Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!

These ads will disappear if you register on the forum

Photo

Climate Change News and Discussions

climate change AGW global warming environment denialism

  • Please log in to reply
197 replies to this topic

#1
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Nadsat Brat

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,155 posts
  • LocationAnur Margidda

Edit: Since there's now a dedicated library of links in the History subforum, this can now officially become a "Climate Change News and Discussions" thread. So ignore the first few sentences in this post.

 

No, don't actually post news stories here as if it were a News and Discussion thread. This is the ammunition room. Here, we post links that point to research proving climate change. Whenever you come across someone saying it's not happening or that bad, just mass post these links.

Just... read 'em first, y'know?


Whenever you come across a denier raising the usual points, come to this little library of resources. We always say 97% of scientists agree on this. Why not show their papers proving such?

Many come from here.
http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
http://climatecrocks.com/
Whatever you do, don't link to this site directly. Use their sources.
And if any one says these are all part of a grand liberal conspiracy, you got 'em— they only believe what they want to believe, so obviously you won't break them anyway.

I'll start.

NASA links

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
http://www.nasa.gov/...ge-2015-report/
http://www.nasa.gov/...owest-on-record
http://www.nasa.gov/...antarctic-gains

Data

Temperature rising
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
http://www.cru.uea.a...e3-124ac76680c5
http://www.cru.uea.a...ta/temperature/
http://www.ucsusa.or...ml#.VUPY7Y5VhHw

Sea Ice Melting
http://nsidc.org/new...dscontinue.html

Sea level rise
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

Antarctic gains ice, sea ice declines
http://www.nasa.gov/...antarctic-gains

No scientific body of national or international standing rejected the findings of human-induced effects on climate change
http://dpa.aapg.org/...imatechange.pdf


Solar Minimum; the explanation that the sun is causing warming is wholly wrong
http://science.nasa....epsolarminimum/
http://www.ucsusa.or...ml#.VUPbVY5VhHw

NOAA Climate Extremes Index
http://www.ncdc.noaa...remes/cei/graph

Global weather balloon data
http://cdiac.esd.orn...ell/angell.html

"Global Warming is Al Gore's Scam"
Gore was born in the 1890s?
http://web.lemoyne.e.../Arrhenius.html

"Global Cooling in the '70s"
Yes, by one book.
http://www.wmconnoll...eage/ponte.html
http://www.dailyclim...ooling-reporter
Also, when scientists predicted an ice age, they were talking about 10,000 years from now.


"It snowed today"
http://www.nasa.gov/...te_weather.html

"In fact, no scientist believes in climate change"
http://blog.ucsusa.o...4668.1430509127

http://iopscience.io...9326/8/2/024024

http://tigger.uic.ed...Doran_final.pdf

http://www.pnas.org/.../12107.abstract

http://link.springer...0584-013-0704-9

http://www.lpl.arizo...s-chapter-4.pdf


"Most papers say it's not happening"
http://desmogblog.co...e-one-pie-chart
13,950 vs 24?

"Skeptics driven by the logic of common, every day Americans, not rich elites or the oil industry"
http://scottvalentin...l.302183828.pdf

http://af.reuters.co...annel=0&sp=true

Common denier trick: you can cherry pick the hottest year earlier in recent decades (1998, when a strong el nino meant a hot year) and compare it to the coolest year in recent decades (2008, when a strong la nina meant a cool year)

"Stopped warming in 1998"
http://www.skeptical...ped-in-1998.htm

"Liberal lefties use newspeak to hide their agenda; global warming becomes climate change"
Found this

It was Frank Lutz, the famous GOP pollster/operative, who in 2003 championed the use of "climate change" rather than global warming, because it sounds so much gentler and non-threatening. It's was the softest term available for catastrophic climate disruption (the more accurate term). "We" didn't change it. You speak of trust. Who deserves the trust of average people? The pollsters, paid liars, PR agents, front groups, and shills? Frank Lutz wrote: "It’s time for us to start talking about “climate change” instead of global warming and “conservation” instead of preservation. 1) “Climate change” is less frightening than “global warming”. As one focus group participant noted, climate change “sounds like you’re going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.” While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge."



General Thoughts
http://www2.sunysuff...al_cooling.html
http://www.eia.gov/o...o/chapter1.html
http://thebulletin.o...lking-about7261
http://larvatusprode...9/08/the-rules/ (warning: funny)
http://www.informati...-the-consensus/ (graph showing gap between denialists and consensus)

"Climategate" and "Hide the Decline"
https://skepticaltea...ionist-tactics/
http://www.realclima...1/the-cru-hack/
http://www.skeptical...ails-hacked.htm
http://www.skeptical...limategate.html
http://www.factcheck...12/climategate/
http://scienceblogs....ll-you-ever-ne/

Koch-funded Climate Change Denier Turns And Says It's Real
http://www.csmonitor...was-wrong-video


Please pick up from here, if you may.


  • wjfox, illykitty, Maximus and 3 others like this
Nobody's gonna take my drone, I'm gonna fly miles far too high!
Nobody gonna beat my drone, it's gonna shoot into the sky!

#2
wjfox

wjfox

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,966 posts
  • LocationLondon

Images of change – before and after:

 

http://climate.nasa.gov/state_of_flux

 

Not all of these pictures are of climate change, but there's a lot of interesting stuff there (302 pics in all).


  • Yuli Ban likes this

#3
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Nadsat Brat

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,155 posts
  • LocationAnur Margidda

NEW!!
 


 

There's no evidence that fracking produces earthquakes.

How about 13 links to peer-reviewed papers that contradict your preposterous assertion. Is that enough?

 

 
http://www.bssaonlin...1/01/0120140168
http://www.sciencema...nt/341/6142/164
http://onlinelibrary...062047/abstract
http://onlinelibrary....50707/abstract
http://www.sciencedi...264817213000846
http://onlinelibrary....50247/abstract
https://www.zotero.o...temKey/XBQKCWM6
http://www.sciencedi...920410513001241
http://onlinelibrary...010612/abstract
http://geology.gsapu.../03/26/G34045.1
http://www.sciencema...95/448.abstract
http://www.sciencedi...195925514000766
http://www.sciencedi...012821X13004007
 
Let's keep fightin' the good fight!


  • wjfox likes this
Nobody's gonna take my drone, I'm gonna fly miles far too high!
Nobody gonna beat my drone, it's gonna shoot into the sky!

#4
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Nadsat Brat

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,155 posts
  • LocationAnur Margidda
More frackin' links incoming!

http://earthquake.us...search/induced/
http://onlinelibrary...010612/abstract
http://www.usgs.gov/...ories/9833/3287
Data on significant Oklahoma earthquakes:
http://earthquake.us...EQsBarGraph.png
General FAQ:
http://www.usgs.gov/...onomy/term/9833
Nobody's gonna take my drone, I'm gonna fly miles far too high!
Nobody gonna beat my drone, it's gonna shoot into the sky!

#5
wjfox

wjfox

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,966 posts
  • LocationLondon

2015 looks like being a scorcher!

 

Latest global average temperature from NASA GISS –

 

https://tamino.wordp...re-data-update/

 

 

LIevvPb.jpg


  • Yuli Ban likes this

#6
wjfox

wjfox

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,966 posts
  • LocationLondon

Glaciers in part of Antarctic thought to be stable suddenly melting at a massive rate, say scientists

Thursday 21 May 2015

A sudden and massive melting of glaciers in a part of the Antarctic that was thought to be relatively stable has been detected by satellites monitoring the polar ice sheet, scientists have said.

Many glaciers in the Southern Antarctic Peninsula have become unstable since 2009, releasing vast amounts of ice into the sea equivalent to about 56bn tonnes of meltwater each year, the researchers said.

Multiple glaciers along a stretch of coastline 750km long have suddenly and consistently started to shed ice into the ocean at a constant rate of 60 cubic km or 55 trillion litres of water each year, they report in the journal Science.

http://www.independe...s-10268053.html
 


  • Yuli Ban likes this

#7
joe00uk

joe00uk

    Marxist-Leninist Futurist ☭

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,543 posts
  • LocationUK

2015 looks like being a scorcher!

 

Latest global average temperature from NASA GISS –

 

https://tamino.wordp...re-data-update/

 

 

LIevvPb.jpg

 

B-b-bu- m-muh hiatus! Muh no glibbil wermin in 17 yerrs!


  • wjfox and Yuli Ban like this

"The Proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains." - Karl Marx
"A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentleso temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another."  - Mao Zedong


#8
wjfox

wjfox

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,966 posts
  • LocationLondon

An excellent series of graphs (all denied with ferocious ignorance by the Right, of course...).

 

http://www.bloomberg...ming-the-world/

 

Seriously – how can any sane, rational person look at these graphs and deny what's happening?

 



#9
Kemotx

Kemotx

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 505 posts
  • LocationWrocław

An excellent series of graphs (all denied with ferocious ignorance by the Right, of course...).

 

http://www.bloomberg...ming-the-world/

 

Seriously – how can any sane, rational person look at these graphs and deny what's happening?

 

Perhaps because the graph (especially the one above your post) shows what looks like a hiatus between 1940-60. They think the same is happening since 1997.



#10
wjfox

wjfox

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,966 posts
  • LocationLondon

 

Perhaps because the graph (especially the one above your post) shows what looks like a hiatus between 1940-60. They think the same is happening since 1997.

 

Because of sulphate aerosols (which have a cooling effect). These were subsequently reduced by the clean air acts of the 1970s.

 

http://www.newscient...se-warming.html

 

This point is so basic and well-known, yet it keeps being brought up by deniers who just cannot and will not accept facts and reality.

 

 

 

 

They think the same is happening since 1997.

 

 

No, "they" don't. The climate scientists, that is. Only the deniers do.

 

NASA: 2015 is the hottest year on record (so far)



#11
Kemotx

Kemotx

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 505 posts
  • LocationWrocław

^Thanks for that aerosol thing. Hmm, didn't knew that one before. So it turns out there was a period of cooling; I thought that the overall temperature was still increasing durning that period. And yes, I know that only deniers (and perhaps people not interested in the subject) think there's a hiatus since 1997. I'm not a denier since 2014. (I might however disagree about the impact of GW in future.)



#12
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Nadsat Brat

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,155 posts
  • LocationAnur Margidda
What happened just after 1900 that caused a dip? The spike, I can imagine being WWI. But what happened before that?
Nobody's gonna take my drone, I'm gonna fly miles far too high!
Nobody gonna beat my drone, it's gonna shoot into the sky!

#13
wjfox

wjfox

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,966 posts
  • LocationLondon

Argument I had with a climate change denier...

 

---

 

wjfox  21 minutes ago 

 

Let's go through each of your points one by one.

 

---

 

"Dyson Freeman [sic] understands "science" as well as anybody on the planet."

 

Firstly, you might want to get his name right before you start talking about him. It's Freeman Dyson, not Dyson Freeman.

 

Dyson is a theoretical physicist and mathematician, known for his work in quantum electrodynamics, solid-state physics, astronomy and nuclear engineering. I'm sure he's a genius in those fields. However, none of them have any relevance to climate change. He is not qualified to study climate change, isn't an expert on the subject and has zero published, peer-reviewed papers on climate change. You do realise that "science" encompasses an enormous range of different fields, right? Nobody in the world can be an expert in every single field, it would require literally thousands (if not millions) of years' worth of study. To claim that Dyson "understands 'science' as well as anybody on the planet" is a bizarre, dishonest and illogical statement.

 

 

"We know for a fact that the VIkings farmed Greenland for 300 years before the weather cooled."

 

Indeed we do. As explained before, a few areas around the globe were warmer during that time, but the Earth as a whole was cooler. A five second search on Google will tell you this (published, peer-reviewed journal articles, as opposed to personal blog posts, or talk show radio hosts).

 

 

"We know for a fact that Hansen was scaring the populace with global cooling prophecies half a century ago."

 

How many times are you deniers going to keep repeating this myth? The vast majority of scientific studies in the 1970s predicted continued warming in the future. Only a handful of outlier studies predicted cooling and these were amplified by the mainstream media. I don't know about you, but I prefer to get my science from sober, scholarly and cautious scientists, whose work is peer reviewed – not the hysteria and bias of the mainstream media. Clearly you seem to prefer the latter. Ironic that you finished your post with "Learn to question, learn to think."

 

 

"We know for a fact that 9,000 people with PHD's in science signed the petition."

 

The Oregon Petition has been thoroughly discredited. Barely 0.1% of the signatories were climate scientists, and in any case, most of the "signatures" were obtained dishonestly. End of debate. How the fuck is a heart specialist qualified to produce a detailed study of the radiative forcing effects on the equatorial regions during the late Miocene period? Can't you see, can't you just stop and think about this logically, regardless of your political stance? Fine, go and discuss how certain aspects of climate change might be wrong – but the Oregon Petition is so totally discredited it's laughable. Even most skeptics are now embarrassed to mention it, but for some reason a few like yourself continue to screech about it.

 

Meanwhile, numerous studies conducted independently (Oreskes 2004, Oreskes 2007, Doran and Zimmerman (2009), Anderegg et al. (2010), Cook et. al., 2013) have shown that a huge majority of climate scientists agree that human activity is contributing to an increased greenhouse effect.

 

 

"We know for a fact that the global warming phenomena is now a 1.5 trillion dollar industry in this country."

 

I don't know the exact figures, but clean energy is certainly a major growth area with massive job potential. Wind turbine makers are currently among the top stock performers, and onshore wind is already among the cheapest energy sources. Solar is growing exponentially in capacity and will soon be competitive even without government subsidies. Energy efficiency programs for homes and workplaces can save huge amounts in energy bills, etc. while new technologies like battery storage and smart grids can solve baseload issues. Hybrid and electric cars are rapidly improving too, both in terms of cost and the range/power/capabilities. The sheer amount of innovation and potential in these industries is breathtaking and they are clearly the future drivers of economic growth. By contrast, fossil fuels are a mature and dead-end technology, overly centralised, increasingly expensive and hard to extract, kill 1.6 million people each year from air pollution and cause all sorts of other problems. What was it you said again?

 

 

"Al Gore has made hundred of millions selling this crap to the U.S. govt."

 

Al Gore is a red herring and totally irrelevant to the debate. He isn't the world's scientific community.

 

 

"Do you ever think to question anything that is portrayed to you by those that benefit from it?"

 

Like the fossil fuel companies, you mean, who stand to lose trillions of dollars in stranded assets, and have a gigantic vested interest in maximising fossil fuel extraction? They already receive untold billions in subsidies (both direct and indirect) thanks to avoiding the true costs of fossil fuels, i.e. not having to pay for health impacts and other externalities, which are instead borne by taxpayers like you and I. To answer your question – yes I do question these things.

 

 

"We know the ocean temps have increased about a third of a degree in the last hundred years. For this you want to spend trillions of dollars?"

 

It's more than a third of a degree. And the oceans are pretty much dying now. We're in the early stages of a mass extinction.

 

 

"Can you tell me how much of your global warming is caused by sunspots? El Nino?"

 

CO2 is a heat-trapping greenhouse gas. We've known this since 1859 when Tyndall performed his first laboratory experiments. Today we have tens of thousands of highly qualified climate scientists and a vast armada of technology at our disposal to research the topic in miniscule detail. It's now about as controversial as the idea that the Earth goes around the Sun.

 

We can identify the isotopes in the atmosphere to determine what proportion of CO2 is natural and what proportion is man-made. Based on this (and many other lines of evidence), we know that human activity has increased the CO2 level by at least 40% since pre-industrial times. We also know that even a small quantity of something can have a large effect on its surroundings (see e.g. cyanide in a room, and the effects of CFCs on the ozone layer. There are countless other examples I don't have time to list here).

 

A huge and growing body of evidence shows overwhelmingly that CO2 is now the primary driver of warming. Google "bloomberg what's really warming the world" and view the excellent graphical presentation there. Natural variability alone can't possibly explain the recent warming. Our Sun's radiance, for example, has actually declined in recent decades. Nothing else comes close to matching the heat-trapping effects of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and we're effectively creating a "blanket" around our planet.

 

 

"Do you know carbon dioxide levels were higher during the dinosaur era? What kind of a car did a T-Rex drive? Or is that Exxon's fault too?"

 

By your logic, fires happened naturally in the past – therefore arson is impossible today.

 

 

"No, your kind want to spend trillions..."

 

As explained before, we're already spending trillions on subsidising the external impacts of fossil fuels. You don't seem to complain about that?

 

 

"...on a phenomenon that even if true, may actually be good for the planet."

 

Try telling that to the people of Kiribati, Tuvalu, and other low-lying islands who are already being driven out of their homes which are being increasingly inundated by rising sea levels. Or the farmers in Bangladesh and elsewhere, losing more and more land. Countless other examples I don't have time to list here. There might be a few small benefits to climate change in certain localised regions, but the overall global impacts will easily outweigh any positives, especially longer term.

 

 

"You say 2014 is the warmest year on record. Was that before or after NASA and the NOAA altered the temperature record to make recent years warmer? See some us don't forget little charades like that."

 

There was no "charade". They obtained better and more accurate data, which happens all the time in every area of science. In fact the new trend actually shows less warming than before when measured on a century timescale!

 

 

"Your Al Gore models told us that we'd see more and harsher hurricanes. Living in the south I can tell you we've had a relatively mild 10 years. Guess it's time to tweek your infallible models."

 

There you go with Al Gore again. As though he's the sole expert on climate change. He isn't even a scientist! Again, will you please try to adopt a more rational and balanced viewpoint on this? As for the models, nobody ever said they were "infallible". But in my previous post I already provided a long list of predictions they made correctly – and yet, we don't even need models to know this problem is real and man-made. And with all due respect, I don't think your anecdotal experience (about a localised region over a relatively short period) carries the equivalent scientific weight of a peer-reviewed research paper looking at bigger areas over much longer timescales. If you're truly honest, I think you'll admit I have a point here?

 

 

"Science is supposed to be about DOUBT. Question, question, question."

 

Indeed. In the case of climate change, researchers have been doing this since 1859, when Tyndall first discovered the heat-trapping effects of CO2. Doubt and questions are the very essence of the scientific method. Well, after 150 years of theories, studies, falsification, replication, experiments, questions, etc. etc. the scientific opinion is overwhelmingly that CO2 traps heat and we're increasing the ability of our atmosphere to trap heat (especially when combined with rampant deforestation). As of today, there isn't a single national or international science organisation anywhere in the world that disputes this fundamental point. By all means debate the economic responses to climate change, and how we adapt to it, but you can't debate the science anymore. We're long past that stage now. Sorry.

 

 

"Nobody has yet been able to calculate how well trees and plants can absorb carbon."

 

Actually, they have. I can't find the link, but a study last year managed to quantify the amount of carbon absorbed. There's also a new satellite being launched in 2019 that will monitor almost every tree on Earth.

 

 

"Nobody knows if a degree of two of additional warmth is a good or bad thing."

 

Given what's already happened with only 0.85°C of warming I think it's safe to conclude that 2°C would be disastrous.

 

 

"Every time something happens taht is different from the models, they tweek and hope they got it right."

 

As mentioned before, I already posted a long list showing how the models have been overall pretty good. I can't think of any examples where they've been drastically wrong. Skeptics often quote an individual scientist who's said something like "The Arctic ice will vanish by 2013." However, this is just a fringe/outlier and doesn't represent the majority mainstream view, which is sometime around the 2030s.

 

 

"Learn to question, learn to think."

 

I am open-minded. Are you?


  • Cody930, Yuli Ban and joe00uk like this

#14
Cody930

Cody930

    An Apple Pie from Scratch

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,509 posts
  • LocationNew Jersey, US

What happened just after 1900 that caused a dip? The spike, I can imagine being WWI. But what happened before that?

 

Probably one or two volcanic eruptions which helped push temps down a bit. The Pacific Decadal oscillation also briefly trended negative at the beginning of the century.


"Since we first emerged, a few million years ago in East Africa, we have meandered our way around the planet. There are now people on every continent and the remotest islands, from pole to pole, from Mount Everest to the Dead Sea, on the ocean bottoms and even, occasionally, in residence 200 miles up - humans, like the gods of old, living in the sky."


#15
Cody930

Cody930

    An Apple Pie from Scratch

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,509 posts
  • LocationNew Jersey, US

Since there were some doctored changes and corrections in historical data over the summer, figured I'd put some of the graphs from NOAA, NASA, and the JMA with the most up-to-date temperature records.

 

NOAA (NCDC land and ocean data here):

noaa_karl_etal-640x486.jpg

 

NASA GISTEMPhttp://data.giss.nas...s_v3/Fig.A2.gif

 

JMA:

an_wld.png

 

Also, some additional analysis from atmospheric scientist Kevin Trenberth as I posted in the environmental thread not too long ago. 


  • wjfox and Yuli Ban like this

"Since we first emerged, a few million years ago in East Africa, we have meandered our way around the planet. There are now people on every continent and the remotest islands, from pole to pole, from Mount Everest to the Dead Sea, on the ocean bottoms and even, occasionally, in residence 200 miles up - humans, like the gods of old, living in the sky."


#16
wjfox

wjfox

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,966 posts
  • LocationLondon

pLFblKg.jpg


  • Cody930, Yuli Ban, joe00uk and 1 other like this

#17
Rusakov

Rusakov

    Member

  • Validating
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 339 posts
  • LocationIllinois

snip

 

Sadly I don't think it will work. These people are paid by the oil industry to be ignorant. All the more reason why solar energy and electric cars should come ASAP to strip the oil industry of its power.


  • wjfox, illykitty, Cody930 and 2 others like this

#18
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Nadsat Brat

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,155 posts
  • LocationAnur Margidda

Oh man, I wish we had that flash drive. Just post them all in this thread, laid out plainly to see. 100+ pages. 200+ pages.

 

Then we open a thread linked to all climate change denying scientific papers. Might be about... half a page? Not even that.

 

And there's this stuff. Climate change alarmism only began in the '80s and '90s with Gore? No such thing as a greenhouse effect?


  • Rusakov likes this
Nobody's gonna take my drone, I'm gonna fly miles far too high!
Nobody gonna beat my drone, it's gonna shoot into the sky!

#19
wjfox

wjfox

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,966 posts
  • LocationLondon

Debunking the Top 10 Climate Change Myths

There are a number of myths that opponents of climate action use to make their case. These attacks on climate science are repeated often, despite their innacuracy. Here's a quick rebuttal to the top 10 climate myths.

http://climatenexus....te-change-myths

 

 

 



#20
wjfox

wjfox

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,966 posts
  • LocationLondon

This guy is a hero of mine.

 

Dr. Michael Mann, who produced the famous "hockey stick" graph.

 

 

 







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: climate change, AGW, global warming, environment, denialism

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users