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!
Photo

Climate change

climate change global warming man made energy

  • Please log in to reply
66 replies to this topic

#21
jjf3

jjf3

    Not a Member of the Tea Party! Just a Concerned Conservative

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,046 posts
  • LocationHolmdel NJ/Tampa Fl



As for having only studied the past 50 years of weather data, it turns out that's not the case. Take for example the crowd sourced Old Weather project to which I've contributed; it isn't specifically about global warming, but detailed knowledge of past weather does help our understanding.



Thanx for that bit on the old weather project I had no idea how long this research has been going on for that's why in my OP i put in a question mark after 50 years. I wasn't sure. But still 70 or 80 years is still a second according to nature.
"Did you really expect some utopian fantasy to rise from the ashes?" Thomas Zarek-- Battlestar Galactica.

#22
Nom du Clavier

Nom du Clavier

    Brain in a body-shaped jar

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 171 posts
  • Location/dev/random

Good points Nom du Clavier.

You are taking my quotes out of context and/or are not doing enough research to even try and make a point or claim or anything constructive really. I don't think you hyperventilating and questioning current well known news helps in the debate...


Thanks. I take it the second paragraph was meant for Explorer, as he did the initial quoting we both objected to being out of context. I'm happy to see he's conceded this point and am hopeful all of us here will try harder to have reasoned discourse.
This amount of awesome cannot be from concentrate.

#23
Andy

Andy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 41 posts
  • LocationUnited Kingdom

Prehaps you didn't read the paragraph where I explained NASA's planned missions for a Moon Base to help mine for resources? That will help the Environment here on Earth wouldn't it? We wouldn't be using as much of our oil/resources/fossil fuels if we already had a base and a mining plan in place like they planned. I don't think any other space industry is working on this, they are more concerning with classified science experiments and tourism.

Oh, I see. No, I read that. I don't think it would really help - using resources from elsewhere just means we use more hear, it doesn't mean we use those resources more smartly.

The only benefits of a moon project I'm aware of, with regards to minimising climate change, would be Helium-3 for future reactors, especially fusion reactors, and space based solar power generation. The former isn't feasible or worth it yet, and the latter would be far more expensive and far less effective than solar power satellites, which are already an expensive and difficult idea in the first place.

And on the subject of solar powered satellites, US and Japanese entities have been developing them for years, and a European company is getting involved. So it's not just NASA.

What kind of classified science experiments? If you mean the X-37B, that was the USAF, not NASA.

As for space tourism, as I was alluding to before, the list of companies focusing in that field is quite small and all privately owned. It's not a money maker right now, and being the kind of field that would increase climate change problems rather than decrease them and quickly draw attention to that fact, it's not surprising that most space tech companies have other concerns at the moment.
For everyone's sake, watch this video

#24
Nom du Clavier

Nom du Clavier

    Brain in a body-shaped jar

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 171 posts
  • Location/dev/random




As for having only studied the past 50 years of weather data, it turns out that's not the case. Take for example the crowd sourced Old Weather project to which I've contributed; it isn't specifically about global warming, but detailed knowledge of past weather does help our understanding.



Thanx for that bit on the old weather project I had no idea how long this research has been going on for that's why in my OP i put in a question mark after 50 years. I wasn't sure. But still 70 or 80 years is still a second according to nature.


Oh, I certainly agree on 50, or 80, or even 100 years being a blink of an eye. It's important to note it's yet another source of data and in the case of the Royal Navy a very detailed source, indeed. Additionally, beyond this 'Old Weather' example in particular, there are ice core samples that have captured outgassing of CO2 over much longer periods of time. I'm certain there are many more sources of data that are used by the scientific community in which they can say with a degree of certainty how long ago this stored CO2 was captured.

It's taking all things together that paints a clear picture. Importantly, I feel strongly that even if we should - contrary to the scientific opinion - believe our impact is minimal, it's still a good idea to do what we can. It's simply not a subject on which we can afford as a species to be wrong and do nothing, not while this is our only home. Far better to be proven wrong in the future and have wonderfully fresh air to breathe, but as it turns out I think the future will prove science right and tell our descendants that if we hadn't acted, they'd be living underground if at all.
This amount of awesome cannot be from concentrate.

#25
jjf3

jjf3

    Not a Member of the Tea Party! Just a Concerned Conservative

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,046 posts
  • LocationHolmdel NJ/Tampa Fl

Prehaps you didn't read the paragraph where I explained NASA's planned missions for a Moon Base to help mine for resources? That will help the Environment here on Earth wouldn't it? We wouldn't be using as much of our oil/resources/fossil fuels if we already had a base and a mining plan in place like they planned. I don't think any other space industry is working on this, they are more concerning with classified science experiments and tourism.

Oh, I see. No, I read that. I don't think it would really help - using resources from elsewhere just means we use more hear, it doesn't mean we use those resources more smartly.

The only benefits of a moon project I'm aware of, with regards to minimising climate change, would be Helium-3 for future reactors, especially fusion reactors, and space based solar power generation. The former isn't feasible or worth it yet, and the latter would be far more expensive and far less effective than solar power satellites, which are already an expensive and difficult idea in the first place.

And on the subject of solar powered satellites, US and Japanese entities have been developing them for years, and a European company is getting involved. So it's not just NASA.

What kind of classified science experiments? If you mean the X-37B, that was the USAF, not NASA.

As for space tourism, as I was alluding to before, the list of companies focusing in that field is quite small and all privately owned. It's not a money maker right now, and being the kind of field that would increase climate change problems rather than decrease them and quickly draw attention to that fact, it's not surprising that most space tech companies have other concerns at the moment.


I never said anything about Solar powered satellites I was talking about solar panels in general yea, research and production has been going on for years, but they are still not practical for mass production on a large scale. You always hear about the secret scientific projects that the ISS was working on. They can certainly put the money used for that research onto the plans they had to mind resources on the Moon. I'm not saying mining on the Moon is better, but it is a better option than destroying our own world. Isn't it? If we are set to loose all of oil and resource in this generation than shouldn't this be a priority? The Moon has a vast supply of resources and we could mine there until we develop 3D printers to a point that we can print our own resources :-)
"Did you really expect some utopian fantasy to rise from the ashes?" Thomas Zarek-- Battlestar Galactica.

#26
OrbitalResonance

OrbitalResonance

    Cosmic Emperor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,233 posts
  • LocationDeep Space

he Moon has a vast supply of resources and we could mine there until we develop 3D printers to a point that we can print our own resources :-)


Well, you would not print resources. You would gather raw resources and then refine them into pure resources to put them through the printer to make complex items.

I don't think solar panels are not efficient enough yet (35% i believe?) for practical use. The technology is advancing but not enough due to lack of resources being put into developing it. This is a lack of foresight by the majority.

We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers. - Carl Sagan


#27
Andy

Andy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 41 posts
  • LocationUnited Kingdom

I never said anything about Solar powered satellites I was talking about solar panels in general yea, research and production has been going on for years, but they are still not practical for mass production on a large scale. You always hear about the secret scientific projects that the ISS was working on. They can certainly put the money used for that research onto the plans they had to mind resources on the Moon. I'm not saying mining on the Moon is better, but it is a better option than destroying our own world. Isn't it? If we are set to loose all of oil and resource in this generation than shouldn't this be a priority? The Moon has a vast supply of resources and we could mine there until we develop 3D printers to a point that we can print our own resources :-)

I only brought up solar satellites because I like the idea ^_^ (note: was talking about satellites that collect solar power and transmit it to earth, not satellites that run on solar panels)

I suspect the ISS experiments being "secret" is partly because scientists are generally really bad at publicising data, though maybe there are some private studies going on, I don't know. While I'm not sure of the accuracy of the list, there's a bit list here of most of the modules and experiments they're running, and in 2009 they released details on a huge batch of experiments, which you can see here.

We do need to think through our resource usage though, not only just because of climate change (I keep wondering what's going to happen if we manage to run out of plastic).

Ideally, focusing on improving climate change concerns would be a good way of managing resource burn as well
For everyone's sake, watch this video

#28
Nom du Clavier

Nom du Clavier

    Brain in a body-shaped jar

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 171 posts
  • Location/dev/random

he Moon has a vast supply of resources and we could mine there until we develop 3D printers to a point that we can print our own resources :-)


Well, you would not print resources. You would gather raw resources and then refine them into pure resources to put them through the printer to make complex items.

I don't think solar panels are not efficient enough yet (35% i believe?) for practical use. The technology is advancing but not enough due to lack of resources being put into developing it. This is a lack of foresight by the majority.


Many types of solar panels also have the problem of using 'rare earth metals', as indeed batteries we're all hoping to improve, as well as semi-conductors, LCD panels, AmoLEDs and what have you. As many countries have shuttered their mining operations, China is in a bit of a monopolist position at the moment as far as offering these raw resources for sale.
This amount of awesome cannot be from concentrate.

#29
Nom du Clavier

Nom du Clavier

    Brain in a body-shaped jar

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 171 posts
  • Location/dev/random

We do need to think through our resource usage though, not only just because of climate change (I keep wondering what's going to happen if we manage to run out of plastic).

Ideally, focusing on improving climate change concerns would be a good way of managing resource burn as well


A lot of packaging plastic these days is made from corn. Just as the sugars are used in High Fructose Corn Syrup to sweeten Coca Cola (in the US, because of subsidies on corn), the same sugars are also used in the manufacture of bioplastics by way of some processes that turn the sugar molecules into, as William Gibson would call them, 'long chain monomers'. ;)
This amount of awesome cannot be from concentrate.

#30
jjf3

jjf3

    Not a Member of the Tea Party! Just a Concerned Conservative

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,046 posts
  • LocationHolmdel NJ/Tampa Fl



I suspect the ISS experiments being "secret" is partly because scientists are generally really bad at publicising data.


Hm... Interesting you would say this since this a a debate about Global Warming and people only trust the pro-Global Warming data because of what the scientists have published .... Anyway I don't think it's secret because of the scientists I bet the scientists couldn't wait to share the information with the world, the government is probably blocking them from releasing the experiments because they are using the technology to work on other secretive government projects or the technology still needs to get through government channels in order to be created on the consumer level.
"Did you really expect some utopian fantasy to rise from the ashes?" Thomas Zarek-- Battlestar Galactica.

#31
Nom du Clavier

Nom du Clavier

    Brain in a body-shaped jar

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 171 posts
  • Location/dev/random

Hm... Interesting you would say this since this a a debate about Global Warming and people only trust the pro-Global Warming data because of what the scientists have published .... Anyway I don't think it's secret because of the scientists I bet the scientists couldn't wait to share the information with the world, the government is probably blocking them from releasing the experiments because they are using the technology to work on other secretive government projects or the technology still needs to get through government channels in order to be created on the consumer level.


That or the findings may be meaningless without analysis, and it's this analysis which takes longer than the initial research. They might want to present control data from experiments done at a range of atmospheric pressures and these studies haven't yet concluded. Sponsors for the research may have their own agenda or are bureaucratic machines of a vastness comparable to space. Who knows, really?

I abhor proprietary silos of knowledge, yet I'm certain most scientists would love to share their findings as widely as they can, as quickly as they can, if not for certain impediments. As I mentioned in the Singularity thread, some of it will be cultural (publish-or-perish), others will have a monetary component (patent licensing to spin-offs) and in other cases there might be actual secrecy involved along the lines of the Manhattan project. Plus variations between these; I'm not saying these are the three only possible reasons, or that any secrecy is explicitly of the same gravity as the Manhattan project.

But that's the point, sadly, that we can only speculate on this. :(
This amount of awesome cannot be from concentrate.

#32
Andy

Andy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 41 posts
  • LocationUnited Kingdom
Like with the "trick" email thing, scientists are bad at dressing up data suitably for public consumption. The data that's less debatable goes through reasonably unscathed, the more debatable stuff ends up being filtered through journalists, bureaucrats and politicians, and is misinterpreted enough to cause confusion.

Such filtering usually consists of either ignoring bits of data that don't agree with your personal theory, or hiding anything you don't want to be made public. Makes the climate change debate incredibly fun http://www.futuretim...tyle_emoticons/animate/confused.gif

I just hope the bureaucracy doesn't get in the way too much.
For everyone's sake, watch this video

#33
Nom du Clavier

Nom du Clavier

    Brain in a body-shaped jar

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 171 posts
  • Location/dev/random

Like with the "trick" email thing, scientists are bad at dressing up data suitably for public consumption. The data that's less debatable goes through reasonably unscathed, the more debatable stuff ends up being filtered through journalists, bureaucrats and politicians, and is misinterpreted enough to cause confusion.

Such filtering usually consists of either ignoring bits of data that don't agree with your personal theory, or hiding anything you don't want to be made public. Makes the climate change debate incredibly fun http://www.futuretim...tyle_emoticons/animate/confused.gif

I just hope the bureaucracy doesn't get in the way too much.


You raise an excellent point there. I think scientists would love to share their raw data but are reticent to do this when lay people in the press and special interest groups distort the conclusion, either maliciously by intent or accidentally because they really don't understand the science behind it. It's hard to change public perception after the fact when spin doctors have pretty flashy pictures showing a conclusion in some cases opposite of what the data really says is happening.

It's understandable scientists will therefore also try and dress up the data by cherry picking a treated version of the raw data, agreeing with the conclusion from said raw data and making for pretty representative pictures of their own that show more accurately what's going on, but this well-intentioned cherry picking makes it even easier to distort the conclusion for the opponents by pointing at a single point in the data and saying, 'This here doesn't agree with your conclusion, it's outside of the curve and look here at this pretty scatterplot, zomg!'

Never mind then that in some cases what's being pointed out by journalists or shills (and sometimes it's hard to tell the difference) doesn't even necessarily support this hysteric conclusion, the graph may very well still show what the scientists concluded it did, but again all the public will hear is how wrong the scientists were and how there's nothing to worry about. In case that particular curve or scatterplot does show a minor inconsistency which is correctly pointed out, this still says nothing about the scientists' conclusion, which was drawn from a vastly greater untreated data set.

The problem is that none of the experts who really understand their stuff work in media, they're far too busy doing science. Whereas the talking head pundits think of this as doing science, don't understand what an isotope is, let alone what it means in context, and you'd best get far away if they ever set foot in a laboratory.
This amount of awesome cannot be from concentrate.

#34
jjf3

jjf3

    Not a Member of the Tea Party! Just a Concerned Conservative

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,046 posts
  • LocationHolmdel NJ/Tampa Fl


Like with the "trick" email thing, scientists are bad at dressing up data suitably for public consumption. The data that's less debatable goes through reasonably unscathed, the more debatable stuff ends up being filtered through journalists, bureaucrats and politicians, and is misinterpreted enough to cause confusion.

Such filtering usually consists of either ignoring bits of data that don't agree with your personal theory, or hiding anything you don't want to be made public. Makes the climate change debate incredibly fun http://www.futuretim...tyle_emoticons/animate/confused.gif

I just hope the bureaucracy doesn't get in the way too much.


You raise an excellent point there. I think scientists would love to share their raw data but are reticent to do this when lay people in the press and special interest groups distort the conclusion, either maliciously by intent or accidentally because they really don't understand the science behind it.


So, then why after Al Gore released An Inconvenient Truth did 98% (just guessing) suddenly believe in Global Warming? Isn't that film a perfect example of what you just said. Al Gore is no scientist. There are films and other forms of media that support both sides of the issues doing the same things that you said. There is an environmental class some people have taken at my school, some people love it (the environmentalists) and others cannot stand it, mainly because the teacher is always talking about how Global Warming is going to destroy the world. I think I am one of the few people I know that actually goes out and finds out the real details and real information behind the crazy claims of the media. That's why I have come to certain conclusions I have.
"Did you really expect some utopian fantasy to rise from the ashes?" Thomas Zarek-- Battlestar Galactica.

#35
Nom du Clavier

Nom du Clavier

    Brain in a body-shaped jar

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 171 posts
  • Location/dev/random
What Al Gore did was indeed put a nice spin on it and it's helped vastly increase the awareness of the general population about the matter. Whether 'spinning' is inherently wrong no matter what side does it or not, he did a decent job at dressing up the then current scientific consensus for lay people. The reason this came as such a shock to people and managed to have eyes to still open is that the oil, coal, car and energy industries in particular had been pulling the wool over people's eyes for decades, vehemently denying anything was wrong or mooting the severity. They're still at this, it's just now the general awareness is there, any spin doctoring on the denialist side can no longer make the outrageous claims they could in the past or be laughed away, so they're focusing on distorting claims about severity and what have you. The longer they can put off having to change their industries, the better, in their optic. Worst of all, it's always been against the interest of the public when, speaking purely to economical issues, we could have had cars with 100mpg fuel efficiency in the 80's. It certainly hasn't been bad for the oil industry, able to sell more product, or the car industry, with new models each having minute incremental gains that at high oil prices still look significant to drivers. All that excess economic capital that's gone into oil consumption the past decades that wasn't strictly necessary could have done a whole lot of more important things for the general population. Peak oil would be further off, and yes, with less exhaust from the combined transport at increased fuel efficiencies, even the climate might have looked a bit rosier at this point. If future historians looked back at the past decades and came away thinking these industries should've been held criminally negligent with the only intent of maximising profit, I certainly wouldn't be surprised. Like you I've also looked at the claims from the other side, it would be hard to make an informed decision without the full picture, but sadly upon further examination their claims ended up ringing hollow. I'd be all too happy if there was no climate change, or if it wasn't as bad as it is. Sadly, the proponents of ClimateGate and the like have yet to come up with compelling evidence, and I'm faced with the likelier but less welcome conclusion held by the scientific community at large. Edit: Additionally. I'd be very surprised indeed if, perusing the credits of An Inconvenient Truth, not a single person on the list had credentials in the field that were credible. He'd be, as a lay person, a presenter. Contrast with a news show; I'd find it incredible if they had, for all of the myriad of topics they discuss, someone on staff with the right credentials. Quite a big difference.

Edited by Nom du Clavier, 27 May 2011 - 08:58 PM.

This amount of awesome cannot be from concentrate.

#36
jjf3

jjf3

    Not a Member of the Tea Party! Just a Concerned Conservative

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,046 posts
  • LocationHolmdel NJ/Tampa Fl

What Al Gore did was indeed put a nice spin on it and it's helped vastly increase the awareness of the general population about the matter. Whether 'spinning' is inherently wrong no matter what side does it or not, he did a decent job at dressing up the then current scientific consensus for lay people.

Worst of all, it's always been against the interest of the public when, speaking purely to economical issues, we could have had cars with 100mpg fuel efficiency in the 80's.


Well, the public is in a hurry to buy anything with a Green label on it no matter how more expensive it is or how little bit more environmentally friendly it is. I could see the majority of the public that would love to buy a 100 MPG car, that is reasonably affordable. I am sure these big companies could adapt to Solar Panels and 100 MPG cars and find other ways to make money. After all, that is a company's number one priority.

I presented my ideas and information nicely in my first Original Post and yet, I was accused of pushing a right wing agenda and being laughed at by some people here, but it's ok if you make a nice movie about Global Warming.
"Did you really expect some utopian fantasy to rise from the ashes?" Thomas Zarek-- Battlestar Galactica.

#37
Nom du Clavier

Nom du Clavier

    Brain in a body-shaped jar

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 171 posts
  • Location/dev/random

Well, the public is in a hurry to buy anything with a Green label on it no matter how more expensive it is or how little bit more environmentally friendly it is. I could see the majority of the public that would love to buy a 100 MPG car, that is reasonably affordable. I am sure these big companies could adapt to Solar Panels and 100 MPG cars and find other ways to make money. After all, that is a company's number one priority.

I presented my ideas and information nicely in my first Original Post and yet, I was accused of pushing a right wing agenda and being laughed at by some people here, but it's ok if you make a nice movie about Global Warming.


That's really another insidious thing about the whole problem, in that now these products come to market, many of these conglomerates get to essentially double-dip. First hold back progress until it really can't be held back, and then sell people something they should've had a decade and a half ago at the latest. It could also be called brilliant, in a sociopathic kind of way.

I agree though that they'll find other ways to make money. They'll have to or go bust eventually. The more interesting question I believe is will society at large eventually hold them accountable for maximising profit at their expense? (The same goes for Big Pharma on an unrelated but similar matter)

Chances are all of us here have been to a larger or lesser degree been taken in by propaganda of some sort at a given point in time, no matter how careful we've been to vet data and obtain multiple points of view. Fortunately I find myself in the position that even if my conclusion is off by a bit, or even wrong entirely, it's in no way damaging to anyone except these legacy industries, and even to them only in the sense they'll have to adapt, with many of them having the pleasure of letting us foot the bill a second time. I welcome contrarian evidence and will endeavour to read it dismissing my bias as best as I can, that's after all part of the scientific method.

Agenda or no agenda, right wing or left wing, we're all in this together and I'd love it if no data was dismissed out of hand without in that dismissal pointing to evidence to the contrary, so I am sorry if you felt slighted. Human as we all are, it's hard to check our preconceptions at the door, and I hope everyone here will agree to at least give it a good try, myself included.
This amount of awesome cannot be from concentrate.

#38
Nom du Clavier

Nom du Clavier

    Brain in a body-shaped jar

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 171 posts
  • Location/dev/random

I just think that we are over reacting to the natural occurrence of climate change.


We are overreacting even if it was manmade, which is certainly possible. It was 3 degrees warmer 120,000 years ago.

I'll leave in the middle if it's entirely natural, entirely man-made, or natural with man exacerbating the problem for the sake of this argument below:

Re '120,000 years ago': Keep in mind that at that time we were hunter-gatherers who knew very well what they had to do for food. Presently most people couldn't grow a head of lettuce if their life depended on it, so to speak. The funny thing is that they spent roughly 9% of their time to support themselves.

Amusing anecdote aside, there are presently 7 billion of us versus ~15 million then. A 3 degree average rise in temperatures might not harm us directly, but have you given any thought what it will do to our arable land? There are plants we eat better suited to colder climates that we may have to make do without. What will a 3 degree average rise in temperatures do for the kinds of fish and seafood we eat?

It's easy to dismiss it with the wave of a hand and day, but oh, we survived it 120,000 years ago. We've since grown ~450x more numerous in population, are most of us far removed from nature and literally couldn't survive if it wasn't for the supply chain of the food industry. Population is still growing, projected at 10 billion by 2100.

Does a 3 degree rise in temperature on average not also bring with it a rise in sea levels, further reducing arable land, tsunamis, brush fires, what have you? There are so many things to consider, but the basics of potable water and food is one very things threatened. I'm not saying we should panic, but to dismiss a call to action as an overreaction?

It might be a good suggestion to read up on horticulture and hydroponics, I can certainly see it becoming a favourable set of skills to have. Rock wool might be a nice medium term investment. Desalination technology, likewise.

I'm just saying that it's mighty easy to point to 120,000 years ago with a much smaller population who came by their food in a much different way, then say we're overreacting. Their situation was very different to ours and that 3 degree rise in average temperature is one of few things we have still in common. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the concerns based on their survival skills, they at least still had a connection to nature that is foreign to most of us in the developed world.

fix: hunter-gather population estimate

Edited by Nom du Clavier, 30 May 2011 - 10:04 AM.

This amount of awesome cannot be from concentrate.

#39
Craven

Craven

    Elephant in the forest

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,325 posts
  • LocationPoland, Cracow
Will's link got me in this dark mood, and that reminded me of one song, I think it suits this situation perfectly:

http://tinyurl.com/PartyTillPetrol (Polish site, but I'm sure you'll find play button without any trouble)
"I walk alone and do no evil, having only a few wishes, just like an elephant in the forest."

"Laugh, and the world laughs with you. Weep, and you weep alone."

#40
wjfox

wjfox

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,233 posts
  • LocationLondon






Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: climate change, global warming, man made, energy

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users