpt AGW as fact and never will because I don't belive in it as there is not enough proof to me. Same goes for religion, I have seen no proof where one religion is right and the rest are wrong. Except for Muslims, they are batshiat crazy and need to be erradicated, perferably by blowing up each other.

Now, once some of you warmers admit that you are taking something you don't really understand and accecpting it on faith then we might be able to come to some type of agreement.

Now, just for referance I am a conservationist at hart. I take care of the enviroment when and where I can, but I do not belive that a gas which is created naturally when you, me and every living creature breaths is going to destroy us all. It is even more rediculas on the face of it when you understand the resperation cycle of plants and the fact that if CO2 was eliminated from the atmosphere we would all starve to death as well as suffocate becasue plants use the stuff to create O2 and sugars.

Again, think about it for a second in a rational manner:

Plants take Sunlight and CO2 and produce O2 and Biomass(food, leaves ect.)
Animals take O2 and Biomass(leaves, wood, food) and make CO2 and fat.
Plants then take that new CO2 and more sunlight(a renewable resource) and make more O2 and food.
Which cows then take and make more CO2 and Methane.
Now Methane, that sucks.
 
2008-06-24 04:44:46 PM  
baby_hewey: Oh, and if I bring up the fact that both the first scientist to publish on AGW and the founder of The Weather Channel both have come out and said they were wrong about Global Warming you will say they have been bought by big oil.

It doesn't really matter what they say in interviews. It would matter if they were publishing data.

Also, you should update your troll reference file to speak of Reid Bryson in the past tense.
 
2008-06-24 04:44:52 PM  
Dancin_In_Anson: March_Hare: Wow. Do you honestly think you're fooling anyone here?

Fooling whom how?


And when all else fails, fake amnesia. Who? What? Journal articles? I have no idea what we were talking about!
 
2008-06-24 04:47:28 PM  
baby_hewey: I just want to make the point that I don't accecpt AGW as fact and never will because I don't belive in it as there is not enough proof to me.

... Now, once some of you warmers admit that you are taking something you don't really understand and accecpting it on faith then we might be able to come to some type of agreement.


I don't think you understand how skepticism works. You see, I'm the skeptical one in this debate. I'm demanding evidence for claims, and backing my own words with hard facts.

You've already made up your mind and will "never" change. That's the opposite of skepticism-- it's fanaticism.
 
2008-06-24 04:48:07 PM  
baby_hewey: Oh, and if I bring up the fact that both the first scientist to publish on AGW and the founder of The Weather Channel both have come out and said they were wrong about Global Warming you will say they have been bought by big oil.

It's called the reflexive squawk.

BergZ: Or, on the other hand, baby_hewey/Dancin_In_Anson with their unsubstantiated claims, ad hominems, & conspiracy theories?

Haven't read a single post of mine (or a single one of chimp_ninja's remarks about me) have you? Will you take the time to look at the series I have posted here (twice) and search the papers done by those mentioned or will you be like the rest and just say the papers don't exist with a wave of the hand and another smug personal remark about me?
 
2008-06-24 04:48:33 PM  
March_Hare: (To Dancin_in_Anson) And when all else fails, fake amnesia. Who? What? Journal articles? I have no idea what we were talking about!

I told you where he's hiding them. It's just that no one wants to go elbow-deep into all of that.
 
2008-06-24 04:50:37 PM  
March_Hare: And when all else fails, fake amnesia. Who? What? Journal articles? I have no idea what we were talking about!

You say there are no peer reviewed papers denying AGW. I told you how to find them. You won't look for them. Who is fooling whom?
 
2008-06-24 04:51:07 PM  
Dancin_In_Anson
I did, and I'm not finding them...please provide link.
 
2008-06-24 04:52:18 PM  
Yep, as is always the case. The faithful will be strong and post of what they belive. I will point and laugh when in another 5 years we are all sitting around huddled in the cold dark night because the warmers won and took away our gas and coal to save the planet.

Hey, just an FYI arseholes, I do belive that the global climate is changing, I have never said it wasn't, but I do not belive it is man made. And as I have said in every other thread I have been in: Go and look closely at all those scientist, the majority do not belive in Man Made global warming, but just in global warming. You guys are worse than arguing with a Baptist over when life begins, and just as faithful to your religion.

Enjoy your Global Warming Hell, I'll enjoy my sea side property when Texas is 50% under water again like it was way back when.
 
2008-06-24 04:52:37 PM  
chimp_ninja: Um, you're aware that the concentration of water vapor hasn't been increasing, right?

This is wholly inconsistent with the argument that there is more snow because of global warming.

I'm not accusing you of anything - I don't remember if you've ever made the claim about snow. But the amount of mutually-exclusive misinformation on this issue is simply staggering.
 
2008-06-24 04:54:22 PM  
The world is full of cowards and chicken littles.
Learn to swim.
 
2008-06-24 04:55:06 PM  
Dancin_In_Anson: You say there are no peer reviewed papers denying AGW.

Technically, the journal Science printed that claim. You'll excuse us if we consider their standard to be a bit higher than Random Internet Guy.

You cited one paper, and it was from Energy and Environment, which isn't a peer-reviewed journal, showing you literally don't even know what one is. It lacks any of the standards (transparency of data, review by experts, standards for retraction, etc.) that make such journals highly regarded.
 
2008-06-24 04:56:32 PM  
Random Reality Check: 3_Butt_Cheeks: Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: 3_Butt_Cheeks

You posted from ncpa.org?

Sister, that's not gonna stand up to even a 3rd grader's scrutiny.

So you are saying that gallup poll is made up?

You do understand that a Gallup Poll is an opinion poll and not some form of science. I don't suppose if you had a sharp pain in your abdomen you would want to get your diagnosis from a Gallop Poll, right?

A gallop poll of doctors? Sure. Heck, we even have a name for it, if you only do it once, we call it "a second opinion."

This is a group of meteorologists. Seems like a group of "experts" all giving their opinion on the situation would get you farther along than just interviewing one or two people. But that's just me.
 
2008-06-24 04:57:15 PM  
Argh, lazy and didn't check to see if my tag was closed.

/how embarassing
 
2008-06-24 04:59:16 PM  
LouDobbsAwaaaay: This is wholly inconsistent with the argument that there is more snow because of global warming.

I'm not accusing you of anything - I don't remember if you've ever made the claim about snow.


I haven't (regional effects are a challenge), but it's not. Nothing about climate change suggests it would be uniform across the whole globe-- it's entirely possible that more evaporation in the tropics could fuel more precipitation in colder latitudes.

Also, to address the water vapor issue in more detail-- water vapor can amplify greenhouse forcings by carbon dioxide/methane/etc. As carbon dioxide and methane spur higher temperatures, the equilibrium concentration of atmospheric water vapor will rise very slightly with it. It's a downstream effect, and it's down in the weeds relative to the magnitude of the direct forcings, but it's there.
 
2008-06-24 05:00:49 PM  
Dancin_In_Anson [TotalFark] 2008-06-24 04:48:07 PM
"Haven't read a single post of mine (or a single one of chimp_ninja's remarks about me) have you? Will you take the time to look at the series I have posted here (twice) and search the papers done by those mentioned or will you be like the rest and just say the papers don't exist with a wave of the hand and another smug personal remark about me?"

Don't like being called out as liar? Then don't be one.

The link you provided went to the Nationalist Post, a news magazine, which is not a respectable peer-reviewed climatology journal. Where are the peer-reviewed climatology journal articles refuting global warming?

Please try again when you have some pieces of evidence instead of opinions to present.
 
2008-06-24 05:01:38 PM  
This thread is now boring to me. Make it exciting again, just until I leave work.
 
Displayed 50 of 709 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report