Zappa.com

The Official Frank Zappa Messageboards
It is currently Wed Sep 30, 2020 8:31 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 875 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Apr 30, 2016 11:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:19 am
Posts: 7809
Location: in deepest, darkest Germany
No, you're taking credit for somebody else's list and also making it more difficult to check up on your source and thus engage in discussion. But I'm not entirely sure whether you want discussion.

It also makes you look stupid - which I'm also not entirely sure you are.

_________________
"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 30, 2016 12:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 9:11 am
Posts: 4859
Good grief you are incorrect, it is my list because I compiled it from a couple sites I was looking at, what difference does it make who compiled the list anyway? It is the Scientists viewpoint that is the subject matter, not who is compiling a list. So maybe go proofread and critique all the false lists in this thread topic that are inaccurate. That is the reason for the list ,not to mention, the dissenting viewpoints are quite informative to make a balanced decision on the subject.


THE SOURCE is the SCIENTISTS. In the case of the link I provided it is DESMOG. NOW go take a nap and admit you are wrong in your analysis of my post.

_________________
"I'm interested in the capitalistic way of life, and the reason I like it better than anything else I've seen so far is because competition produces results."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 30, 2016 12:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:19 am
Posts: 7809
Location: in deepest, darkest Germany
BRAVO SIERRA wrote:
Good lord man get a grip, as stated these are scientists that do not agree with the co2 global warming philosophy , all you have to do is pick one and read about their view point. Do you want to know where I got the list? That is superfluous to the subject. I posted the list because so many on this forum subject like to say the science is settled, so I posted the list. The initial paragraph is not an exact quote so I didn't add quotations. I'm not taking credit for any thing those scientist say , or even saying i agree with them, it is a list, now if you have the time check it out.


Further more if you are such a stickler for originality then you better get busy as there is a boat load of plagiarism on this here forum. I give you an F- for over analyzing the post. Like i would expect from an educated idiot.


Quote:
b) The person who originally wrote the words has had his or her intellectual work stolen. Thus, it is theft.



Are you referring to the title paragraph or the actual scientists ? Again all one has to do investigate the scientists listed they make no bones as to their viewpoint, THAT is the emphasis of the post.



https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... F4IIwK3XRw


There I did you work for you, now read, then you agree or disagree, then post reply if you want, or move on to next post. This is how a forum works. All the time staying within the Subject thread.


You must have edited your post while I was writing my reply.

However, when I click on your link, it leads me to...
"DeSmog
Clearing the PR Pollution that Clouds Climate Science"

...which is apparently run by someone called David Legates.

But not to your list.

Your list appears to come from...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... al_warming

Thus your statement...
BRAVO SIERRA wrote:
I compiled it from a couple sites I was looking at

...would appear to be untrue.

As apparently 97% of 12000 scientists think there is climate change and it is caused by humans I could provide an extremely long list of scientists who disagree with David Legates and the others you cite.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global ... ediate.htm

_________________
"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 30, 2016 12:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 7927
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
Here's a link to a list of climate change experts, including contact information....

http://www.desmogblog.com/media-journal ... scientists


This link has many scientific organizations of tens of thousands of climate change experts lists, and the overwhelming vast majority general consensus...

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/


Study Affirms Consensus on Climate Change...

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/ ... ange/?_r=0


Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.10 ... 8/2/024024


People used to believe that the Earth was flat until scientists and navigators proved them wrong.

People used to believe the earth was the center of the solar system until astronomers proved them wrong.

People used to believe that gold could be created from lead until scientists proved them wrong.

People used to believe that Martians existed until scientists proved thyem wrong.





Global warming deniers are just another wacko cult, just like Scientologists.






btw, BS and DB still have as yet to list any and/or every "free market capitalist" country on the entire planet that have a 9% growth in GDP and 72% wage increases. I wonder why? :roll: :twisted:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 30, 2016 12:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 9:11 am
Posts: 4859
I rest my case

_________________
"I'm interested in the capitalistic way of life, and the reason I like it better than anything else I've seen so far is because competition produces results."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 30, 2016 3:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 7:14 am
Posts: 36578
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, CANADA
Caputh wrote:
As apparently 97% of 12000 scientists think there is climate change and it is caused by humans I could provide an extremely long list of scientists who disagree with David Legates and the others you cite.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global ... ediate.htm

So, you agree with BRAVO SIERRA. It's not settled. (you need 100% for it to be settled. As Spacebrother so kindly pointed out, just because pretty much everybody was sure the earth was flat, they turned out to be wrong, thanks to just 1 person.)

_________________
You're probably wondering why I'm here
(not that it makes a heck of a lot of a difference to ya)
Image


Last edited by just plain doug on Sat Apr 30, 2016 4:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 30, 2016 4:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:11 pm
Posts: 5532
Location: Vancouver, BC
tweedle-dumb-diane-bean-counter wrote:
Disco Boy wrote:
tweedle-dumb-diane-bean-counter wrote:
Just like BS, I bet you can't name one single "free market capitalist" country with 9% growth in GDP and a 72% wage increase....dumbass. :roll:


Only, it's technically NOT a free market capitalist country, jerk-off. Keep ignoring the rest of the article and what BRAVO SIERRA posted above (regardless if he's "in the know" or not). Because NOTHING you or anyone else from your team of flunkies states actually detracts from the FACT that Argentina's overall performance over the past several years, if not decades, is VERY POOR. And anyone paying attention knows why this is... :roll:




Of course I know Argentina isn't a "free market capitalist" country. I pointed that out 2 or 3 posts ago. Learn how to fucking read.


NO country is technically a fully "free market capitalist" country, MORON. That was my point. So your point is MOOT, dumb-shit. :roll:

tweedle-dumb-diane-bean-counter wrote:
You're stupidity and obvious bullshit artistry continue to be both amusing and entertaining.

btw, still waiting for Douchebag Boy and BS to name a single "free market capitalist" country with a 9% GDP growth rate and 72% wage increase......


You quote that like it's the norm for Argentina, when it's NOT. That was a fluke and happened over the course of a short period of time and didn't last long, MORON.

Also, for most industries and examples, the few mostly free market economies that exist like Chile and Hong Kong outperform Argentina CONSIDERABLY. I've explicitly covered this many times before... :roll:

BRAVO SIERRA wrote:
I rest my case


Chiselling away at grammatical errors and inconsequential info, while deflecting the actual points & substantial matters at hand.

It's what tweedle-dumb-diane-bean-counter & Caputh excel at...

_________________
"...I'm absolutely a Libertarian on MANY issues..." ~ Frank Zappa, Rochester, NY, March 11, 1988


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 30, 2016 6:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 7927
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
So neither of you can come up with "free market capitalist" countries that had a 9% growth in GDP and 72% wage growth. Figured as much.


Regarding the flat Earth comment, not unlike global warming deniers, there were a handful of stragglers who refused to accept proven scientific fact. Global warming deniers are a cult.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 30, 2016 11:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:19 am
Posts: 7809
Location: in deepest, darkest Germany
just plain doug wrote:
Caputh wrote:
As apparently 97% of 12000 scientists think there is climate change and it is caused by humans I could provide an extremely long list of scientists who disagree with David Legates and the others you cite.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global ... ediate.htm

So, you agree with BRAVO SIERRA. It's not settled. (you need 100% for it to be settled. As Spacebrother so kindly pointed out, just because pretty much everybody was sure the earth was flat, they turned out to be wrong, thanks to just 1 person.)


First all all, that is not my understanding of what BRAVO SIERRA believes. He believes climate change isn't happening. He is also not interested in any arguments that countervene his own and here we differ. I am actually rather interested in any examples he might have or have found, but wish that he would clearly distinguish between his own thoughts and the thoughts of others.

Second of all, the belief that the earth was flat was not a belief generally held by what one would understand to be scientists. The first people whom we can name as scientists, although they were chiefly philosphers (the Greeks Pythagoras und Parmenides) were already aware of the fact that the Earth was not flat. Certainly, there were a large amount of people who believed it to be flat, but these were people whom most would consider fairly uninformed.

Thirdly, by your logic, the existence of The Flat Earth Society, which has its members even some people who describe themselves as scientists, proves that this question is not settled either.

_________________
"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."


Last edited by Caputh on Sun May 01, 2016 12:55 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2016 12:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 4:29 pm
Posts: 3910
Location: south midlands, UK
Caputh wrote:
No, you're taking credit for somebody else's list and also making it more difficult to check up on your source and thus engage in discussion. But I'm not entirely sure whether you want discussion.
It also makes you look stupid - which I'm also not entirely sure you are.

No - he is stupid. Cut & paster, doesn't even read the stuff he's posted, wouldn't even understand it if he did anyway. An exercise in futility - attempting to make himself look clever when he's easily the dumbest person here - Jaypfunk and DB are his intellectual superiors too, by a long shot, despite their unpleasantness.
I actually agree with some of the stuff he posts about climate change - but any point he makes is lost here because he's such a jerk-off.
TT

_________________
and I know, I think
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2016 1:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 7:14 am
Posts: 36578
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, CANADA
Caputh wrote:
Thirdly, by your logic, the existence of The Flat Earth Society, which has its members even some people who describe themselves as scientists, proves that this question is not settled either.

Not at all. You're looking at that from today's perspective where we have visual evidence of a round earth. 600 years from now, then we can see visual evidence of who is right about global warming.

_________________
You're probably wondering why I'm here
(not that it makes a heck of a lot of a difference to ya)
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2016 3:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 7927
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
We know who is right now. There has been 7 global warming and cooling events in the last 10,000 years. Based on chemical analysis in ice, it is proven that the current event is man-made.

Global warming deniers are a cult of wackos. Scientologists believe what they do based on science fiction, same as global warming denial.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2016 5:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 9:11 am
Posts: 4859
just plain doug wrote:
Caputh wrote:
Thirdly, by your logic, the existence of The Flat Earth Society, which has its members even some people who describe themselves as scientists, proves that this question is not settled either.

Not at all. You're looking at that from today's perspective where we have visual evidence of a round earth. 600 years from now, then we can see visual evidence of who is right about global warming.





within 8 years the irreversible climate change hoax will have been exposed

_________________
"I'm interested in the capitalistic way of life, and the reason I like it better than anything else I've seen so far is because competition produces results."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2016 8:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:19 am
Posts: 7809
Location: in deepest, darkest Germany
just plain doug wrote:
Caputh wrote:
Thirdly, by your logic, the existence of The Flat Earth Society, which has its members even some people who describe themselves as scientists, proves that this question is not settled either.

Not at all. You're looking at that from today's perspective where we have visual evidence of a round earth. 600 years from now, then we can see visual evidence of who is right about global warming.


Ah, but not for the people from the Flat Earth Society as they claim all the visual evidence is fake and a hoax.
I also think that e.g. quite a few geologists could provide comparative visual evidence for climate change and the human effect on it that goes back for quite a long time.

As BRAVO SIERRA points out himself above, he is not saying "it isn't settled". He is saying climate change doesn't exist and also predicts an actual date on which the "hoax" will be exposed. (Why 8 years, btw?)

Of course, nothing is 100% certain. Proving the existence of a round world to 100% is impossible. It is equally impossible to prove the total non-existence of something. For myself, I cannot exclude the existence of a God in heaven with a big, flowing beard, in a blue robe, cherabim and seraphim twittering around him and at his feet Jesus and Mary doing their holy stuff. I'm pretty sure such a scenario is unlikely, but I'm also pretty sure at least 3% of the population (some of them scientists) think this is the case - they even have visual evidence for it in many churches and in a number of books, too.

_________________
"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2016 8:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 9:11 am
Posts: 4859
Nice misrepresentation of my view, like a true politician repeat a lie long enough

_________________
"I'm interested in the capitalistic way of life, and the reason I like it better than anything else I've seen so far is because competition produces results."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2016 8:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:19 am
Posts: 7809
Location: in deepest, darkest Germany
I'm sorry if you think it is a misrepresenation. This was not my intention.

Please therefore explain the difference between...

Caputh wrote:
As BRAVO SIERRA points out himself above, he is not saying "it isn't settled". He is saying climate change doesn't exist and also predicts an actual date on which the "hoax" will be exposed. (Why 8 years, btw?)


and...

BRAVO SIERRA wrote:
within 8 years the irreversible climate change hoax will have been exposed

_________________
"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2016 9:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 3:22 am
Posts: 1646
The BIG question is not if the climate is changing , it's more about HOW MUCH MAN IS CONTRIBUTING TO IT .
If the climate didn't change , we wouldn't be here talking about it.

S4B states "
There has been 7 global warming and cooling events in the last 10,000 years. Based on chemical analysis in ice, it is proven that the current event is man-made."

It has NOT been proven . It has only been proven that man has had SOMETHING to do with it for the simple reason that there are more ' men ' on this rock. Of course ' man ' and the chemicals and substances that ' man ' has created in the past 10,000 years will show up as residue in ice just as volcanic ash has also been found in the same samples. That's a given but to say that the current event is ' made-made ' is quite a stretch , imo.

I would love to see all the people using this scare tactic to start walking to work and using candles to study their 'scientific' data.
Then I might start to believe them.

_________________
may you have the bank account of a republican and the sex life of a democrat.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2016 9:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 7927
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
8 years from now, he'll still be following the conspiracy theorist anti-global warming cult.



Reality sets in...


THE HUMAN CAUSED GLOBAL WARMING FINGERPRINT

How do we know the increase in CO2 is human caused? There is an isotopic signature, like a fingerprint. CO2 that comes from natural sources has a low carbon-14 ratio. The pre-industrial atmospheric levels of CO2 were around 280ppm (parts per million). As of 2010 the amount is 390ppm. The extra 100ppm does not have the carbon-14 signature. The only other possible source that can account for the extra 100ppm is human industrial emissions of fossil fuels.

Stratosphere Cooling, Troposphere Warming
Suke Manabe and other scientists, when modeling the climate in the 1960's at the Princeton Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, showed that increased CO2 would cause the lower atmosphere to warm and the upper atmosphere to cool (or warm less). This hypothesis has been observed in the data, which further supports the general accuracy of the models. Virtually all climate models show that this is what should happen, and the observed data shows that this is occuring.

Isoptope Evidence
When protons from GCRs (Galactic Cosmic Rays) collide with the nitrogen-14 (seven protons plus seven neutrons in the nucleus) in the air, carbon-14 is created (in addition to other isotopes such as beryllium-10) through a nuclear reaction:

14N + p → 14C + n

This means that carbon with a low isotope carbon-14 ratio must come from deep in the ground, out of reach of cosmic rays.

Furthermore, the ratio of O2 to N2 has diminished. This is expected from the increased combustion of fossil fuels, in which O2 combines with C to form CO2. The oceans have also become more acidic, leading to an increase in CO2 levels in both the atmosphere and the oceans.
...
The above chart from the EPA has been notated with specific events to show how events that impact social economics systems impacts growth of industrial greenhouse gases.
...
Attribution
Assessment of natural and anthropogenic (human-caused) influences indicate that the climate system would be relatively stable without industrial atmospheric influences such as greenhouse gases and aerosols.

Source: Attribution

It is reasonably clear that without anthropogenic forcings the climate would be closer to thermal equilibrium relative to the Holocene radiative forcing.

SUMMARY
Since carbon-14 is created during exposure in the atmosphere, low isotope carbon-14 has not been subjected to atmospheric exposure and therefore must have come from underground. In other words, we dug it up, burned it, and now low isotope carbon-14 is in the atmosphere. That is how the two origins of carbon can be clearly identified, by the isotopic signature.

Said another way, low isotope carbon-14 is from fossil fuels, while the rest of the carbon has been in the natural cycle for longer periods. Longer expose times increase the C-14 in the molecule. Carbon that is stored and released through natural processes such as the normal seasonal carbon breathing that occurs in plant life has a longer atmospheric lifetime.

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/enviro ... man-caused



The corporate profit driven anti-global warming propaganda narrative that the these Right Wingers subscribe to is pure science fiction. It's a cult.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2016 12:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:19 am
Posts: 7809
Location: in deepest, darkest Germany
pedro2 wrote:
The BIG question is not if the climate is changing , it's more about HOW MUCH MAN IS CONTRIBUTING TO IT .
If the climate didn't change , we wouldn't be here talking about it.



THAT is indeed the question - i.e. not if it is changing, but what caused it.

_________________
"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2016 4:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 7927
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
Petroleum and Propaganda
The Anatomy of the Global Warming Denial Industry


http://monthlyreview.org/2012/05/01/pet ... ropaganda/


Big Oil has been covering up climate risks even longer than we thought


Last fall, it was revealed that executives at oil giant ExxonMobil have known about fossil fuels’ role in global warming since the late 1970s, but proceeded over the next four decades to cover up that information and block all efforts to rein in greenhouse gas emissions.

In December, it was discovered that Exxon wasn’t alone. Nearly every major oil company was well aware of the dangers of climate change. In fact, Amoco, Exxon, Mobil, Phillips, Shell, Sunoco, and Texaco, as well as Standard Oil and Gulf Oil (the predecessors of Chevron), regularly shared their climate research between 1979 and 1983 as part of a task force convened by the American Petroleum Institute, an oil industry trade group.

But the cover-up goes back even further than that, it turns out. According to documents uncovered and released yesterday by the Washington-based Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), oil executives have been covering up the climate risks of fossil fuels since at least 1957.

CIEL president Carroll Muffett told The Huffington Post that “This story is older and it is bigger than I think has been appreciated before.”

The documents, according to Muffett, show that the industry was “clearly on notice” about the role of fossil fuels in driving climate change by 1957. But Muffett added that the industry was “shaping science to shape public opinion” even earlier than that, perhaps as far back as the 1940s.

CIEL has created a website, SmokeandFumes.org, to house all of the documents it uncovered, which include industry histories, scientific articles, oral testimonies, and patents that span more than fifty years of oil industry research and activities.

“They offer compelling evidence that oil executives were actively debating climate science in the 1950s, and were explicitly warned about climate risks a decade later,” according to CIEL. “Just as importantly, they offer glimpses into why the industry undertook this research, and how it used the results to sow scientific uncertainty and public skepticism.”

Some 20 state attorneys general in the U.S. have joined an effort spearheaded by New York attorney general Eric Schneiderman to investigate and prosecute the companies, including Exxon, that have actively worked against attempts to combat global warming.

Many have pointed out that Big Oil has seemingly followed the playbook developed by Big Tobacco when that industry tried to protect its business model by burying information about the health impacts of smoking tobacco and lying to the public about it.

The difference is, Big Oil is still getting away with it, funding millions of dollars of junk science, pushing public relations campaigns that downplay fossil fuels’ contribution to climate change, and fueling the campaigns of climate deniers in Congress, Jeremy Funk of Americans United for Change said in a statement.

“Like Big Tobacco, Big Oil spent decades orchestrating a deception campaign that undermined our public health,” Funk said.

“After similarly damning internal tobacco industry memos surfaced of a coordinated cover-up of their products’ dangers, states and consumers’ families were rewarded billions of dollars in damages and tough new regulations were put in place by the court system and Congress.”


https://news.mongabay.com/2016/04/big-o ... r-thought/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2016 7:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:11 pm
Posts: 5532
Location: Vancouver, BC
tweedle-dumb-diane-bean-counter wrote:
So neither of you can come up with "free market capitalist" countries that had a 9% growth in GDP and 72% wage growth. Figured as much.


Reading comprehension. Look into it, MORON. :roll:

_________________
"...I'm absolutely a Libertarian on MANY issues..." ~ Frank Zappa, Rochester, NY, March 11, 1988


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 02, 2016 12:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 7927
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
...meaning you can't name any.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 02, 2016 6:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:11 pm
Posts: 5532
Location: Vancouver, BC
tweedle-dumb-diane-bean-counter wrote:
...meaning you can't name any.


Your point is MOOT, you idiot. And I've already explained why. :roll:

_________________
"...I'm absolutely a Libertarian on MANY issues..." ~ Frank Zappa, Rochester, NY, March 11, 1988


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 05, 2016 7:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 5:18 pm
Posts: 6760
Location: Between the Badges
First US offshore wind farm to open off Rhode Island coast in 2016

http://www.accuweather.com/en/features/trend/first-us-offshore-wind-farm-block-island-rhode-island-industry-seeks-further-growth-expansion-energy-future/54057815

_________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Don't Be Stupid Unless You Want To


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 07, 2016 12:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 7927
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
First, they tried to say, "global warming doesn't exist"...

...yet...


Sea-level rise claims five islands in Solomons: study
http://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topsto ... &ocid=iehp


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 875 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: cory1984, Mr. Nice Guy and 9 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group