 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Global warming - the myth
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth From: GUEST,lox Date: 09 Mar 07 - 10:33 AM Scrump - you've actually hit the nail squarely on the head. Scientists can only do research when they have money. The people who give scientists money for research generally have one or both of two ulterior motives - ... can you guess what those are? ... right! ... more money and military power! Most civil technology is based on civilian applications of military technology. And most civil technology is designed for profit. Most civil technology is designed to last for a finite time after which it must be replaced - it's true - they don't make 'em like they used to and that was when they built 'em to last. This is to ensure the fluid continuity and growth of the consumer economy. (people don't need to buy washing machines if they already have them, until they become unserviceable) Back to the point, Scientists are not the objective open minded free thinkers that they once were. Their need to put bread on the table requires them to do specific research for specific purposes - those of the company they work for. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth From: Wolfgang Date: 09 Mar 07 - 10:47 AM Scientists are not the objective open minded free thinkers that they once were. (Lox) But in your 09 Mar 07 - 09:36 AM post you said we should trust them, Lox. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth From: beardedbruce Date: 09 Mar 07 - 10:50 AM You can trust the ones who get their funding from the "right" sources. "Scientists can only do research when they have money. The people who give scientists money for research generally have one or both of two ulterior motives " If they have the ulterior motive that you do, then it is ok... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth From: Bill D Date: 09 Mar 07 - 11:46 AM I saw the BBC report somewhere....and I saw replies to it. That theory was put forward by ONE man...(from Russia, I believe)...and there are already many, many experts disagreeing with him and saying that his analysis is flawed. Now, it seems to me that BELIEVING one guy who just happens to fit your views is just wishful thinking.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth From: GUEST,lox Date: 09 Mar 07 - 11:48 AM Sorry, passion led to hasty choice of words. The point remains intact though. There is no money for ethical investment. The knowledge exists to build green technology, but the resources to build it aren't there. CO2 retains heat!!!!! Should have said "science is not the objective field of study it once was" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth From: Bill D Date: 09 Mar 07 - 11:49 AM And, it is almost irrelevant whether the sun...or cow farts....is partially respobsible. The fact remains that WE are contributing way too much to the problem and need to change out habits. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth From: beardedbruce Date: 09 Mar 07 - 11:58 AM Bill, My statement was "Date: 09 Mar 07 - 07:14 AM 1. Global warming is real. 2. The probable cause is fluctuation in the solar output- Or do you think that the CO2 here on earth is what is changing the Red Spot on Jupiter? 3. This change happens on a repeated basis." For supporting arguments I submit Wolfgang's charts, the article on Jupiter, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html , http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age_031208.html , http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/msss/camera/images/CO2_Science_rel/index.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth From: beardedbruce Date: 09 Mar 07 - 12:01 PM I also pointed out "Reducing pollution, of all types, is a good and worthwhile thing- Just don't think it will stop global warming. What we SHOULD be doing is dealing with the effects, not debating the cause. When will we start to relocate those in areas likely to be flooded? When do we take steps to preserve the species threatened? As long as the belief that we can stop global warming persists, humans will take none of the steps needed to DEAL with it. " "We can DEAL with the effects, by moving people and species. We CANNOT PREVENT them! Or are YOU going to act like Canute, and command the tides to stop? " |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth From: Bill D Date: 09 Mar 07 - 12:21 PM And as you may have noted in more than one thread in the last 2-3 years, *I* have never claimed that we can 'stop' any huge, planet-wide process. What we can do is limit our contribution to some of the worse ones. In the process we can ease other problems. In the meantime, we need to study as carefully as possible what the actual causes are, so that we may both plan and prevent as much as possible. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth From: Lonesome EJ Date: 09 Mar 07 - 12:28 PM From the April 2007 Atlantic, Greg Easterbrook states the following... "Why, ultimately, should nations act to control greenhouse gases? One reason is that the cost of control is likely to be much lower than the cost of rebuilding the World. Coastal cities could be abandoned and rebuilt inland, for instance, but improving energy efficiency and reducing greenhouse gas emissions in order to stave off rising sea levels should be far more cost effective." Makes sense to me. The National Academy of Sciences, hardly a liberal think-tank, has come down on the side of the fact of Global Warming, and of human-produced greenhouse gases having a significant impact on the phenomenon. Forgive me if I give more credibility to their findings than the posts of beardedbruce and a BBC science/opinion documentary. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth From: beardedbruce Date: 09 Mar 07 - 12:32 PM Bill, The reduction of CO2 is being presented as a CURE for global warming- After it fails to stop it, how many people will say "You lied about CO2, why should we believe you about ( insert attempt to DEAL with the effects of GW)?" IF there were ANY plans being proposed about DEALING with the known effects, instead of just pretending that the Kyoto Accords will make the issue go away, THEN I might agree with you. Yes, we should do what we can to reduce the human contribution- BUT NOT AT THE COST of dealing with the real problem. And that is what the people presently crying wolf are doing. They ignore the human costs and effect, and talk only about the contribution of industry to what would STILL be happening with no industry at all. Just look at the Viking colony in Greenland, for what happens when you ignore climactic change. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth From: beardedbruce Date: 09 Mar 07 - 12:37 PM "One reason is that the cost of control is likely to be much lower than the cost of rebuilding the World. Coastal cities could be abandoned and rebuilt inland, for instance, but improving energy efficiency and reducing greenhouse gas emissions in order to stave off rising sea levels should be far more cost effective." Please note - the claim is that the control of greenhouse gases will REMOVE the need for dealing with the consequences. THAT is what I object to- the charts presented by Wolfgand, and the data on OTHER planets lead me to think we will still have to deal with those increased seal levels. - But without the industry to be able to support the effort. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth From: GUEST Date: 09 Mar 07 - 12:50 PM "The reduction of CO2 is being presented as a CURE for global warming-" No it isn't That's like saying that not punching someone in the face is being presented as a cure for their headache. And please folks: we aren't trying to stop global warming - that would kill us. We are trying to stop humans from ENHANCING the effects of the greenhouse effect, thus contributing to the realistically damaging consequences of ENHANCED global warming. Get with the terminology at least. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth From: Ebbie Date: 09 Mar 07 - 12:51 PM Fareed Zakaria in the February 17 issue of Newsweek believes that even if we start immediately to take measures to mitigate the warming that is already occurring it will take decades before greenhouse gases will begin to diminish. He thinks that the only alternative we have is to begin - at the same time that we work on reducing the gases - an adaptation process to live in a "drier, hotter climate". He quotes Frances Cairncross of the British Association for the Advancement of Science as saying: "This may involve, for instance, developing new crops, constructing flood defenses, setting different building regulations or banning close to sea level." She also pointed out that adaptation processes could move forward fast. "Unlike plans to slow down global warming, which require massive and simultaneous international efforts, adaptation efforts can be pursued by individual countries, states, cities and localities." One thought that keeps recurring to me is that it is almost irrelevant what process started this warming. I think that #1, we have to recognize and address the things that we are doing that exacerbate its effects and #2, if we want to continue to live in an inhabitable world we have to take the steps to see to it that we can. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth From: GUEST,lox Date: 09 Mar 07 - 12:52 PM "Please note - the claim is that the control of greenhouse gases will REMOVE the need for dealing with the consequences" who ever claimed that? PS last thread was mine too |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth From: GUEST,lox Date: 09 Mar 07 - 12:54 PM I mean the last GUEST post not the last thread |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth From: pdq Date: 09 Mar 07 - 12:56 PM Here is a list of the ten most populous countries estimated for year 2050:1. India - 1,628,000,000 (1.628 billion) 2. China - 1,437,000,000 (1.437 billion) 3. United States - 420,000,000 (420 million) 4. Nigeria - 299,000,000 5. Pakistan - 295,000,000 6. Indonesia - 285,000,000 7. Brazil - 260,000,000 8. Bangladesh - 231,000,000 9. Democratic Republic of Congo - 183,000,000 10. Ethiopia - 145,000,000 The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Kyoto exempt all of these countries except one. Can you guess which one? Take all the time you need. This is a no-grade class. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth From: beardedbruce Date: 09 Mar 07 - 12:56 PM Thank you, Ebbie. Guest, you miss the point. If we reduce the CO2 emmisions to nothing, the increased solar flux will still cause global warming. Please look at the plots that Wolfgang referred to. We will still need to deal with the effects of global warming. We will still have to take all the steps that are being stated "will not be needed once we reduce CO2 emissions". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth From: beardedbruce Date: 09 Mar 07 - 01:01 PM Read the post of Lonesome EJ - PM Date: 09 Mar 07 - 12:28 PM and my reply. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth From: GUEST,petr Date: 09 Mar 07 - 02:47 PM how many of those countries have been spewing pollution and co2 for the past 150+ years, and enjoying the benefits of economic development. guess which one. the developing countries are right when they say they dont want to bear the burden for a problem that was CAUSED by the developed world. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth From: beardedbruce Date: 09 Mar 07 - 02:53 PM "problem that was CAUSED by the developed world. " I know some here think that the sun rises and sets especially for them, but the trends shown in the plots presented by Wolfgang would indicate the PROBLEM is more than just the CO2 emmissions of industrial nations. Or will someone propose that there was excessive industry between 1000 and 1200 CE? Or would it be 800 to 1000 that was such a greenhouse gas producing time? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth From: GUEST,lox Date: 09 Mar 07 - 04:52 PM OK I'm not too busy now to engage properly.. BeardedBruce, where in wolfgangs graphs does it refer to the composition of the climate or the temperature of the sun in correlation with those graphs? And are gardners greenhouses a phenomenon brought about by solar activity too? It's the heat that creates the greenhouses, not the greenhouses that trap the heat is it? The reality is that, as in every field of scientific study, there are many variables. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is one of those, and a major factor affecting the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere is pollution due to the burning of fossil fuels. I'd expect a rocket scientist not to find that too challenging, nor to be too reliant on second rate documentaries that can't get onto the main BBC terrestrial channels to support his arguments. I seem to remember these ideas first being aired by saudi scientists. hmmmm - no bias there! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth From: Richard Bridge Date: 09 Mar 07 - 04:53 PM Bruce, (incidentally, you said something on another recent thread that I agreed with, but I can't remember what it was) can you clarify why you say the current warning (a) is not being caused by man-made pollution? (b) is being caused by increased solar output? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth From: dianavan Date: 09 Mar 07 - 05:42 PM I may be getting this wrong so be sure to read for yourself. It seems that in order to extract the last little bit of oil, they will now store CO2 (from industrial sites) in holding tanks under the ground and then pump it into the earth which will force more oil up, out of the ground. Ol companies like the idea and think it will work but they don't want to pay for it. If this new technology is to be developed, the taxpayers are expected to foot the bill. (Heard this on the local news last night). " Oil production is slowing as many of the North Sea wells mature, and carbon dioxide pumped down the hole can loosen up and release the remaining oil." http://www.technologyreview.com/Biztech/17892/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth From: Bill D Date: 09 Mar 07 - 05:49 PM well, Bruce...I see I already 3rd or 4th in line to say that " reduction of CO2 is being presented as a CURE.." is not accurate. Where do you find anyone of substance actually claiming that? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth From: GUEST,petr Date: 09 Mar 07 - 07:45 PM well the majority of the worlds top scientists agree that the increase in co2 and other ghgs is man-made and that the result is increased warming....but ok lets assume we dont know the cause of the increased c02 in the atmosphere (which btw is higher than at any time in the past 600,000 years) we can do two things.. reduce c02 and other ghg to try to mitigate the effect.. and no doubt there will be some cost to the economy (and possibly increased investment and growth in renewables - such as there has been in Europe over the last few years) or we can do nothing about c02 emissions and if the scientific consensus is correct the result will be global catastrophe. choosing reduction over inaction is a no-brainer.. we do it all the time in business.. Its called insurance. (also a side benefit is that it frees us from oil dependence from unstable dictatorships ) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth From: GUEST,R. Frost Date: 09 Mar 07 - 07:47 PM Some say the world will end in fireI go with those who favor fire. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 09 Mar 07 - 09:44 PM David Keys has done some interesting work, well worth reading. See the 2 links to the text of the TV doco below. Catastrophe: An Investigation into the Origins of Modern Civilization - David Keys From Wiki "The theory belongs to David Keys. With dogged detective work he has pieced together the story of an ancient catastrophe. By bringing together evidence from contemporary eye witness accounts and tree rings (ice deposits too - Robin) - he has developed a picture of a lethal climate change that began in the year 535AD and affected most of the world for the next ten to twenty years. He found three possible causes for the huge amounts of dust, ash and water vapour that must have been hurled into the atmosphere to block out the sun-a comet, an asteroid or a volcano. " The most reasonable conclusion he reached - based on all the evidence, including Chinese ancient reports of a loud noise coming from that direction, was the eruption. Some useful text of a recent documentary based on his work - Part 1 - Part 2 You might want to read all of this before commenting, and most especially read past and don't waste everybody else's time just parroting the bit that says "However, Keys and Wohletz' ideas are not widely accepted at this point." It is true that mankind is not the ONLY source of CO2 and other gases into the air. BTW, the southern oceans are sucking up CO2 at a greater amount than expected, because unexpected 'deep mixing' is taking place there - this not necessarily a GOOD THING - as the acidity rises, many species important to the food chain will die off. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth From: Ebbie Date: 10 Mar 07 - 09:07 PM "The draft document by the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change focuses on global warming's effects and is the second in a series of four being issued this year. Written and reviewed by more than 1,000 scientists from dozens of countries, it still must be edited by government officials." Who'll be all smiles tonight.? This second edition of the four in the series will be presented to the US government in June 2007. And g.whiz dubya will chuckle. David Letterman has a recurring feature on Late Night that he calls 'Inappropriate Smiles by President Bush'. Asinine and revealing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth From: Bill D Date: 11 Mar 07 - 10:56 AM Well, we get large groups of internationally respected scientists assuring us that this warming trend IS indeed happening, and that WE are one major factor in the equation.....and we get one or two guys who continue to assert otherwise.....and there will be lots of folks who grasp at those naysayers reports and refuse to cooperate because it affects their business, stock market planning, religious beliefs or vacation plans. I, for one, am worried about what will happen when sea level rises in places like Bangladesh and Indonesia and water is scarce in other places. All those folks who can't live where they used to are gonna want to live somewhere else. I can't predict the minute details of the consequences of that situation, but I'm reasonably sure we won't like it. I CAN predict that *IF* the more pessimistic predictions happen, the world population would need to reduced by a factor of 50-80% for an indefinite period. There are sane, humane ways to reduce population....and there are the ways that would be employed in emergencies. Who, me? Cynical? naawwwwwww.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 11 Mar 07 - 08:50 PM Bill, so you are saying that armies are not just for waving handies then? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth From: Bill D Date: 11 Mar 07 - 09:35 PM Is that what I said? Me thinks thou dost read between the lines too much.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth From: Barry Finn Date: 12 Mar 07 - 05:50 AM It'll be OK Bill. We'll die off fast enough when the time comes, & the rest we can kill. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 12 Mar 07 - 05:59 AM "Do unto others. but shoot first!" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth From: Dazbo Date: 12 Mar 07 - 06:18 AM "Scientists are not the objective open minded free thinkers that they once were". (Lox) Can someone please point me to this utopian time when scientists were objective free-thinkers? The history of scientists and science is littered with numerous examples of scientists who've derided other scientists works and vociferously promoted their own, even in the face of all evidence. Scientists are just as human as the rest of us and just as liable to be blinkered zealots as open minded and free thinking (in fact I'd suggest scientists as a group are probably more blinkered than most as they have their 'evidence' to back up their stance) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth From: Bunnahabhain Date: 12 Mar 07 - 07:29 AM Scientists very rarely change their minds. It's simply that the old ones die, and with them so does the support for old theories which have been superseded. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 12 Mar 07 - 08:08 AM I saw the programme. The scientists were eminent in the field, and did not work for oil industry. They suggested that money was much more available for global warming research than other fields, and that if it was disproved thousands of scientists would face hardship. They said that warming caused CO2 levels to rise, as it makes oceans less soluble to the gas, and showed that the rise in CO2 did follow and not lead the temp. rise. They pointed out that the altitude that warming occurs is wrong for CO2 cause. They said that CO2 only forms 0.03 of 1% of air, and the fossil fuel proportion is very much smaller still. Water vapour is an infinitely more important greenhouse gas. Who knows? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth From: beardedbruce Date: 12 Mar 07 - 02:15 PM "Many -- not all -- of those effects can be prevented, the report says, if within a generation the world slows down its emissions of carbon dioxide and if the level of greenhouse gases sticking around in the atmosphere stabilizes. If that's the case, the report says "most major impacts on human welfare would be avoided; but some major impacts on ecosystems are likely to occur."" http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/03/10/climate.report.ap/index.html THIS is what I believe is the problem- The above statement is being treated as true without any evidence, in spite of the consequences of it being in error. I believe that the article is probably correct in its assessment of the impact of global warming: It is the idea that we can PREVENT it by even draconian curtailing of green house gas emissions that I find unsupported in this, or any other report. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth From: bubblyrat Date: 12 Mar 07 - 02:29 PM We used to have a neat way of getting rid of surplus CO2----It was called the Amazon Rainforest. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth From: beardedbruce Date: 12 Mar 07 - 02:35 PM And there was no vegetation during the Cretaceous, Eocene, Miocene,and Pliocene periods? The FACT of the increase in solar radiation will not go away, regardless of our efforts to remove GHG from the atmosphere. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth From: Andy Jackson Date: 12 Mar 07 - 05:10 PM In hindsight (that other underrated science) I should of course had titled this thread along the lines of "human production of greenhouse gas causes global warming , the myth". But I didn't, ho hum. It was an instant reaction to the fact that I was not alone in my firm beliefs. The pompous idea that humans could affect the world's climate I have always thought to be fatuous.Our atmosphere is vast and the volume of the sea mind boggling. Global warming is a fact of course. But also a fact is that ice sheets have always melted at the poles but we didn't have the cameras to take such dramatic pictures. The global temerature has always gone up and down in a very slow cycle AND CO2 FOLLOWS IT - Not the other way around. Accepting this would mean governments all over the world would have to find other ways of raising / extorting money from us all. Having spent all my life in media news I know first hand how a little scientific knowledge in the hands of a journalist is a dangerous thing. Anyone remember the "Great Breakthrough Discovery" on Nationwide when a reporter discovered you can get electricity from an orange if you stick two dissimilar metal wires in it. I fell about when I was asked to connect it to a light bulb to demonstrate this free electricity. It is the same mentality that has hitched onto the greenhouse gas theory. Ah but I must be wrong, 'cos you read the opposite in the paper. Thankfully I am sure there are many out there just queuing up to correct my errant thinking. Andy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 12 Mar 07 - 08:33 PM Yes, global warming triggered by human activity is a myth. And cigarettes don't cause cancer, and the holocaust never happened... ............................... As for the science involved in this, I'm reminded of the argument that since most road accidents involve people who haven't been drinking, there's no point in trying to stop people driving when they've been drinking. It's very likely true that increased temperature does cause an increase in carbon dioxide. But that just makes things even more critical. It's as certain as certain can be that increased carbon dioxide, from whatever source, does cause increased temperatures. If a consequence of the rise in temperature causing is that still more carbon dioxide is released, so leading to still greater increases in temperature, we're in even worse trouble than ever. When you're in a hole the thing to do is stop digging - even if the hole was there before you fell into it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 13 Mar 07 - 04:38 AM "They said that CO2 only forms 0.03 of 1% of air, and the fossil fuel proportion is very much smaller still. Water vapour is an infinitely more important greenhouse gas." Well it has been found that the percentage of Oxygen (O2) is decreasing. Logical, if the amount of CO2 is rising.... :-) Now, if you want to panic... :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth From: Bagpuss Date: 13 Mar 07 - 05:41 AM Some good links with comment on the programme: http://www.realclimate.org/ http://www.badscience.net/ (scroll down for 2 items in the blog), and the forum is also an excellent read. In one thread someone points out that the graphs used in the programme have been distorted. This article is particularly good: http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/DamonLaut2004.pdf |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth From: Bagpuss Date: 13 Mar 07 - 05:45 AM On the final link, look particularly at the graph on page 2. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth From: beardedbruce Date: 13 Mar 07 - 06:43 AM Re the article in EOS, http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/DamonLaut2004.pdf The authors only use the solar cycle length based on sunspot minima and maxima for a variation of solar flux. There is NO consideration of total solar flux change over time, which appears to be cyclic over a much longer baseline, nor the effects of that increased solar flux upon the other planets, as has been shown by climactic change on both Mars and Jupiter. Nor is there any consideration of data before 1860, or after 1990. Thus, the conclusion that "the current event is unique and obviously of anthropogenic origin" is neither proven nor reasonable to assume correct. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth From: beardedbruce Date: 13 Mar 07 - 06:56 AM Sort of like measuring the light from just before dawn to sunrise, and then declaring that the increase of light is caused by human efforts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth From: Bagpuss Date: 13 Mar 07 - 07:02 AM And see whar Carl Wunsch makes of his own participation in the programme: http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/channel4response |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth From: beardedbruce Date: 13 Mar 07 - 07:10 AM " for example, I thought more attention should be paid to sea level rise, which is ongoing and unstoppable and carries a real threat of acceleration," "The scientific subjects described in the email, and in the previous and subsequent telephone conversations, are complicated, worthy of exploration, debate, and an educational effort with the public. Hence my willingness to participate." "I spent hours in the interview describing many of the problems of understanding the ocean in climate change, and the ways in which some of the more dramatic elements get exaggerated in the media relative to more realistic, potentially truly catastrophic issues, such as the implications of the oncoming sea level rise. As I made clear, both in the preliminary discussions, and in the interview itself, I believe that global warming is a very serious threat that needs equally serious discussion" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth From: beardedbruce Date: 13 Mar 07 - 07:11 AM btw... 100! |
