Help! Climate denying father
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-12-2016, 12:35 PM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(05-12-2016 10:25 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  I think the above sums it up and I would not want to argue against it.

Ohhhhhhhhh, I'll gladly have a go, though!

(05-12-2016 10:25 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  First, I want to make a point about "appealing to authority". I didn't post those videos because I was trying to use the credentials of these two scientists as proof of the validity of what they were saying. I used the videos because I had watched them and I was impressed by the arguments presented. Also, I am often criticised on this forum for not citing what I say and coming to my own conclusions based on my experience and my own conclusions from a variety of sources which I can't necessarily, at any particular point, find. I am told I should be using "peer reviewed" sources and citing them in support of what I say. This is "appealing to authority". The authority is right, I am wrong, is the general attitude here so...which is it?

You're appealing to authority because you're saying "This guy here has a Big Degree and a Big Award in some field of science, and he's saying stuff about science, so I think his arguments have serious weight." The problem with this approach is that Dr. Giaever doesn't have knowledge in the correct field, as demonstrated by the fact that 1) many of his statements (which sound good to a layperson) have been roundly criticized by the actual experts in that field as straight-up myths about climate, and 2) he has himself acknowledged that he has never studied this area of science.

In other words, I am a biologist, but if I started lecturing on a physics subject in which I demonstrated that I was not knowledgeable, but people pointed to my expertise in "a" field of science, they would be wrong because my authority in that field does not equal the expertise of the combined expertise of those in the field of physics.

(05-12-2016 10:25 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  As far as Ivar Giaever is concerned, he isn't someone whose name I am familiar with but I think his accomplishment of winning a Nobel prize puts him in a certain class of scientists whose views should not be dismissed in favour of people like Maurice Strong who chaired the Rio Summit, and was a political "operative" with a clear political agenda and a life long "plan", or Al Gore. I listened to the video and I found what he said to be compelling and I found it put into scientific words things which I had puzzled about. I didn't come to this subject, as I have posted earlier, because I am a supporter of the use of fossil fuels or don't care about the environment. As I posted, I found myself, like a lot of older people being told that all we had understood about the ice age coming to an end and still being at the tail end of the last ice age had nothing to do with a very small change in temperature in the latter part of the 1900's so it is something many of us find to be odd.

Well, Maurice Strong was not a "political operative", but a former head of a couple of major oil companies who decided he wanted to work with the UN on the problems he saw his industry causing. I don't think you're making a fair description of him. Also, he hasn't done anything in that field since the Rio Summit in 1992, so he strikes me as an odd example. If you have evidence to demonstrate that he is crooked or biased in favor of someone pulling his strings, I'd be happy to consider evidence of such. (And I can't even begin to figure out what Al Gore's angle would be, other than to be aware of the problem and working to make other people aware of it, too.)

I have definitely noticed the correlation between age and the ability to accept new ideas, though, even among scientists.

In any case, the question is not whether his arguments sound good to you but whether the arguments he makes are sound. They are not, and he has been roundly criticized. That you would ignore that factor strikes me as particularly odd.

(05-12-2016 10:25 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  I have listened to a number of videos by Lindzen, and other videos on Youtube, and they all present very clear and compelling reasons to question the validity of global warming science.

Did you not see the links I posted on Lindzen? Please go back and consider what they say about his "clear and compelling reasons". Please.

(05-12-2016 10:25 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  There have been many scientific "movements" such as Lysenkoism which have been totally wrong.

Really? Do you know what Lysenkoism is? I suggest you look it up. Calling it a "scientific 'movement'" is a ridiculous parody of reality. It was a Soviet Communist ideology pushed by a single man (guess what his name was?) and backed by powerful people who felt his ideas fit their communist ideology. At no point did the scientific community at large agree with Lysenko. In fact, it was in direct opposition to what the scientific consensus was at the time (and remains today).


(05-12-2016 10:25 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  I just feel that in light of the topic of this thread, that it is important to say to some people who question the skepticism of more "mature" critics of global warming, that the views of critics are not "out there" and that the arguments against global warming need to be listened to and considered very carefully, as Giaever says:

As part of the 62nd Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting, Giaever referred to agreement with the evidence of climate change as a "religion" and commented on the significance of the apparent rise in temperature when he stated, "What does it mean that the temperature has gone up 0.8 degrees Kelvin, Probably nothing." Referring to the selection of evidence in his presentation, Giaever stated "I pick and choose when I give this talk just the way the previous speaker (Mario Molina) picked and chose when he gave his talk." Giaever concluded his presentation with a pronouncement: "Is climate change pseudoscience? If I’m going to answer the question, the answer is: absolutely."[15][16]

Giaever repeated his claims in a speech at the same place in 2015,[17] referring to data on global average temperature published amongst others by NASA [18] that show global average surface temperature has risen less than 1K in 140 years,[19] and not risen at all for the years from 2000 - 2014.[20]

A main point of his speech was discussing reliability of the statistical calculation of this temperature with respect to the quite inhomogeneous spatial distribution of measurement locations over the globe, especially the poor coverage in the southern hemisphere.[21] He highlighted the fact evident from the dataset used by NASA for the calculations that there have been only 8 measurement locations on the entire Antarctic continent, which holds the greatest and currently further increasing mass of ice found on earth. He claimed that these facts erode the credibility of accuracy usually attached to these data, notwithstanding that established statistical procedures have been used to cope with that lack of data statistical independence and hence data quality.

Another main point was that observed significant change in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations in a magnitude of 40% during the last 250 years of the industrial age [22] does in no way correlate with the observed temperature change [23] in that time, thus experimentally rendering invalid the claim that rising concentrations of CO2 are the cause of global warming, as stated by the UN led Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and leading climatologists from different countries in a vast amount of publications, and widely believed as a fact in scientific as well as political discussions worldwide.

Giaever, on the base of the facts presented, urged the scientific community to rethink and to reject these claims as baseless or at least not properly founded, and to redirect the immense funds invested in technologies aiming to reduce CO2 emissions to the real problems of humanity. Wiki

So, even though I pointed out that Giaever literally was paid for by the fossil fuel industry, and that we saw them do the same exact thing with a high-profile scientist who denied there was any real problem in defense of the Tetraethyl Lead additive that was making the industry a fortune... and that we saw the tobacco industry do the same thing with the concept of "cigarettes cause cancer even in the people who don't smoke them", hiring scientists to muddy the waters and cast doubt on those who were doing the real work in the field, you're going to think to yourself, "No, this time, this is really something we should doubt because this Giaever guy calls it pseudoscience"... really?

The giant red flag for you should have been when the guy used the term "correlate".

We have been sitting here, for pages, talking about how there are delaying factors (such as the ice melt) which absorb some of the energy being retained by the earth and keep the temps artificially below what they would be if the greenhouse effect was the only variable in the equation. We should expect a delayed response, not a correlated one.

As to the point about 2000-2014, you should be aware that he is outright misstating what the findings are for that period:

"Global surface temperature in 2014 was +0.68°C (~1.2°F) warmer than the 1951-1980 base period in the GISTEMP analysis, making 2014 the warmest year in the period of instrumental data, but the difference from the prior warmest year (2010), less than 0.02°C, is within uncertainty of measurement. The eastern two-thirds of the contiguous United States was persistently cool in 2014, cooler than the 1951-1980 average in all seasons. Record warmth at a time of only marginal El Niño conditions confirms that there is no “hiatus” of global warming, only a moderate slowdown since 2000. Global temperature in 2015 may further alter perceptions. We discuss the prospects for the 2015 global temperature in view of the seeming waning of the current weak El Niño."

http://csas.ei.columbia.edu/2015/01/16/g...-and-2015/

(Bold emphasis my own.)

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
05-12-2016, 12:45 PM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
Oh, yes, and meanwhile....

Melting of Earth's Ice Cover Reaches New High

http://www.worldwatch.org/melting-earths...s-new-high

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
05-12-2016, 04:48 PM (This post was last modified: 05-12-2016 04:52 PM by Aractus.)
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(05-12-2016 03:12 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  Unlike glass it doesnt reflect the energy of infrared light, but rather absorbs it, thus keeping the energy "trapped" in the atmosphere for future release.

Right I'm not disagreeing, I'm just saying this is what happens:

[Image: co2_absorb_emit_infrared_anim_320x240.gif]

It doesn't "trap" it so much as it absorbs some of the energy, and remits some. The remitted infra-red energy is then either absorbed and remitted again, goes back to the earth's surface, or escape into space. I just don't like the term "trap" - more energy is used by the GHGs and less gets released back into space, not really "trapped".

The sole part of the science that I take issue with is the assertion that CO2 can absorb much more IR than it already does. I have not seen clear evidence of this, and as far as I can tell from the science it already absorbs more than 90% of the radiation in its bandwidth. There is some evidence that (somehow) its absorption bandwidth widens as it absorbs more and more radiation, however there is limited evidence about how this will affect its capacity to generate heat with a doubling of atmospheric CO2. When I see clear evidence that shows me that CO2 has the capacity to continue to grow in its absorption despite there appearing to be a lack of suitable IR available for it to do so, then I will of course change my mind in-line with the science.

Anyway that's not so important, because as I've said repeatedly I'm all for curbing CO2 to reduce ocean acidification, just not to curb climate change because I don't think it'll make any difference. If you want me to get behind it for climate then I need to see a cost-benefit analysis and a clear estimation of how much the climate will be cooled by action. I think ocean health is very very important and we need to start doing much more to protect it.

As I said earlier, I believe Australia to be responsible for about 0.01° warming from 2000 to 2100 (no one here has disagreed with that) at the most, and I cannot see any justification in action to reduce just that minuscule amount of warming.

My Blog
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-12-2016, 05:05 PM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(05-12-2016 10:37 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  I also found Lindzen's presentations very well reasoned and I think the assessment of his credibility in Wiki is useful in helping one to decide whether global warming science should be accepted while critics, however reasonable should be derided:

Yes Lindzen was a well respected climatologist. As he's no longer active in research, you'll need to be careful when looking at what he says to determine if it's still relevant. Lindzen believed there's no feedback with water vapour, when we know there is, I however am sceptical as to the extent of the feedback mechanism as it hasn't been demonstrated except through climate modelling.

My Blog
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2016, 03:52 AM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(05-12-2016 04:48 PM)Aractus Wrote:  Right I'm not disagreeing, I'm just saying this is what happens:

[Image: co2_absorb_emit_infrared_anim_320x240.gif]

It doesn't "trap" it so much as it absorbs some of the energy, and remits some. The remitted infra-red energy is then either absorbed and remitted again, goes back to the earth's surface, or escape into space. I just don't like the term "trap" - more energy is used by the GHGs and less gets released back into space, not really "trapped".

I built a neon-tube laser (before you could get cheap diode laser pointers for a dollar, they were rare and expensive things) as part of my 7th grade science fair project. A laser of that sort works by exciting atoms in the tube (in that case, Helium and Neon) so that they emit light in random directions, in between two parallel mirrors. Only the tiny percent of photons that are released in the exact direction of the two mirrors fail to escape the tube... but that tiny percent remains trapped, becoming amplified until a coherent "wave" of light is formed, bouncing between the two mirrors.

I was quite surprised to learn that mirrors don't reflect 100% of the light hitting them, and as a result, a laser beam emits from both ends of the tube... a weak one from the 99% mirror and a stronger one from the 95% mirror, the latter being the end that shot the laser out of the casing so I could do my demonstration on lasers.

Why is this relevant? Because you only show one atom in your graphic. If you realize that the same principle applies to the layer of CO2/CH4/H2O in the atmosphere, where the "stimulating" IR light hits those particles on the way to space, and is then re-emitted in all directions (including all the angles that constitute "back toward the source"), you will realize why it's a problem.

It doesn't matter, in this example, if the layer acts like a 99% mirror (as with greenhouse glass) or only reflects back 1/3 of the energy hitting it (all the directions that constitute "down"), we're still talking about increasing the amount of reflectivity of the molecular "mirror" above us.

As for Lindzen being a respected climate scientist, I'll point out that the same was true for Dr. Robert Kehoe, in the congressional hearings on the subject of whether or not Tetraethyl Lead was dangerous to humans if we burned it in our gasoline.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
06-12-2016, 03:59 AM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(06-12-2016 03:52 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  As for Lindzen being a respected climate scientist, I'll point out that the same was true for Dr. Robert Kehoe, in the congressional hearings on the subject of whether or not Tetraethyl Lead was dangerous to humans if we burned it in our gasoline.

Quote:Using Kehoe's paradigm, Ethyl Corporation was a winner in either situation: if its product would prove to be safe, it would be seen as a responsible party. If, however, its product was unsafe, it would take decades to prove this with certainty in a process that could be prolonged by challenging the methods and results and calling for more data. Meanwhile, production was profitable, and ultimately, the owners would be insulated from responsibility.[4] Kitman indicates that the strategy taken by the lead industry, namely the use of Kehoe's Paradigm, "provided a model for the asbestos, tobacco, pesticide and nuclear power industries, and other(s)... for evading clear evidence that their products are harmful by hiding behind the mantle of scientific uncertainty."[4] Kettering Laboratories under Kehoe's leadership also certified the safety of the fluorinated refrigerant, Freon, "another environmentally insensitive GM patent that would earn hundreds of millions before it was outlawed."[4]

Seems like ol' Kehoe is the model.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
06-12-2016, 12:53 PM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(05-12-2016 04:48 PM)Aractus Wrote:  
(05-12-2016 03:12 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  Unlike glass it doesnt reflect the energy of infrared light, but rather absorbs it, thus keeping the energy "trapped" in the atmosphere for future release.

Right I'm not disagreeing, I'm just saying this is what happens:

[Image: co2_absorb_emit_infrared_anim_320x240.gif]

It doesn't "trap" it so much as it absorbs some of the energy, and remits some. The remitted infra-red energy is then either absorbed and remitted again, goes back to the earth's surface, or escape into space. I just don't like the term "trap" - more energy is used by the GHGs and less gets released back into space, not really "trapped".

The sole part of the science that I take issue with is the assertion that CO2 can absorb much more IR than it already does. I have not seen clear evidence of this, and as far as I can tell from the science it already absorbs more than 90% of the radiation in its bandwidth. There is some evidence that (somehow) its absorption bandwidth widens as it absorbs more and more radiation, however there is limited evidence about how this will affect its capacity to generate heat with a doubling of atmospheric CO2. When I see clear evidence that shows me that CO2 has the capacity to continue to grow in its absorption despite there appearing to be a lack of suitable IR available for it to do so, then I will of course change my mind in-line with the science.

Anyway that's not so important, because as I've said repeatedly I'm all for curbing CO2 to reduce ocean acidification, just not to curb climate change because I don't think it'll make any difference. If you want me to get behind it for climate then I need to see a cost-benefit analysis and a clear estimation of how much the climate will be cooled by action. I think ocean health is very very important and we need to start doing much more to protect it.

As I said earlier, I believe Australia to be responsible for about 0.01° warming from 2000 to 2100 (no one here has disagreed with that) at the most, and I cannot see any justification in action to reduce just that minuscule amount of warming.

That molecule isn't producing energy. It is reflecting IR back to Earth. A layer of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere would therefore work like insulation TRAPPING the outgoing IR and reflecting it back to Earth. Effectively TRAPPING heat.

You are wrong about: 1) how energy works, 2) about how Greenhouse gases work, 3) about how energy is transferred, 4) about what heat is, and 5) why it is called a Greenhouse Gas (it is because of the Greenhouse effect).

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
06-12-2016, 05:07 PM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(05-12-2016 04:48 PM)Aractus Wrote:  Right I'm not disagreeing, I'm just saying this is what happens:

[Image: co2_absorb_emit_infrared_anim_320x240.gif]

It doesn't "trap" it so much as it absorbs some of the energy, and remits some. The remitted infra-red energy is then either absorbed and remitted again, goes back to the earth's surface, or escape into space. I just don't like the term "trap" - more energy is used by the GHGs and less gets released back into space, not really "trapped".

No single photon is trapped. The net amount of energy that is retained by the atosphere is increased. Thus, it is accurate to say that energy is being trapped.

Quote:The sole part of the science that I take issue with is the assertion that CO2 can absorb much more IR than it already does. I have not seen clear evidence of this, and as far as I can tell from the science it already absorbs more than 90% of the radiation in its bandwidth. There is some evidence that (somehow) its absorption bandwidth widens as it absorbs more and more radiation, however there is limited evidence about how this will affect its capacity to generate heat with a doubling of atmospheric CO2. When I see clear evidence that shows me that CO2 has the capacity to continue to grow in its absorption despite there appearing to be a lack of suitable IR available for it to do so, then I will of course change my mind in-line with the science.

Venus called. CO2 is the primary GHG in Venus atmosphere and the reason you can melt lead on the planet's surface. That's pretty compelling evidence for CO2's IR trapping capacity well above and beyond what we are currently experiencing.

Quote:Anyway that's not so important, because as I've said repeatedly I'm all for curbing CO2 to reduce ocean acidification, just not to curb climate change because I don't think it'll make any difference.

Your opinion is as unimportant as it is wrong.

Quote:As I said earlier, I believe Australia to be responsible for about 0.01° warming from 2000 to 2100 (no one here has disagreed with that) at the most, and I cannot see any justification in action to reduce just that minuscule amount of warming.

Despite its negligible population, Australia ranks 17th of the top 20 highest CO2 emitters (2011 data). You pump out almost as much CO2 as Indonesia. On a per capita basis you are second, right behind Saudi Arabia. You beat out the USA for fuck sake.

If everybody else adopted this "I'm not a significant part of the problem!" attitude because they emit less CO2 than Australia then roughly 25% of the world's emissions would go unchecked. Needless to say, the big emitters would rightly view your slacking as unfair and do every bit as little as you, leading to 100% of the emissions going unchecked.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Paleophyte's post
06-12-2016, 05:14 PM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(06-12-2016 05:07 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  
(05-12-2016 04:48 PM)Aractus Wrote:  Right I'm not disagreeing, I'm just saying this is what happens:

[Image: co2_absorb_emit_infrared_anim_320x240.gif]

It doesn't "trap" it so much as it absorbs some of the energy, and remits some. The remitted infra-red energy is then either absorbed and remitted again, goes back to the earth's surface, or escape into space. I just don't like the term "trap" - more energy is used by the GHGs and less gets released back into space, not really "trapped".

No single photon is trapped. The net amount of energy that is retained by the atosphere is increased. Thus, it is accurate to say that energy is being trapped.

Quote:The sole part of the science that I take issue with is the assertion that CO2 can absorb much more IR than it already does. I have not seen clear evidence of this, and as far as I can tell from the science it already absorbs more than 90% of the radiation in its bandwidth. There is some evidence that (somehow) its absorption bandwidth widens as it absorbs more and more radiation, however there is limited evidence about how this will affect its capacity to generate heat with a doubling of atmospheric CO2. When I see clear evidence that shows me that CO2 has the capacity to continue to grow in its absorption despite there appearing to be a lack of suitable IR available for it to do so, then I will of course change my mind in-line with the science.

Venus called. CO2 is the primary GHG in Venus atmosphere and the reason you can melt lead on the planet's surface. That's pretty compelling evidence for CO2's IR trapping capacity well above and beyond what we are currently experiencing.

Quote:Anyway that's not so important, because as I've said repeatedly I'm all for curbing CO2 to reduce ocean acidification, just not to curb climate change because I don't think it'll make any difference.

Your opinion is as unimportant as it is wrong.

Quote:As I said earlier, I believe Australia to be responsible for about 0.01° warming from 2000 to 2100 (no one here has disagreed with that) at the most, and I cannot see any justification in action to reduce just that minuscule amount of warming.

Despite its negligible population, Australia ranks 17th of the top 20 highest CO2 emitters (2011 data). You pump out almost as much CO2 as Indonesia. On a per capita basis you are second, right behind Saudi Arabia. You beat out the USA for fuck sake.

If everybody else adopted this "I'm not a significant part of the problem!" attitude because they emit less CO2 than Australia then roughly 25% of the world's emissions would go unchecked. Needless to say, the big emitters would rightly view your slacking as unfair and do every bit as little as you, leading to 100% of the emissions going unchecked.

Three cheers Thumbsup

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2016, 06:41 PM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(06-12-2016 03:52 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Why is this relevant? Because you only show one atom in your graphic. If you realize that the same principle applies to the layer of CO2/CH4/H2O in the atmosphere, where the "stimulating" IR light hits those particles on the way to space, and is then re-emitted in all directions (including all the angles that constitute "back toward the source"), you will realize why it's a problem.

Well I did say it's re-emitted in all directions several times. That has to be the cases because airborne molecules are constantly moving, and they don't instantly re-emit. So yeah we agree 100% that the re-emission direction is random, which is not made clear in the animation.

Quote:As for Lindzen being a respected climate scientist, I'll point out that the same was true for Dr. Robert Kehoe, in the congressional hearings on the subject of whether or not Tetraethyl Lead was dangerous to humans if we burned it in our gasoline.

I think I should re-state what I said earlier. I disagree with Lindzen that there is no forcing. He's now retired, and therefore his work will no longer be current and suitable for reference in this debate. He is simply a good example of how sceptics are not "deniers". He reached a different conclusion than many of his peers - and there's nothing wrong with that. In fact if no one is doing that in scientific study then there is a problem, you might be right and you might be wrong but you need to reach independent conclusions from independent research.

(06-12-2016 05:07 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  Venus called. CO2 is the primary GHG in Venus atmosphere and the reason you can melt lead on the planet's surface. That's pretty compelling evidence for CO2's IR trapping capacity well above and beyond what we are currently experiencing.

Venus is much closer to the sun. The nature of the greenhouse effect on Venus is far more theoretical than the nature of the GHE on Earth where we have a much clearer idea of how much the GHE affect surface temperature. Not that I'm disagreeing with the science, I think it did experience runaway climate change, but I don't think it's comparable to Earth.

Quote:If everybody else adopted this "I'm not a significant part of the problem!" attitude because they emit less CO2 than Australia then roughly 25% of the world's emissions would go unchecked. Needless to say, the big emitters would rightly view your slacking as unfair and do every bit as little as you, leading to 100% of the emissions going unchecked.

Money is better spent on other pertinent environmental concerns than a 0.001° per decade contribution to climate change.

My Blog
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: