Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 32

Thread: GLOBAL WARMING -- Everywhere is warming twice as fast as everywhere else!!!!!!

  1. #16 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Ventura CA
    Posts
    85,934
    Thanks
    100,037
    Thanked 19,183 Times in 16,099 Posts
    Groans
    3,768
    Groaned 2,904 Times in 2,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    It is the same trite over and over again, noticed the source was left off of this one, all pseudoscience
    I R O N Y!!!
    AsshatZombie: "The unknowns of freedom can often seem scary compared to the certainty of tyranny."

    Eric Holder: ďIím still enjoying what Iím doing, thereís still work to be done,Ē Iím still the Presidentís wing-man, so Iím there with my boy.Ē



  2. #17 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    6,547
    Thanks
    2,509
    Thanked 5,264 Times in 3,220 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 129 Times in 115 Posts
    Blog Entries
    15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night View Post
    That IS the prevailing mantra that is chanted. I'll get to this later in this post.

    There is no gas or vapor that is capable of warming the Earth using infrared light emitted from Earth's surface. The only thing that can change the temperature of the Earth is a change in the output of the Sun.

    Since we didn't make the Sun, it is not man made.

    Do about what? Assuming the same output from the Sun, there is no global warming. There can't be. I'll get to this later in the post as well.

    Ah. The key question.

    To warm the Earth, additional energy is needed, that is, more energy from than the Sun is currently putting out is needed.

    These 'climatologists' you hear about are also called 'climate scientists'. Trouble is, there is no theory of science about climate. These people deny science and mathematics. Their usual explanation for how the global is warming is the so-called 'greenhouse effect'.

    This model touts certain gases have the magickal ability to somehow create the additional energy on Earth to warm it. Typically, the argument of the 'greenhouse effect' takes one of two forms, which I call the Magick Blanket argument and the Magick Bouncing Photon argument. Both arguments violate physics. To begin with, Earth is a bit of matter in space. All matter that is above zero deg Kelvin emits light according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The amount of light emitted is dependent on the temperature of the emitting surface. At the kind of temperatures found around the surface of Earth, the surface emits light just like any other matter, mostly in the infrared band (a wide band of frequencies).

    The surface, being generally warmer than the atmosphere above it, loses thermal energy to that colder atmosphere. This tends to bring the surface and the atmosphere toward the same temperature. In other words, the surface is cooled by losing thermal energy to the atmosphere by simple conductive heating. Certain gases, such as CO2, water vapor, methane, etc. do absorb infrared light emitted from Earth's surface. This radiance from the surface cools the surface just like contact with cold air does. The upshot is that these gases are just another way for the surface to heat the colder atmosphere. It is heated not just by conductance, but by radiance as well.

    But this does not warm the Earth. It's simply the warmer surface heating a colder atmosphere and the surface itself cooling in the process of giving up energy.

    That colder atmosphere DOES become warmer by this action, but it too is made of matter, and it emits light according to the same Stefan-Boltzmann law.

    All of it, the surface, the atmosphere, everything; emits light into space. Thus Earth is cooled by radiating into space, 24 hours a day in all directions, day and night.
    But there is the Sun. It puts out light, including infrared light, that is absorbed by the Earth. That absorption results in heating, just like the Earth heating the atmosphere by radiance using it's own weak infrared light. This absorption is primarily by the surface, and is what makes our land and oceans nice and comfy to live on.

    So energy from the Sun is equally balanced by the energy leaving Earth again.

    Now enter the 'greenhouse effect'. Among the things it states, it tries to make the case that not all the energy is leaving Earth and is retained as thermal energy (what we call temperature). Unfortunately, the 1st law of thermodynamics says that you can't create energy out of nothing. Neither can you destroy energy into nothing. What comes in MUST leave. Nothing about any gas or vapor can create the additional energy needed to warm the Earth. Everything radiates light by converting thermal energy into electromagnetic energy (The Stefan-Boltzmann law). It is not possible to trap or hold light.

    Another argument made is the Magick Bouncing Photon argument, which states that photons absorbed by CO2 are re-emitted back down to the surface again, heating it. Unfortunately, this effectively builds a perpetual motion machine of the 2nd order. The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that entropy cannot decrease in any system. This gives a direction for heat. Hotter areas are concentrations of energy. Colder areas are devoid of energy. That is low entropy. Heat flows from hotter areas to colder areas. In this way, energy is dispersed evenly through the system. Heat never flows from cold to hot (for that would reduce entropy). The Magick Bouncing Photon argument is literally attempting to heat a warmer surface using a colder gas in the atmosphere. According to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, this is not possible.

    Another problem the 'greenhouse' effect runs into is the Stefan-Boltzmann law itself. This law states: r = C * e * t^4 where radiance is in watts per square meter of radiating surface, C is a constant of nature, e is the emissivity of that surface (how well it emits compared to a perfect emitter), and t is the temperature of the emitting surface in deg K.

    By preventing light from leaving Earth, the 'greenhouse' effect is effectively reducing the radiance of Earth. At the same time, it argues, the temperature is increasing because it is 'trapped' here on Earth. The Stefan-Boltzmann law clearly states, however, that radiance is always proportional to temperature. Never inversely proportional. If temperature goes up, radiance MUST go up. If radiance goes down, temperature MUST go down with it. Both C and e are constants, C being a constant of nature, and e is a measured constant.

    Thus, the 'greenhouse effect', as explained, violates the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

    That is how we know the whole idea of 'greenhouse effect' is bogus, and everything the 'climatologists' and 'climate scientists' say nothing more than a denial of science, for they deny each of these three laws of physics. No degree from any university, no matter it's title, makes any difference to these three laws of physics.
    One more thing I'd add to the above is that because the earth is a closed system it is in thermodynamic equilibrium, therefore it's impossible for [CO2]atmosphere to cause any change in overall temperature.

  3. #18 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    11,747
    Thanks
    2,241
    Thanked 2,986 Times in 2,604 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 127 Times in 123 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anonymoose View Post
    One more thing I'd add to the above is that because the earth is a closed system it is in thermodynamic equilibrium, therefore it's impossible for [CO2]atmosphere to cause any change in overall temperature.
    If you are considering only the Earth, yes...it is a closed system. if you are considering the Earth-Sun-space system, that is also a closed system.

    What the Church of Global Warming often does is consider these two different systems the same system. They like to shift the goalposts fast enough to make your head spin. They are making a false equivalence when they do this.

    Thermodynamics works with any system (so far!). The boundaries of that system is one of your own choosing. Any energy source from outside cannot be considered. Any energy sink from outside cannot be considered. The boundary must remain consistent.
    The boundaries the Church of Global Warming uses are inconsistent, yet they are treated as if they were.

    Oddly enough, even the entire universe can be considered a closed system, since obviously, there is no energy source that is outside it, and no energy sink that is outside it. Thermodynamics still works. Entropy simply remains the same, and no energy is created or destroyed (at least in the portion that we can see).
    Last edited by Into the Night; 10-23-2019 at 01:40 PM.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Into the Night For This Post:

    gfm7175 (10-23-2019)

  5. #19 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    6,547
    Thanks
    2,509
    Thanked 5,264 Times in 3,220 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 129 Times in 115 Posts
    Blog Entries
    15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night View Post
    if you are considering the Earth-Sun-space system, that is also a closed system.
    That is what I meant.
    Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night View Post
    Any energy source from outside cannot be considered. Any energy sink from outside cannot be considered.
    Huh? Thermodynamic equilibrium considers both.
    Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night View Post
    The boundaries the Church of Global Warming uses are inconsistent, yet they are treated as if they were.
    Anyone, especially a professional scientist in any field with even a rudimentary knowledge of the 1st and 2nd Laws of thermodynamics, S-B Law and Equilibrium Thermodynamics would understand [CO2]atmosphere alone cannot possibly affect long range temperature changes. It's physically impossible.
    I'd sure like to see these "climate scientists" explain how it could and not just your standard "increase in CO2 is a greenhouse gas and causes heat to be trapped", then show a little cartoon of a greenhouse with the sun coming in and not going out. It's so simplistic it almost makes me laugh. It appeals to children I guess (see Greta Thunberg). Like watching how Mr. Tooth Decay attacks teeth.
    Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night View Post
    Oddly enough, even the entire universe can be considered a closed system, since obviously, there is no energy source that is outside it, and no energy sink that is outside it.
    No. The universe is an isolated system. Neither matter or nrg can be exchanged with an outside system.
    Last edited by anonymoose; 10-23-2019 at 02:48 PM.

  6. #20 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    11,747
    Thanks
    2,241
    Thanked 2,986 Times in 2,604 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 127 Times in 123 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anonymoose View Post
    That is what I meant.
    Which system? Earth itself, or the Earth-Sun-space system? They are two completely different systems.
    Quote Originally Posted by anonymoose View Post
    Huh? Thermodynamic equilibrium considers both.
    No. No energy source from outside the chosen system boundaries cannot be considered. No energy sink can be considered from outside the chosen system boundaries. The system must remain closed.

    To illustrate: let's take a typical home electric refrigerator.

    You can consider the system of the refrigerator and the room its in by itself. Does entropy decrease? No. You cannot consider the power source the refrigerator is plugged into. You must treat the refrigerator as if its unplugged. Given the initial low entropy conditions of a warm room and a cold refrigerator, entropy will increase as the thermal energy of the room is expended to warm the interior of the refrigerator, until both are the same temperature.

    Let's assume a magick refrigerator that has perfect insulation. Does entropy decrease? No. It simply stays the same. The refrigerator is still unplugged. The interior of the refrigerator will remain completely unchanged, and therefore entropy itself remains unchanged.

    If you consider a different system that includes the power plant to run the refrigerator, does entropy decrease? No. The power plant is expending energy that your refrigerator can now harness to cool its interior. Entropy in that system is still increasing.

    Equilibrium is achieved at maximum entropy. After that, entropy simply stays the same. It does not continue to increase.

    The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that entropy always increases or stays the same in any system. It never decreases.
    Quote Originally Posted by anonymoose View Post
    Anyone, especially a professional scientist in any field with even a rudimentary knowledge of the 1st and 2nd Laws of thermodynamics, S-B Law and Equilibrium Thermodynamics would understand [CO2]atmosphere alone cannot possibly affect long range temperature changes. It's physically impossible.
    Well, neither you nor I can speak for every scientist, professional or not. A theory of science, such as the 1st law of thermodynamics, stands on its own. It needs no one to support it. It is the theory, not any scientist, that is science.
    Quote Originally Posted by anonymoose View Post
    I'd sure like to see these "climate scientists" explain how it could
    These are professionally paid 'scientists'. They cannot explain how it would because they deny science and mathematics. Specifically, they deny the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. I've found some that deny Kirchoff's and Planck's laws as well. They also deny statistical mathematics, probability mathematics, and random number mathematics. I've seen some of them even deny algebra.
    Quote Originally Posted by anonymoose View Post
    and not just your standard "increase in CO2 is a greenhouse gas and causes heat to be trapped",
    This is the argument a climate 'scientist' must support. They are effectively paid high priests in the Church of Global Warming. To make this argument, of course, means denying the very things I spoke of as well as the very meaning of 'heat'.
    Quote Originally Posted by anonymoose View Post
    then show a little cartoon of a greenhouse with the sun coming in and not going out.
    That little cartoon is itself an egregious violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It attempts to heat the warmer surface using a colder gas.
    Quote Originally Posted by anonymoose View Post
    It's so simplistic it almost makes me laugh. It appeals to children I guess (see Greta Thunberg). Like watching how Mr. Tooth Decay attacks teeth.
    If the Church of Global Warming wasn't so desperately trying to become a federal religion, it would be laughable. Unfortunately, this is its goal, despite the 1st amendment.
    Quote Originally Posted by anonymoose View Post
    No. The universe is an isolated system.
    Which makes it a closed system.
    Quote Originally Posted by anonymoose View Post
    Neither matter or nrg can be exchanged with an outside system.
    A closed system cannot consider any energy source or sink from outside that system, so yes...the universe itself is a closed system

    The key thing to remember is that you get to choose the boundaries of the system. Those boundaries must remain the same, however, through your arguments. The Church of Global loves to change these boundaries mid-sentence, treating two different systems as if they were the same system (a goalpost fallacy).

  7. #21 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    20,811
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 9,755 Times in 6,246 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 1,657 Times in 1,538 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night View Post
    The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law is not pseudoscience. Anyone can look them up. You simply deny them.
    Formal fallacy

  8. #22 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    20,811
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 9,755 Times in 6,246 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 1,657 Times in 1,538 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night View Post
    Which system? Earth itself, or the Earth-Sun-space system? They are two completely different systems.

    No. No energy source from outside the chosen system boundaries cannot be considered. No energy sink can be considered from outside the chosen system boundaries. The system must remain closed.

    To illustrate: let's take a typical home electric refrigerator.

    You can consider the system of the refrigerator and the room its in by itself. Does entropy decrease? No. You cannot consider the power source the refrigerator is plugged into. You must treat the refrigerator as if its unplugged. Given the initial low entropy conditions of a warm room and a cold refrigerator, entropy will increase as the thermal energy of the room is expended to warm the interior of the refrigerator, until both are the same temperature.

    Let's assume a magick refrigerator that has perfect insulation. Does entropy decrease? No. It simply stays the same. The refrigerator is still unplugged. The interior of the refrigerator will remain completely unchanged, and therefore entropy itself remains unchanged.

    If you consider a different system that includes the power plant to run the refrigerator, does entropy decrease? No. The power plant is expending energy that your refrigerator can now harness to cool its interior. Entropy in that system is still increasing.

    Equilibrium is achieved at maximum entropy. After that, entropy simply stays the same. It does not continue to increase.

    The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that entropy always increases or stays the same in any system. It never decreases.

    Well, neither you nor I can speak for every scientist, professional or not. A theory of science, such as the 1st law of thermodynamics, stands on its own. It needs no one to support it. It is the theory, not any scientist, that is science.

    These are professionally paid 'scientists'. They cannot explain how it would because they deny science and mathematics. Specifically, they deny the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. I've found some that deny Kirchoff's and Planck's laws as well. They also deny statistical mathematics, probability mathematics, and random number mathematics. I've seen some of them even deny algebra.

    This is the argument a climate 'scientist' must support. They are effectively paid high priests in the Church of Global Warming. To make this argument, of course, means denying the very things I spoke of as well as the very meaning of 'heat'.

    That little cartoon is itself an egregious violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It attempts to heat the warmer surface using a colder gas.

    If the Church of Global Warming wasn't so desperately trying to become a federal religion, it would be laughable. Unfortunately, this is its goal, despite the 1st amendment.

    Which makes it a closed system.

    A closed system cannot consider any energy source or sink from outside that system, so yes...the universe itself is a closed system

    The key thing to remember is that you get to choose the boundaries of the system. Those boundaries must remain the same, however, through your arguments. The Church of Global loves to change these boundaries mid-sentence, treating two different systems as if they were the same system (a goalpost fallacy).
    It is the same trite over and over again peppered with the correct science semantics to make it appear legitimate, he actually thinks that people are going to abandoned the views of say NASA and nearly every major Science entity, or as he refers to them as "professionally paid 'scientists," amazing all those "professionally paid scientists" just completely overlooked whatever "into" is preaching

    As I said, merely an effort to create a false paradigm

  9. #23 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    35,655
    Thanks
    825
    Thanked 3,535 Times in 2,700 Posts
    Groans
    5
    Groaned 238 Times in 219 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    It is the same trite over and over again peppered with the correct science semantics to make it appear legitimate, he actually thinks that people are going to abandoned the views of say NASA and nearly every major Science entity, or as he refers to them as "professionally paid 'scientists," amazing all those "professionally paid scientists" just completely overlooked whatever "into" is preaching

    As I said, merely an effort to create a false paradigm
    you gave an unflattering characterization, but not a rebuttal.
    Morality is a set of attitudes and behaviors which facilitate voluntary, cooperative and mutually beneficial relationships. --AssHatZombie

    Obamagate is Operation Crossfire Hurricane

    "AssHat rocks and is fun to have around." -- Damocles

  10. #24 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    20,811
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 9,755 Times in 6,246 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 1,657 Times in 1,538 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AssHatZombie View Post
    you gave an unflattering characterization, but not a rebuttal.
    Rebuttal to what?

    One can't rebutal, as soon as you've proven him incorrect he'll dismiss it as some bogus "fallacy" and won't carry it any further, as I said before, he's solipsistic, anything other than his explanation is incorrect

  11. #25 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Living in rural America "clinging to my God and Guns"
    Posts
    16,331
    Thanks
    2,244
    Thanked 10,243 Times in 7,410 Posts
    Groans
    95
    Groaned 231 Times in 221 Posts

    Default

    ...and I was looking forward to driving my convertible in January and February...
    Common sense is not a gift, it's a punishment because you have to deal with everyone who doesn't have it.

  12. #26 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    11,747
    Thanks
    2,241
    Thanked 2,986 Times in 2,604 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 127 Times in 123 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    It is the same trite over and over again peppered with the correct science semantics to make it appear legitimate,
    Thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law isn't trite. It isn't 'peppering'. These theories are what they are. No one at NASA or any scientist or group scientists can change what they are.
    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    he actually thinks that people are going to abandoned the views of say NASA
    NASA is not science. It is a government agency.
    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    and nearly every major Science entity,
    Argument from randU fallacy. False authority fallacy.
    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    or as he refers to them as "professionally paid 'scientists,"
    I am referring to climate 'scientists', that deny science and mathematics.
    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    amazing all those "professionally paid scientists" just completely overlooked whatever "into" is preaching
    Yes, there are a LOT of climate 'scientists' out there. None of them can change what these theories are. Neither can you.
    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    As I said, merely an effort to create a false paradigm
    These three theories are not a false paradigm. They are what they are.

    You are just desperate to deny science.

  13. #27 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    6,547
    Thanks
    2,509
    Thanked 5,264 Times in 3,220 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 129 Times in 115 Posts
    Blog Entries
    15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    Rebuttal to what?
    The application of physical laws to [CO2]atmos and it's overall effect on Tatmos where T = temperature as a function of Δt(time). (This is overly simplistic but used for purposes of JPP).
    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    One can't rebutal, as soon as you've proven him incorrect
    You can't prove him incorrect because he's just stating physical laws. He is the messenger. The physical laws are what you must prove incorrect.
    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    he'll dismiss it as some bogus "fallacy" and won't carry it any further, as I said before, he's solipsistic, anything other than his explanation is incorrect
    He is incorrect equating an isolated system and a closed system. They have two different definitions. A closed system does not allow the exchange of matter but allows energy (or heat) to be transferred between systems. In isolated systems neither matter nor heat can be exchanged between systems. There is no fallacy in stating well accepted definitions and pointing out the error. So yes, if you provide an acceptable rebuttal there is no fallacy.
    E.g., if you incorrectly apply Newton's Laws of Motions and state that if you hold a lead weight during a full moon at shoulder height and let go of it, it will "drop" in the direction of the moon, I'm sure he'd find a fallacy in that.

  14. #28 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    2,837
    Thanks
    1,420
    Thanked 1,216 Times in 954 Posts
    Groans
    22
    Groaned 33 Times in 33 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    It is the same trite over and over again peppered with the correct science semantics to make it appear legitimate, he actually thinks that people are going to abandoned the views of say NASA and nearly every major Science entity, or as he refers to them as "professionally paid 'scientists," amazing all those "professionally paid scientists" just completely overlooked whatever "into" is preaching

    As I said, merely an effort to create a false paradigm
    NASA is not a "Science entity". It is a governmental agency. Government agencies are not science.

    Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

  15. #29 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    11,747
    Thanks
    2,241
    Thanked 2,986 Times in 2,604 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 127 Times in 123 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anonymoose View Post
    The application of physical laws to [CO2]atmos and it's overall effect on Tatmos where T = temperature as a function of Δt(time). (This is overly simplistic but used for purposes of JPP).
    You can't prove him incorrect because he's just stating physical laws. He is the messenger. The physical laws are what you must prove incorrect.
    Bingo.
    Quote Originally Posted by anonymoose View Post
    He is incorrect equating an isolated system and a closed system. They have two different definitions. A closed system does not allow the exchange of matter but allows energy (or heat) to be transferred between systems. In isolated systems neither matter nor heat can be exchanged between systems.
    Not correct. For the purposes of thermodynamics, you cannot consider any energy source outside the chosen system, and you cannot consider any energy sink outside the chosen system. To do so is to use a different system. Two systems are not the same system.
    Quote Originally Posted by anonymoose View Post
    There is no fallacy in stating well accepted definitions and pointing out the error. So yes, if you provide an acceptable rebuttal there is no fallacy.
    An acceptable rebuttal can only result in falsification of these laws of physics. If he can do so, you are correct...there is no fallacy. His only other option is to describe how 'greenhouse effect' works without violating any of these laws of physics.
    Quote Originally Posted by anonymoose View Post
    E.g., if you incorrectly apply Newton's Laws of Motions and state that if you hold a lead weight during a full moon at shoulder height and let go of it, it will "drop" in the direction of the moon, I'm sure he'd find a fallacy in that.
    Not in and of itself. It would simply be a denial of Newton's law of gravitational attraction (not of motion).

  16. #30 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    6,547
    Thanks
    2,509
    Thanked 5,264 Times in 3,220 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 129 Times in 115 Posts
    Blog Entries
    15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night View Post
    Not correct. For the purposes of thermodynamics, you cannot consider any energy source outside the chosen system,
    Ridiculous. The earth is a closed system that get's loads of nrg from the sun, a different system. How can you possibly not consider that? Maybe you should review the definition of thermodynamic systems.
    Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night View Post
    To do so is to use a different system.
    Correct. Two systems are not the same system.
    Last edited by anonymoose; 10-28-2019 at 03:02 PM.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 88
    Last Post: 01-30-2019, 07:31 PM
  2. New study debunks global warming causing current global freezing
    By Cancel 2018.1 in forum Off Topic Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-23-2018, 04:41 PM
  3. Replies: 18
    Last Post: 03-28-2014, 10:42 AM
  4. Global warming
    By wiseones2cents in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 95
    Last Post: 12-23-2009, 05:29 AM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-28-2009, 10:52 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •