Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3
Discussion
turbobloke said:
To what fake confidence level? IPCC 90% with inflation due to global warming taking it to 95%? In other words pure speculation, why on earth did 'the scientist', or indeed you, not link to this clear signal rather than using a pointless appeal to authority?
Er, what?You presented Robock as credible because he'd found a volcano signal, but when he also says there's AGW signal it suddenly becomes a "pointless appeal to authority"?
This selective acceptance is getting absurd. We have one scientist who has presented two findings, and you're saying he's definitely right on one but definitely wrong on the other, even though they use very similar methods and data.
You can't have it both ways. If you're happy to accept his findings on a volcanism signal, how can you simultaneously reject his findings on the AGW?
durbster said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
... a graph so 'adjusted' ...
Wow this one just won't die will it. There is no evidence for deliberate corruption of data.
Cooling the past boosts the warming trend to the present, allowing celebs to hold up a chart with even more pretty colours, but still no causality.
durbster said:
turbobloke said:
...it might just be more convincing if you addressed the lack of causality on all relevant timescales. Not easy, as there's no credible evidence to assist you.
Your volcanism scientist you referred to as successfully identifying a signal from volcano eruptions, is now a climate scientist. Again, here are some quotes from his other papers (about the climatic effect of volcano eruptions) for your reference:
Robock said:
Furthermore, the warming of the past century cannot be explained by natural causes and can be explained by warming from anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
Robock said:
This cooling, at 10 times the rate of tropospheric warming for the past century, is a clear signal of anthropogenic impacts on the climate system.
In fact, both scientists you cited as showing a clear signal in climate data are what you call "true believers". And one of them works for NASA (oh, correction: up to 17,997 deniers at NASA).Well, this is awkward. The scientists who successfully found in volcanism what you repeatedly ask for in AGW, have absolutely no problem with the science of AGW.
I cited Robock and Mao for the volcanism aspect of my illustration. That stands. The volcanism signal is visible as Robock and Mao demonstrated.
To take this to mean any other thing or everything they write individually is correct cannot be justified. Any claim from anyone must be taken on its merits, 'nullius in verba'.
As to the quotes you gave above, they may be repeated elsewhere but I'm confident they derive from Volcanic Eruptions and Climate (Robock, 2000).
Awkwardly for your post's sarcasm, since the publication date, new evidence has emerged, voiding the claims made - not they they held sway even than as I shall point our later on.
At the time (2000) solar irradiance alone was being considered as 'the' solar forcing by believers, and variations in TSI were deemed insufficient to explain the modest warming that may have occurred up to around 1998. That changed, soon after.
Shaviv first published in 2008 the results of research which found that solar irradiance changes are amplified in their effects on climate.
Shaviv 2008 said:
...the total radiative forcing associated with solar cycle variations is about 5 to 7 times larger than just those associated with the TSI variations...
Then when the CERN CLOUD results emerged, verifying the Svensmark CRF-LLC-Albedo solar eruptivity forcing mechanism (eruptivity, not irradiance) another missing link was added.
The IPCC et al have yet to factor in the effects of one other type of solar eruptivity forcing, the Bucha auroral oval mechamism.
Bucha abstract said:
...downward winds following the geomagnetic storm onset are generated in the polar cap of the thermosphere and penetrate to the stratosphere and troposphere, where the atmospheric response can be observed as a sudden increase of pressure and temperature...
Such top-down effects were on PH years ago, NASA got there more recently 
When these effects, then unpublished (2000) are taken into account, there is no room for the claimed dominant effect of carbon dioxide forcing, which as contemporary and historical data shows, is not a cause of warming but an effect of it. The order of events is the wrong way rounf for causality to operate in the manmade warming way.
Not long after 2000, The Pause was making its presence felt, leading to the data adjustments including NASA's and the ridiculously unscientific buoy-to-ship-intake SST fudge.
The point I referred to earlier, which Robock must have missed in 2000 as it was already published, is Newell et al.
Newell et al: changes in the Sun's activity have influenced trends in temperature this century more than any other factor.
That's the last century btw and then there's The Pause
durbster said:
LongQ said:
Just on a point of accuracy.
OK. Any comment on the rest of my post?Alan Robock, according to his publication list, appears to be primarily focused on the danger of a Nuclear war and the consequences of Nuclear Winter.
http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/robock/robock_nw...
Although presented as a Climatologist his specialism seems to have concentrated into a part of that general area of study to becoming predominantly centred on the effects of volcanic eruptions and similar matters like forest fires. Over time this appears to have shifted almost completely to predictions concerning Nuclear Winter scenarios according to the titles of the published papers and articles.
In the paper you referenced he mentions, in the context of modelling, that some of his work may be somewhat applicable to Global Warming modelling - as you pointed out. However there was perhaps a little more to the comment than was quoted.
From the Robock2000 paper (which appears to be a slightly updated version of Robock and Mao although this section seems to be unchanged unless I missed something of the detail);
"The effects of
volcanic eruptions on climate are very significant in
analyzing the global warming problem, as the impacts of
anthropogenic greenhouse gases and aerosols on climate
must be evaluated against a background of continued
natural forcing of the climate system from volcanic erup-
tions, solar variations, and internal random variations
from land-atmosphere and ocean-atmosphere interac-
tions."
and
"Three new studies [ Crowley and Kim, 1999;
Free and Robock, 1999; D’Arrigo et al ., 1999] have now made use
of new volcano chronologies, new solar constant recon-
structions, and new reconstructions of climate change
for the Little Ice Age to address this problem again.
They used upwelling-diffusion energy-balance climate
models to simulate the past 600 years with volcanic,
solar, and anthropogenic forcings and compared the
results with paleoclimatic reconstructions, mainly based
on tree rings. They conclude, subject to the limitations of
the forcing and validation data sets, that volcanic erup-
tions and solar variations were both important causes of
climate change in the Little Ice Age. Furthermore, the
warming of the past century cannot be explained by
natural causes and can be explained by warming from
anthropogenic greenhouse gases. Further work is
needed in this area, however, linking ocean-atmosphere
interactions with better volcanic and solar chronologies."
Note the last sentence.
http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/ROG2000.pdf
The text (RH column) of page 18 of the PDF (208 of the parent document) is the most I have found so far that related to Global Warming. Here the main message seem to be about how the specific study of the effects of volcanic eruptions might be helpful with understanding the somewhat wider factors that are involved with the proposed GW events.
So far I have not spotted any other papers listed that might suggest he has returned to this theme so I suspect he may have left the bulk of the research work to others.
To provide some recent context here is an interview he provided to Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists that seems to have been published around August 2015 according to the download date at the bottom of the article.
http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/RobockBullAt...
It would be interesting to know whether Prof. Robock considers that the GCM models in their current form are satisfactorily addressing his concerns of 20 years ago.
Clearly he feels it is perhaps of most importance for his specialist subject matter that he stays focused mainly in the volcanic/nuclear winter effects for which he is best known, leaving the broader AGW work mainly in the hands of others.
Apologies for the intrusion of some science considerations to the Politics thread but I hope the linked Interview might be slightly informative at a semi-political level.
turbobloke said:
Vizsla said:
turbobloke said:
chris watton said:
Do you think that this is one of the core reasons the MET Office got the forecasts so wrong for so long?
Yes, the same sooperdoopercompooter is used iirc. Fatal mistaykatamayka
Fugu that!
Phud said:
turbobloke said:
Vizsla said:
turbobloke said:
chris watton said:
Do you think that this is one of the core reasons the MET Office got the forecasts so wrong for so long?
Yes, the same sooperdoopercompooter is used iirc. Fatal mistaykatamayka
Fugu that!
lionelf said:
Look, forgive me but whilst that all sounds very honest and plausible it's still all just hearsay to me and any other Sceptic's sceptic who's looking in. It certainly couldn't be used to back a case in any court that I'm aware of. Please provide links to these events or, alternately, [b] come out from behind the cloak of anonymity that drapes itself over you.[b]
You say you have 'co-authored', 'co-authored' what? I myself have had the odd (very odd) article published but that tells you absolutely nothing about me.
Perhaps all of the articles/publications/whatever that you 'co-authored' have since been disproven by other scientists, who knows?
The reason I'm taking you to task is this. An analogy.
I'm standing in a hospital consultation room and to my left is a doctor in his white gown and with a name tag/designation holding a set of CT Scans showing a shadow on my lungs. He says "It looks like cancer I'm afraid but we'll have to continue to investigate".
On my right is a man in a full face mask and no gown holding the same scans and saying "I don't agree, it's merely a shadow, nothing to see here, the Scanners are known to be quirky and and anyway the interpretation is all wrong".
Both men hand me lots of paperwork to back-up their position.
I don't know who to believe but the man on the right goes on to say that if I can't decide who's right perhaps I ought to study the subject myself (Lung Cancer) in-depth including how Computed Tomography Scanners are built and work together with all of the other variables available ie the different tests available etc.
The doctor on my left says "time is of the essence, we've done all of the work to make a reasonable assumption of what's happening, you must act now"
From my perspective I have to give weight to the 2 sides/arguments. It's simplest for me for the man on my right to reveal himself and his name and designation within the hospital and to watch him cross examine the Doctor to my left. I can then base a judgement on that conversation/debate. How can I trust whatever the masked man is saying when in reality he could just be an bystander who's merely interested in Cancer and knows how (and has the time) to use Google?
Yes, it's a flawed analogy, aren't they all but I don't think from my perspective you'll cross that bridge of credibility until you give a little more than you have to date. I'll bow out now, it's going to continue to circle otherwise.
BTW, It's most definitely NOT personal and I hope you understand my position.
Says somebody with a profile "cloak" far superior to any Romulon You say you have 'co-authored', 'co-authored' what? I myself have had the odd (very odd) article published but that tells you absolutely nothing about me.
Perhaps all of the articles/publications/whatever that you 'co-authored' have since been disproven by other scientists, who knows?
The reason I'm taking you to task is this. An analogy.
I'm standing in a hospital consultation room and to my left is a doctor in his white gown and with a name tag/designation holding a set of CT Scans showing a shadow on my lungs. He says "It looks like cancer I'm afraid but we'll have to continue to investigate".
On my right is a man in a full face mask and no gown holding the same scans and saying "I don't agree, it's merely a shadow, nothing to see here, the Scanners are known to be quirky and and anyway the interpretation is all wrong".
Both men hand me lots of paperwork to back-up their position.
I don't know who to believe but the man on the right goes on to say that if I can't decide who's right perhaps I ought to study the subject myself (Lung Cancer) in-depth including how Computed Tomography Scanners are built and work together with all of the other variables available ie the different tests available etc.
The doctor on my left says "time is of the essence, we've done all of the work to make a reasonable assumption of what's happening, you must act now"
From my perspective I have to give weight to the 2 sides/arguments. It's simplest for me for the man on my right to reveal himself and his name and designation within the hospital and to watch him cross examine the Doctor to my left. I can then base a judgement on that conversation/debate. How can I trust whatever the masked man is saying when in reality he could just be an bystander who's merely interested in Cancer and knows how (and has the time) to use Google?
Yes, it's a flawed analogy, aren't they all but I don't think from my perspective you'll cross that bridge of credibility until you give a little more than you have to date. I'll bow out now, it's going to continue to circle otherwise.
BTW, It's most definitely NOT personal and I hope you understand my position.
And still sidestepping causality in the analogy fail.
No amount of waffly (or other) information overload can generate causality, when the data already says it doesn't exist.
Historical data, contemporary data, both say the same thing. Temperature changes first, carbon dioxide changes later. Carbon dioxide does not cause observed temperature shifts. A binary situation for those who love 'em.
All that's on offer in return, from all sources, is handwaving.
No amount of waffly (or other) information overload can generate causality, when the data already says it doesn't exist.
Historical data, contemporary data, both say the same thing. Temperature changes first, carbon dioxide changes later. Carbon dioxide does not cause observed temperature shifts. A binary situation for those who love 'em.
All that's on offer in return, from all sources, is handwaving.
lionelf said:
Look, forgive me but whilst that all sounds very honest and plausible it's still all just hearsay to me and any other Sceptic's sceptic who's looking in. It certainly couldn't be used to back a case in any court that I'm aware of. Please provide links to these events or, alternately, come out from behind the cloak of anonymity that drapes itself over you.
You say you have 'co-authored', 'co-authored' what? I myself have had the odd (very odd) article published but that tells you absolutely nothing about me.
Perhaps all of the articles/publications/whatever that you 'co-authored' have since been disproven by other scientists, who knows?
The reason I'm taking you to task is this. An analogy.
I'm standing in a hospital consultation room and to my left is a doctor in his white gown and with a name tag/designation holding a set of CT Scans showing a shadow on my lungs. He says "It looks like cancer I'm afraid but we'll have to continue to investigate".
On my right is a man in a full face mask and no gown holding the same scans and saying "I don't agree, it's merely a shadow, nothing to see here, the Scanners are known to be quirky and and anyway the interpretation is all wrong".
Both men hand me lots of paperwork to back-up their position.
I don't know who to believe but the man on the right goes on to say that if I can't decide who's right perhaps I ought to study the subject myself (Lung Cancer) in-depth including how Computed Tomography Scanners are built and work together with all of the other variables available ie the different tests available etc.
The doctor on my left says "time is of the essence, we've done all of the work to make a reasonable assumption of what's happening, you must act now"
From my perspective I have to give weight to the 2 sides/arguments. It's simplest for me for the man on my right to reveal himself and his name and designation within the hospital and to watch him cross examine the Doctor to my left. I can then base a judgement on that conversation/debate. How can I trust whatever the masked man is saying when in reality he could just be an bystander who's merely interested in Cancer and knows how (and has the time) to use Google?
Yes, it's a flawed analogy, aren't they all but I don't think from my perspective you'll cross that bridge of credibility until you give a little more than you have to date. I'll bow out now, it's going to continue to circle otherwise.
BTW, It's most definitely NOT personal and I hope you understand my position.
If you really think anyone is going to have more than a nano second of belief in that diatribe of waffling , flowery crap, then you need a reality check. You say you have 'co-authored', 'co-authored' what? I myself have had the odd (very odd) article published but that tells you absolutely nothing about me.
Perhaps all of the articles/publications/whatever that you 'co-authored' have since been disproven by other scientists, who knows?
The reason I'm taking you to task is this. An analogy.
I'm standing in a hospital consultation room and to my left is a doctor in his white gown and with a name tag/designation holding a set of CT Scans showing a shadow on my lungs. He says "It looks like cancer I'm afraid but we'll have to continue to investigate".
On my right is a man in a full face mask and no gown holding the same scans and saying "I don't agree, it's merely a shadow, nothing to see here, the Scanners are known to be quirky and and anyway the interpretation is all wrong".
Both men hand me lots of paperwork to back-up their position.
I don't know who to believe but the man on the right goes on to say that if I can't decide who's right perhaps I ought to study the subject myself (Lung Cancer) in-depth including how Computed Tomography Scanners are built and work together with all of the other variables available ie the different tests available etc.
The doctor on my left says "time is of the essence, we've done all of the work to make a reasonable assumption of what's happening, you must act now"
From my perspective I have to give weight to the 2 sides/arguments. It's simplest for me for the man on my right to reveal himself and his name and designation within the hospital and to watch him cross examine the Doctor to my left. I can then base a judgement on that conversation/debate. How can I trust whatever the masked man is saying when in reality he could just be an bystander who's merely interested in Cancer and knows how (and has the time) to use Google?
Yes, it's a flawed analogy, aren't they all but I don't think from my perspective you'll cross that bridge of credibility until you give a little more than you have to date. I'll bow out now, it's going to continue to circle otherwise.
BTW, It's most definitely NOT personal and I hope you understand my position.
Jasandjules said:
Hmm, I don't want to be rude, but could those who accept AGW as man made please answer my simple questions. You MUST know the answers to these to "know" that the planet has a problem and this will continue. So please answer them.
I don't know what your questions are but my answer is that on balance, most experts seem to think there's a problem. That doesn't mean I "know" there's a problem, but it's good enough for me. I'm guessing that lots of other feel the same. Plus I don't generally buy into conspiracy theories.lionelf said:
Look, forgive me but whilst that all sounds very honest and plausible it's still all just hearsay to me and any other Sceptic's sceptic who's looking in. It certainly couldn't be used to back a case in any court that I'm aware of. Please provide links to these events or, alternately, come out from behind the cloak of anonymity that drapes itself over you.
You say you have 'co-authored', 'co-authored' what? I myself have had the odd (very odd) article published but that tells you absolutely nothing about me.
Perhaps all of the articles/publications/whatever that you 'co-authored' have since been disproven by other scientists, who knows?
The reason I'm taking you to task is this. An analogy.
I'm standing in a hospital consultation room and to my left is a doctor in his white gown and with a name tag/designation holding a set of CT Scans showing a shadow on my lungs. He says "It looks like cancer I'm afraid but we'll have to continue to investigate".
On my right is a man in a full face mask and no gown holding the same scans and saying "I don't agree, it's merely a shadow, nothing to see here, the Scanners are known to be quirky and and anyway the interpretation is all wrong".
Both men hand me lots of paperwork to back-up their position.
I don't know who to believe but the man on the right goes on to say that if I can't decide who's right perhaps I ought to study the subject myself (Lung Cancer) in-depth including how Computed Tomography Scanners are built and work together with all of the other variables available ie the different tests available etc.
The doctor on my left says "time is of the essence, we've done all of the work to make a reasonable assumption of what's happening, you must act now"
From my perspective I have to give weight to the 2 sides/arguments. It's simplest for me for the man on my right to reveal himself and his name and designation within the hospital and to watch him cross examine the Doctor to my left. I can then base a judgement on that conversation/debate. How can I trust whatever the masked man is saying when in reality he could just be an bystander who's merely interested in Cancer and knows how (and has the time) to use Google?
Yes, it's a flawed analogy, aren't they all but I don't think from my perspective you'll cross that bridge of credibility until you give a little more than you have to date. I'll bow out now, it's going to continue to circle otherwise.
BTW, It's most definitely NOT personal and I hope you understand my position.
When you tell the two of them that the symptoms have not got any worse over the last 20 years, they will kick you out and tell you to stop wasting their time with your insane hypochondria.You say you have 'co-authored', 'co-authored' what? I myself have had the odd (very odd) article published but that tells you absolutely nothing about me.
Perhaps all of the articles/publications/whatever that you 'co-authored' have since been disproven by other scientists, who knows?
The reason I'm taking you to task is this. An analogy.
I'm standing in a hospital consultation room and to my left is a doctor in his white gown and with a name tag/designation holding a set of CT Scans showing a shadow on my lungs. He says "It looks like cancer I'm afraid but we'll have to continue to investigate".
On my right is a man in a full face mask and no gown holding the same scans and saying "I don't agree, it's merely a shadow, nothing to see here, the Scanners are known to be quirky and and anyway the interpretation is all wrong".
Both men hand me lots of paperwork to back-up their position.
I don't know who to believe but the man on the right goes on to say that if I can't decide who's right perhaps I ought to study the subject myself (Lung Cancer) in-depth including how Computed Tomography Scanners are built and work together with all of the other variables available ie the different tests available etc.
The doctor on my left says "time is of the essence, we've done all of the work to make a reasonable assumption of what's happening, you must act now"
From my perspective I have to give weight to the 2 sides/arguments. It's simplest for me for the man on my right to reveal himself and his name and designation within the hospital and to watch him cross examine the Doctor to my left. I can then base a judgement on that conversation/debate. How can I trust whatever the masked man is saying when in reality he could just be an bystander who's merely interested in Cancer and knows how (and has the time) to use Google?
Yes, it's a flawed analogy, aren't they all but I don't think from my perspective you'll cross that bridge of credibility until you give a little more than you have to date. I'll bow out now, it's going to continue to circle otherwise.
BTW, It's most definitely NOT personal and I hope you understand my position.
turbobloke said:
lionelf said:
But lets not forget the Tax angle in all of this. I for one am absolutely aghast at the additional tax burden I've had to endure due to all of this alarmist anger.
Rather than acting as an echo chamber with sarc to go, it might just be more convincing if you addressed the lack of causality on all relevant timescales. Not easy, as there's no credible evidence to assist you. Allow me to remind you of something in a post from this morning which you may not have read for understanding.Not long ago I said:
Carbon dioxide correlates weakly with temperature on all timescales, there are episodes in the past where the planet was entering an ice age with carbon dioxide levels 10 times higher than now and rising. Correlation, even weak, needs to be taken further of course.
When the order of events is examined, in the case of historical data we find that carbon dioxide changes lag temperature (Monnin et al, Petit et al, Jouzel et al, Caillon et al, Fischer et al).
When contemporary data is examined, the same wrong order of events is found. Humlum et al looked at the lags and leads between a number of variables including (a) surface air temperature from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia and the Hadley Centre, (b) surface air temperature data from the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, (c) surface air temperature data from the US National Climatic Data Center, (d) sea surface temperature data from the Hadley Centre, (e) lower troposphere air temperature data from the University of Alabama-Huntsville, (f) globally-averaged marine CO2 data, and (g) data on anthropogenic releases of CO2 from the Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Center.
While global warming so-called theory requires carbon dioxide changes to lead air temperature rises, it doesn’t.
It also explains why there is any correlation at all in the modern era between CO2 and temperature, in that there is a time lag of months (albeit the wrong way round) so in decadal plots the curves of carbon dioxide and temperature are going to appear almost in step on occasions, but this weaker correlation is misleading as the time lag is the wrong way round.
As you can imagine, the faithful didn't take kindly to Prof Humlum's heresy against doctrine. This is, after all, the Svalbard scientist who blew the whistle on a greenwash PR stunt involving glaciers, so there's previous involved.When the order of events is examined, in the case of historical data we find that carbon dioxide changes lag temperature (Monnin et al, Petit et al, Jouzel et al, Caillon et al, Fischer et al).
When contemporary data is examined, the same wrong order of events is found. Humlum et al looked at the lags and leads between a number of variables including (a) surface air temperature from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia and the Hadley Centre, (b) surface air temperature data from the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, (c) surface air temperature data from the US National Climatic Data Center, (d) sea surface temperature data from the Hadley Centre, (e) lower troposphere air temperature data from the University of Alabama-Huntsville, (f) globally-averaged marine CO2 data, and (g) data on anthropogenic releases of CO2 from the Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Center.
While global warming so-called theory requires carbon dioxide changes to lead air temperature rises, it doesn’t.
Humlum et al said:
Changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2 always lag behind corresponding changes in air temperature.
The maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for CO2 lagging 11-12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5-10 months to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months to global lower troposphere temperature.
This demonstrable lack of causality rules out carbon dioxide as a cause of temperature shifts. A binary situatuion that no amount of hand-waving can fudge away.The maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for CO2 lagging 11-12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5-10 months to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months to global lower troposphere temperature.
It also explains why there is any correlation at all in the modern era between CO2 and temperature, in that there is a time lag of months (albeit the wrong way round) so in decadal plots the curves of carbon dioxide and temperature are going to appear almost in step on occasions, but this weaker correlation is misleading as the time lag is the wrong way round.
The objections were designed to give the BBC and Guardian easy headline rebuttals but have no substance at all once the veneer is scratched off, in which journos these days have little or no interest.
These objections addressed side-issues and left causality alone, which is odd as such a tactic can't succceed. One asked how the oceans are acidifying if Humlum is correct. Firstly the oceans aren't acidifying. This is scary spin for remaining alkaline for as long as you like (one buffer solution that won't be exhausted is...) but becoming slightly more neutral.
Rasmus Benestad examined the Humlum paper here and, as you can see, he doesn't deny the lag they've identified or ignore causality as you suggest they did - he simply points out Humlum has 'rediscovered' a short term CO2 relationship with ocean temperature variation caused by El Nino which has been known about for decades, and that their analytical method omits the trend in CO2. If so that's hardly a 'handwave' and a pretty damning indicment of the authors.
I think there is indeed a 'climate activism' narrative here but it looks like it's all on the Humlum side to me - fodder for the deniers.
https://climateaudit.org/
Has done some pretty good analysis on crap climate science and scientists lately.
Has done some pretty good analysis on crap climate science and scientists lately.
Randy Winkman said:
I don't know what your questions are but my answer is that on balance, most experts seem to think there's a problem. That doesn't mean I "know" there's a problem, but it's good enough for me. I'm guessing that lots of other feel the same. Plus I don't generally buy into conspiracy theories.
That strange because the 'warmists' do!https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/1...
Mr GrimNasty said:
Randy Winkman said:
I don't know what your questions are but my answer is that on balance, most experts seem to think there's a problem. That doesn't mean I "know" there's a problem, but it's good enough for me. I'm guessing that lots of other feel the same. Plus I don't generally buy into conspiracy theories.
That strange because the 'warmists' do!https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/1...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff