Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8897 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-18-2019 1:43 PM
134 online now:
AnswersInGenitals, edge, kjsimons, PaulK, ringo, Tangle (6 members, 128 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,429 Year: 3,466/19,786 Month: 461/1,087 Week: 51/212 Day: 12/39 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
89
10
111213Next
Author Topic:   An inconvenient truth.... or lie?
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 178 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 136 of 191 (539044)
12-12-2009 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by John 10:10
12-12-2009 11:34 AM


Re: Climate change man-caused?
(1) What was man doing or not doing during the 1950's thru the 1970's when scientists were actually worried that we were entering into a mini-iceage?

Question 1: why did scientists think this? Question 2: why did they stop? Have you ever bothered to find out the answer to these questions?

(2) It was only when the mini-iceage of the 1970's ended that the global warmingites began to develop their beliefs that man had somehow caused the warming climate change of the 1980's thru the 1990's.

What mini-iceage? And I see the answer two Question 2 is no, you never bothered. I guess it's easier to deny reality when you don't bother with pesky facts, hey?

(3) Since 1998 the global temps have actually decreased about 0.6C. When this data could not be fit into the fudged temp models that declared man's CO2 emissions were causing global temps to irreversibly increase, then a massive cover-up ensued to suppress this information.

The concept of a trend is too difficult for you, huh?

(4) Carbon dioxide is released to the atmosphere by a variety of natural sources, and over 95% of total CO2 emissions would occur even if humans were not present on Earth. For example, the natural decay of organic material in forests and grasslands, such as dead trees, results in the release of about 220 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide every year.

Really? Gosh! And do you think these figures were worked out by real climate scientists or by fuckwitted climate deniers like yourself? For crying out loud! Are you really such a drooling halfwit that you think this is news to climate scientists?

(5) Therefore, climate change talks and agreements are about power, manipulation and control of the 5% of CO2 emissions that are caused by man, which includes breathing and burning fossil fuels!!!

If you earn £1000 a month and spend £1005 what happens to your bank account?

It's also about a massive wealth transfer from the "have nations" to the "have not" nations.

Non-sequitor much? Besides which in what possible world is a transfer from the massively rich to the poor a bad thing? Do you just not like poor people? Do you think they deserve to starve and suffer for their
terrible crime of being born in the wrong country?

(6) Pure and simple, climate change is about following the money of those who have irreversibly tied their welfare to climate change being man-caused!!! This includes scientists, politicians, and government workers, and global warmingites who will implement and profit from this massive scam.

Yes, because of course those scientists earning £30-£35k a year are shamelessly chasing profits while the multi trillion pound energy and travel industries that back climate denial they have no vested interest. Why didn't I see it before!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by John 10:10, posted 12-12-2009 11:34 AM John 10:10 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Buzsaw, posted 12-12-2009 6:01 PM Dr Jack has responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1982
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 6.1


(1)
Message 137 of 191 (539049)
12-12-2009 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by John 10:10
12-12-2009 11:34 AM


Re: Climate change man-caused?
John 10:10 writes:

(1) What was man doing or not doing during the 1950's thru the 1970's when scientists were actually worried that we were entering into a mini-iceage?

One thing man was NOT doing was understanding climate. There were no weather satellites or computers for weather or climate modeling. The number or weather stations in the U.S. alone were only a few hundreds.

Now there are hundreds of satellites monitoring every conceivable aspect of weather and climate and massive computing power to not only compile all the data, but to see correlations. There are tens of thousands of weather stations on land and also at sea.

John 10:10 writes:

(2) It was only when the mini-iceage of the 1970's ended that the global warmingites began to develop their beliefs that man had somehow caused the warming climate change of the 1980's thru the 1990's.

There was no mini-iceage. The reason scientists began to suspect that human activity might have an affect on climate was that technology had advanced enough to really start monitoring weather and climate globally.

John 10:10 writes:

(3) Since 1998 the global temps have actually decreased about 0.6C. When this data could not be fit into the fudged temp models that declared man's CO2 emissions were causing global temps to irreversibly increase, then a massive cover-up ensued to suppress this information.

The only massive cover-up that ensued was when you and all the other climate deniers covered your eyes and ears!

John 10:10 writes:

(6) Pure and simple, climate change is about following the money of those who have irreversibly tied their welfare to climate change being man-caused!!! This includes scientists, politicians, and government workers, and global warmingites who will implement and profit from this massive scam.

Thank goodness we have good, honest, Christians like you as watchdogs, making sure that fossil fuel companies and their CEOs continue making and keeping their profits. It would be a terrible thing if they had to help raise the standard of living in the poor countries.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

You can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by John 10:10, posted 12-12-2009 11:34 AM John 10:10 has not yet responded

    
Little Ruru
Junior Member (Idle past 3070 days)
Posts: 1
From: New Zealand
Joined: 12-12-2009


(1)
Message 138 of 191 (539063)
12-12-2009 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by John 10:10
12-12-2009 11:34 AM


Re: Climate change man-caused?
Hi John 10:10 & EvC

John 10:10 writes:

(3) Since 1998 the global temps have actually decreased about 0.6C. When this data could not be fit into the fudged temp models that declared man's CO2 emissions were causing global temps to irreversibly increase, then a massive cover-up ensued to suppress this information.

Mr Jack writes:

The concept of a trend is too difficult for you, huh?

Perhaps this really is a difficult concept for you? A quick look at wikipedia helps to put this issue into perspective:

Temperatures in 1998 were unusually warm because the strongest El Niño in the past century occurred during that year.[12] Global temperature is subject to short-term fluctuations that overlay long term trends and can temporarily mask them. The relative stability in temperature from 1999 to 2009 is consistent with such an episode.[13][14]

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

Note also that there is no mention of a decrease since 1998, just an apparent stability in temperature since then.

...a massive cover-up ensued to suppress this information...

Think about what you (and others) are claiming here. The immense pile of evidence confirms that GW and its anthropogenic causes are a reality. Do you really think it's logistically possible to orchestrate a cover up/conspiracy on such a massive scale? Where is the evidence for this? Think about the many thousands of people involved and not one legitimate whistle-blower saying "they made me fudge my statistics!". The recent email hacking provides no such evidence either, as recently pointed out by Huntard, Taz and Otto Tellick.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by John 10:10, posted 12-12-2009 11:34 AM John 10:10 has not yet responded

    
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 139 of 191 (539064)
12-12-2009 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Dr Jack
12-12-2009 12:05 PM


Re: Climate change man-caused?
Mr Jack writes:

And do you think these figures were worked out by real climate scientists or by fuckwitted climate deniers like yourself? For crying out loud! Are you really such a drooling halfwit that you think this is news to climate scientists?

Hi Mr Jack. Tell me, since after my third appeal, everyone has evaded the question; did real objective climate scientists choose the placement locations of anthropogenic warming data censors from which they measure the extent of anthropogenic global warming?


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Dr Jack, posted 12-12-2009 12:05 PM Dr Jack has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-12-2009 7:40 PM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 148 by Dr Jack, posted 12-14-2009 5:58 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1982
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 6.1


Message 140 of 191 (539072)
12-12-2009 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Buzsaw
12-12-2009 6:01 PM


Re: Climate change man-caused?
Hi Buzzsaw,

What the heck are "anthropogenic warming data censors"? When I Google censors it gives me info about censorship??

The data used to calculate average global temperatures comes from millions of temperature "sensors" around the globe on the surface of the land and the sea as well as dozens of satellites in polar orbits that scan the whole earth with sensitive "sensors" every day.

Where did you think it was, Santa's Place at the North Pole?

I notice that you have still failed to show any actual in-context text from the emails that demonstrates any sort of fraud or conspiracy. I guess that means you concede that you were duped by the shameless liars on Faux News.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

You can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley


This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Buzsaw, posted 12-12-2009 6:01 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Buzsaw, posted 12-13-2009 12:27 AM Tanypteryx has not yet responded

    
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 141 of 191 (539086)
12-13-2009 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Tanypteryx
12-12-2009 7:40 PM


Re: Climate change man-caused?
Tanympteryx writes:


Hi Buzzsaw,
What the heck are "anthropogenic warming data censors"? When I Google censors it gives me info about censorship??

The data used to calculate average global temperatures comes from millions of temperature "sensors" around the globe on the surface of the land and the sea as well as dozens of satellites in polar orbits that scan the whole earth with sensitive "sensors" every day.

Where did you think it was, Santa's Place at the North Pole?

Hy Tanypteryx. Obviously I misspelled sensor like I just misspelled Hy and you misspelled Buzsaw. We all misspell on occasion, you know.

My statement pertained to anthropogenic (human related) sensor placement locations, apparantly located so as to exagerate the data depicting the extent of anthropogenic global warming.

Tanypteryx writes:

I notice that you have still failed to show any actual in-context text from the emails that demonstrates any sort of fraud or conspiracy. I guess that means you concede that you were duped by the shameless liars on Faux News.

I spent most of the afternoon today and this evening reading up on the pros and cons of global warming relative to the emails etc. I had my rather lengthy message ready to submit, but went to search info about the butterworth filter relative to global warming and a website caused my computer to lock up which dumped everything when I hit "end task." So here I am past midnight reconstructing some of which I lost.

Anyhow I concluded the following:

1. Anglia's Jones et al claimed the emails were deleted due to storage space in a new facility or some nutty thing which doesn't make sense. The consensus is that there was no legitimate reason to delete them.

2. Had Jones et al allowed all POVs to be discussed and aired openly rather than suppressing and hiding info this controversy could have been avoided. Jones et al appeared to be interesting in making available to the UN and other climatology interests what they deemed to be reliable and scientific.

3. The dissemination of the information from Anglia et al appeared to egregiously exaggerate the role of CO2 relative to global warming and to drastically diminish the role of CO2 as one person has succinctly stated:

Bill Insocal wrote:
Ok to help the non science folks here I will state that in the laboratory it is difficult to measure a large mass of liquid like a pool to the accuracy that you see in all these graphs. Of this I know. So ALL this data has been manipulated one way or another.

The second point is that CO2 is 0.0000387 of the total atmosphere. That's right 378 parts PER MILLION. It is claimed to have changed from 285 Parts per MILLION over the past one hundred years or so. Water vapor (humidity) is 900 times more influential in regulating the temperature of the earth. If man continues to believe that he could affect the weather accidentally or on purpose it is an infantile self absorbed fantasy. You wish!

The third point is that most others that do not believe any of these warming lies are schooled in science. While almost all of the environmentalists that I meet do not know what a butter worth filter is. When I try to send them data that refutes the media programming they have swallowed they can not understand it and just fall back on the Gore mantra that there is no debate.

4. I have concluded that an agregate increase of global warming has been happening over the past few centuries, especially relative to the past century. The controversy appears to be to what extent anthropogenic CO2 emmissions have factored in this.

5. The prestigious Anglia climatology facility from which the UN globalist agenda to promote and impose cap and trade policies upon nations eminates appears to have supported that agenda by diminishing the role of CO2 and other natrogenic factors relative to the global warming phenomena.

Edited by Buzsaw, : Fix quote


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-12-2009 7:40 PM Tanypteryx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by ZenMonkey, posted 12-13-2009 12:11 PM Buzsaw has responded

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 2583 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 142 of 191 (539161)
12-13-2009 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Buzsaw
12-13-2009 12:27 AM


Re: Climate change man-caused?
Buz, quoting someone who left a comment regarding a news story is not evidence, nor is it what anyone has been repeatedly asking for. Please produce the actual emails that you believe are the most indicative of deliberate fraud, including the relevant context, and explain why you think that they are so damning.

By the way, the Times Online article that you linked raises some interesting points. The claim in the article - and I'll take it at face value - is that the CRU has destroyed a significant amount of raw data upon which they have based their findings, keeping only their adjusted, compiled figures.

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

And further on:

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

And a bit more:

Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s, a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue.

I ask the following:

How much more raw data than what the CRU go rid of is still perfectly available for anyone to examine? The article made it sound like this is a significant share of what's been gathered over the decades. Is that true, or is this only a slice out of a much bigger pie?

Likewise, I note that this data had to have been taken from before sometime in the 1980's. Is it possible that a great deal more data has been recorded over the last 30 years? Where did the data in question come from? What was its quality? Are we talking stacks of notebooks in which generations of New England lighthouse keepers wrote down the daily temperature? All of the ice core readings taken up to that date? What?

Since I'm not a scientist myself, I'll ask those here who are: is tossing out old raw data like this after it's been compiled a common practice, or has the CRU been egregiously negligent? Past generations of scientists and scholars have sometimes been less than careful with items of not insignificant value. (I'm reminded of the story of the fate of the last preserved dodo specimen, tossed on a bonfire when a curator decided that it was looking too dusty and shabby to be on display.)

And as a side note, I see that what the CRU still has in buckets is the data that has been

adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected.

In other words, it appears that just maybe scientists do actually know how to take into account things like the different places in which weather sensors have been placed and therefore adjust accordingly, exactly what you seem to be accusing them of not doing. I ask - as some have done here before - why is it that creationists and climate change deniers alike seem to think that scientists are complete idiots in the very fields in which they are experts?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Buzsaw, posted 12-13-2009 12:27 AM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Taz, posted 12-13-2009 2:10 PM ZenMonkey has responded
 Message 162 by Buzsaw, posted 12-18-2009 9:54 PM ZenMonkey has not yet responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1364 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 143 of 191 (539178)
12-13-2009 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by ZenMonkey
12-13-2009 12:11 PM


Re: Climate change man-caused?
ZenMonkey writes:

why is it that creationists and climate change deniers alike seem to think that scientists are complete idiots in the very fields in which they are experts?


Doesn't surprise me. Every time someone finds out I'm a cop, he always tries to give me advice on how to do my job. It's like people feel compelled to tell me what they think cops should and should not do.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by ZenMonkey, posted 12-13-2009 12:11 PM ZenMonkey has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Iblis, posted 12-13-2009 2:29 PM Taz has responded
 Message 145 by ZenMonkey, posted 12-13-2009 5:17 PM Taz has not yet responded

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 1968 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 144 of 191 (539182)
12-13-2009 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Taz
12-13-2009 2:10 PM


cold shoulder
Whenever Al Gore comes by to talk about Global Warming, we always get a cold snap. Just saying.

Edited by Iblis, : No reason given.

Edited by Iblis, : socializing withdrawn


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Taz, posted 12-13-2009 2:10 PM Taz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Taz, posted 12-13-2009 5:55 PM Iblis has responded

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 2583 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 145 of 191 (539200)
12-13-2009 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Taz
12-13-2009 2:10 PM


Smarter than the experts.
I once read that part of the appeal of conspiracy theories is that it allows someone to think that they really know the truth about something without actually having to do the work of learning something about it.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Taz, posted 12-13-2009 2:10 PM Taz has not yet responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1364 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 146 of 191 (539202)
12-13-2009 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Iblis
12-13-2009 2:29 PM


Re: cop talk
Iblis writes:

Oh, and there's also the fact that you work for us.


I've been known to give people half a dozen tickets for bullshit violations like improper lane usage and one tail light for reminding me that I work for them. Why? Because the reminder tells me I have to work twice as hard for their tax money's worth. Also, I tend to take my time writing out the citations when people are mouthy. A 15 minute stop could magically turn into a 45 minute wait. And the fun I always have with DUI's and possession of contraband...

Zenmonkey, I know what you mean. Like I said in another post, I've worked in research, programming, laboring, teaching, etc. If there's one thing I've learned in the professions I've tried out is that I ain't got nothin' down yet. It's a humbling experience to know that there are people who are far smarter than me and that there are people who can do what I do a hundred times better.

This is why I always get cranky on here when I see people who think they're better at the said subject than the experts. It's like one of the criteria of believing in jesus... you have to know everything about every field of human knowledge. It's annoying as hell to watch people practically proclaim "I'm smarter than all those scientists haw haw haw!"

Edited by Taz, : Fixed grammar. See? Even in grammar, there are people who can write far better than me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Iblis, posted 12-13-2009 2:29 PM Iblis has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Iblis, posted 12-13-2009 6:33 PM Taz has not yet responded

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 1968 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 147 of 191 (539203)
12-13-2009 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Taz
12-13-2009 5:55 PM


thin ice
The people stationed in Antarctica don't understand the controversy about Global Warming at all. There's less ice. Every year. The ozone hole is still there. All year.

Edited by Iblis, : chatter deprecated


This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Taz, posted 12-13-2009 5:55 PM Taz has not yet responded

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 178 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 148 of 191 (539223)
12-14-2009 5:58 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by Buzsaw
12-12-2009 6:01 PM


Re: Climate change man-caused?
Hi Mr Jack. Tell me, since after my third appeal, everyone has evaded the question; did real objective climate scientists choose the placement locations of anthropogenic warming data censors from which they measure the extent of anthropogenic global warming?

As Tanypteryx said: what the frick are "anthropogenic warming data censors"? I'll assume you mean ground based temperature sensors, of the kind used to provide one set of data of global temperature?

There's no single reason why sensors were placed where they were. Most (probably) are where they are to collect data for meterological purposes, some are positioned by climate scientists, some for whatever other reasons. Why?

Please don't tell me you going to repeat the oft stated lie that the difference in global temperatures can be ascribed to the Urban Heat Island effect and misplaced sensors. Phil Jones, arch-conspirator himself, actually performed an analysis excluding all urban ground based temperature sensors and found the same warming trend as elsewhere.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Buzsaw, posted 12-12-2009 6:01 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 1848 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 149 of 191 (539288)
12-14-2009 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by petrophysics1
12-07-2009 3:06 PM


Resident confused scientists?
quote:
Coyote mentioned the warm period during the Middle Ages, but there have been many times where the temperatures have been much higher along with much much higher CO2 concentrations then we see today.

You, and possibly Coyote, are confusing 'regional' with 'global' temperature variations. The Medieval Warm Period was a regional temperature variation. Also there are a number or peer-reviewed studies that the late 20th century warming has exceeded the 'peak' of the warming during the MWP. This magnitude of warming in the late 20th century is what is truly anamolous, see Mann et al (1998, 1999).

quote:
For 90% of the time from the Cambrian to now the average earth's temperature was about 72 degrees F, it is presently 58 degrees F.

The only other time from the Cambrian to now that the temperature and CO2 content was as low as it is today was during the glacial and interglacial periods of the Pennsylvanian and Permian.


As I am sure you know, data on the Earth’s temperatures before the 1850’s or so, has relied on proxy data and is really just an estimate. It is true that Earth has had warm periods and has had cold periods as well, some of which the factors causing or creating these conditions are understood, but definitely not all. The ‘warmest’ period was about 55 million years ago during the PETM. The cause of which is believed to have been a massive release of CO2 or methane either by methane clathrates or a massive volcanic eruption which ignited the surrounding coal deposits. It is also a fact that the Earth has cooled off since then, and we have oscillated between glacial and interglacial periods for almost 2 million years. I don’t believe any scientist is positing that these were caused by something other than natural variation in the Earth’s climate, and that natural variation will always have some impact on our climate.

What is also clear is that we shouldn’t dismiss the current temperature trends as natural just because the Earth has experienced warm or warmer global temperatures in the past. If we look at all the different factors, we can be reasonably sure that the ‘recent’ rise in greenhouse gases can be attributed to man’s impact on the environment. Unless we are willing to throw out what we know of the physics of CO2 and methane and the hosts of greenhouse gases and their ability to warm up the atmosphere, then we should be reasonably persuaded that our impact is not negligible and unless we change our behavior we can expect to have to deal with a rising sea-level and painful (from a species viewpoint) changes to our climate.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by petrophysics1, posted 12-07-2009 3:06 PM petrophysics1 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by penstemo, posted 12-14-2009 7:10 PM DBlevins has responded

  
penstemo
Junior Member (Idle past 3277 days)
Posts: 13
From: Indiana, USA
Joined: 11-24-2009


(1)
Message 150 of 191 (539298)
12-14-2009 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by DBlevins
12-14-2009 5:23 PM


Re: Resident confused scientists?
It is not at all clear to me that global warming is a result of man made carbon emissions. Just because there is a correlation between global temperature increase and an increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gases does not mean that the latter is necessarily the cause of the former.

Hopefully, everyone here realizes that life on our planet would not exist as we know it without greenhouse gases. It was pointed out earlier in this thread that greenhouse gases contribute about 33 degrees Celsius to the temperature of the Earth.

quote:
from the book “Heaven and Earth” by Ian Plimer, professor of geology at University of Adelaide
The hypothesis that the global warming of the past century is man-made is based on the results of computer models in which the main drivers of climate are not adequately considered.

If the computer models are not giving adequate consideration to the main drivers of climate why should we believe the results?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by DBlevins, posted 12-14-2009 5:23 PM DBlevins has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Taz, posted 12-14-2009 7:33 PM penstemo has responded
 Message 161 by DBlevins, posted 12-16-2009 1:38 AM penstemo has not yet responded

    
Prev1
...
89
10
111213Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019