Any doubts about Climate Change?

**S Landreth** · 21-08-2013, 08:47 AM

Originally Posted by JetsetBkk

Originally Posted by S Landreth

New IPCC Report: Climatologists More Certain Global Warming Is Caused By Humans, Impacts Are Speeding Up

The Fifth — and hopefully final — Assessment Report (AR5) from blah blah blah...

Do you have to cut and paste nearly the whole article from 'thinkprogress.org?'

You could just post the link and give your views on it.

All this cutting and pasting of someone else's work just clutters up this web site.

Some people may even think that you wrote it.

I had some time today and will breakdown my thoughts (yellow print so you know it's me) on my previous post. It'll also give me a chance to repost an informative article, but now in its entirety.

I opened the post with a newsworthy article related to Climate Change.

New IPCC Report: Climatologists More Certain Global Warming Is Caused By Humans, Impacts Are Speeding Up

I posted the picture because it directly relates with my opening post to this thread and is easy to understand.

1. Recent warming is unprecedented in magnitude and speed and cause (so the temperature history looks like a Hockey Stick).

I posted the next section because it was the subject of the article.

The Fifth — and hopefully final — Assessment Report (AR5) from the UN Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC) is due next month. The leaks are already here:

Drafts seen by Reuters of the study by the UN panel of experts, due to be published next month, say it is at least 95 percent likely that human activities – chiefly the burning of fossil fuels – are the main cause of warming since the 1950s.

That is up from at least 90 percent in the last report in 2007, 66 percent in 2001, and just over 50 in 1995, steadily squeezing out the arguments by a small minority of scientists that natural variations in the climate might be to blame.

Now this next section was posted to show that a once credible news source "Reuters" has gone by the wayside when reporting about Climate Change. Kind of the same route as the Economist has taken.

This is a doubly impressive story since, as we’ve reported, Reuters has slashed climate coverage and pressured reporters to include false balance. Leading climatologists who have seen drafts of the report confirm this story’s accuracy.

This next section was posted to give the reader some knowledge of what the new IPCC report will be leaving out (thawing of the northern permafrost) and a clear understanding of the consequences if we continue the path we are on, according to the author.

Of course, nothing in the report should be a surprise to readers of Climate Progress, since the AR5 is just a (partial) review of the scientific literature (see my 12/11 post, It’s “Extremely Likely That at Least 74% of Observed Warming Since 1950″ Was Manmade; It’s Highly Likely All of It Was). The draft AR5 confirms that natural forces played a very small role in warming since 1950, which again means that human activity is highly likely be a source of virtually all of the recent warming.

I say the AR5 is a “partial” review that is “hopefully” the last because, like every IPCC report, it is an instantly out-of-date snapshot that lowballs future warming because it continues to ignore large parts of the recent literature and omit what it can’t model. For instance, we have known for years that perhaps the single most important carbon-cycle feedback is the thawing of the northern permafrost. The IPCC’s Fifth Assessment climate models completely ignore it, thereby lowballing likely warming this century.

No doubt some in the media will continue to focus on the largely irrelevant finding that the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) may be a tad lower than expected.

In terms of real world warming and its impact on humans, the ECS is a mostly theoretical and oversimplified construct — like the so-called spherical cow. The ECS tells you how much warming you would get IF we started slashing emissions asap and stabilized carbon dioxide concentrations in the air around 550 parts per million (they are currently at 400 ppm, rising over 2 ppm a year, and accelerating) — AND IF there were no slow feedbacks like the defrosting permafrost.

The climate however is not a spherical cow. Every climate scientist I’ve spoken to has said we will blow past 550 ppm if we continue to put off action. Indeed, we’re on track for well past 800 ppm. And a 2012 study found that the carbon feedback from the thawing permafrost alone will likely add 0.4°F – 1.5°F to total global warming by 2100.

So the alarming disruption in our previously stable, civilization-supporting climate depicted in the top figure is our future. On our current emissions path, the main question the ECS answers is whether 9°F warming happens closer to 2080, 2100, or 2120 — hardly a cause for any celebration. Quite the reverse. Warming beyond 7F is “incompatible with organized global community, is likely to be beyond ‘adaptation’, is devastating to the majority of ecosystems & has a high probability of not being stable (i.e. 4°C [7F] would be an interim temperature on the way to a much higher equilibrium level,” as climate expert Kevin Anderson explains here.

I left this next section in because it also relates to the opening post. Michael Mann being vindicated.

Climate Scientist investigated (again!), vindicated (again!)

One of the world’s leading climate scientists, Michael Mann of Penn State, has been vindicated by the National Science Foundation.

Dr. Michael Mann emailed me:

The report is simply an exclamation mark on what we already knew: Climate change is real and it continues unabated, the primary cause is fossil fuel burning, and if we don’t do something to reduce carbon emissions we can expect far more dangerous and potentially irreversible impacts on us and our environment in the decades to come

I wanted to end the post with a Fact.

As for the seeming slowdown in global warming, that turns out to be only true if one looks narrowly at surface air temperatures, where only a small fraction of warming ends up. Arctic sea ice melt has accelerated. Disintegration of the great ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica has sped up. The rate of sea level rise has doubled from last century.

Finally, very recent studies of the ocean, which has absorbed the vast majority of the heat, also show global warming has accelerated in the past 15 years. Sadly, the AR5 appears to have stopped considering new scientific findings before the publication of this research.

I didn't post the entire article for one reason, but will do it now given the opportunity.

Ocean Heat Content from 0 to 300 meters (grey), 700 m (blue), and total depth (violet) from Ocean Reanalysis System 4.

Reuters notes that climate scientists are “finding it harder than expected to predict the impact in specific regions in coming decades.” This regional uncertainty is not surprising but still quite alarming. Indeed, it is a key reason adaptation to climate change is so much more difficult and expensive than simply reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

After all, if you don’t know where the next super-storm or super-heatwave is going to hit, you pretty much have to prepare everywhere. As a major 2011 study by Sandia National Laboratory concluded, “It is the uncertainty associated with climate change that validates the need to act protectively and proactively.” That study found because of “climate uncertainty as it pertains to rainfall alone, the U.S. economy is at risk of losing” a trillion dollars and 7 million American jobs over the next several decades.

On this point, climatologist Kevin Trenberth e-mailed me:

“We can confidently say that the risk of drought and heat waves has gone up and the odds of a hot spot somewhere on the planet have increased but the hotspot moves around and the location is not very predictable. This year perhaps it is East Asia: China, or earlier Siberia? It has been much wetter and cooler in the US (except for SW), whereas last year the hot spot was the US. Earlier this year it was Australia (Tasmania etc) in January (southern summer). We can name spots for all summers going back quite a few years: Australia in 2009, the Russian heat wave in 2010, Texas in 2011, etc.

Similarly with risk of high rains and floods: They are occurring but the location moves.”

The point is, we know that many kinds of off-the-charts extreme weather events will get more intense, longer lasting, and more frequent — in fact, they already are. But we don’t know exactly where and when they will hit, which means adaptation requires pretty much everybody, everywhere to plan the worst-case. Just when you think the Jersey shore is very unlikely to be hit by a superstorm, along comes Sandy.

I very much doubt the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report will move the needle on climate action because of its inadequacies; because the media has scaled back climate coverage and let go of its best climate reporters; and because the fossil fuel funded disinformation campaign will try to exploit those first two problems to make it seem like this report gives us less to worry about, when it simply underscores what we have known for a quarter-century. Continued inaction on climate change risks the end of modern civilization as we know it.

The reason I didn't post the last part of the article was because I didn't think it would sit well with the flat-earthers/manmade global warming deniers/TD mouth breathin' malcontents. They are having a hard enough time coming to terms with manmade global warming, even though the evidence is overwhelming.

Can you imagine what they will think about moving "hotspots"?

They are going to dig their heels in deeper; denying manmade global warming, while their little world is crumbling beneath them.

To date (after your post to me) you have twenty-four posts and ten of those posts are on this thread (42%).

Obsessed much?

I am happy you are fascinated with the thread and hope you'll continue to read it and learn.

**slackula** · 21-08-2013, 10:10 AM

^ Oh dear, that's going to leave a mark!

**GR3** · 31-08-2013, 02:06 AM

Originally Posted by hazz

Originally Posted by GR3

Originally Posted by hazz

so gr3 you have not discovered the smoking gun that proves that climate change is not real, only the smoking gun proving you lack the skills to differentiate between the truth and even the lie's of crude propaganda.

You do not have the skills to read and understand what I have said. I have stated many times on here that there is climate change, I have not denied it. I have denied man made climate change and I hope you have the skills to see the difference?
I am also an advocate of stoping the burning of fosil fuels but for different reasons than you.

All you have done is used that well known move the goalpost technique of denialism. In the same way that the creationists retreated to intelligent design when it was no longer possible deny genetics. Now that those behind climent denial can no longer deny that the climate is changing, they have now retreated to promoting the idea that its natural change unaffected by human activity. This is still climate denial in the same way that ID is denial of evolution.

What you have done is posted links to very old theories which were seen to have major flaws at the time and have since proven to be wrong. the author of your link has published a number of papers on the subject and like the other proponents of these alternative theories he has refused to acknowledge and answer critics in subsequent papers. Answering your critics is, in science, how you convince people you are right.... its the corner stone that allows you to differentiate between the genius and the denialist crank, the truth speaker and the spive on the payroll.

And yes you are right, I lack the ability to kill off my commons sense to allow me to believe the debunked tosh you think is truth. But don't think the lack o this skill prevents me from understating what you are saying, it simply stopping me believing the lies and misrepresentations you mistake for evidence.

Now before you starting with posting more of your rinsed and repeated bollocks. when you post some amazing revelation that the consensus on climate change is wrong. research what you post and explain why the critics of the theory are wrong in your post. And saying "because they don't agree with me" does not count and is not going to get you any respect; because at this moment you look someone who's made a fool of themselves multi nicing to rinse and repeat.

You say we have moved the goal posts, that is wrong. The Dinosaurs became extinct because of climate change (not man made I might add!), there are paintings of people skating on the frozen Thames and Scotland in the past had Vineyards. So you are again misrepresenting what we have always said, in fact you are accusing us of the very crime your side are guilty off. First it was global warming then in the face of cooling you changed the name to climate change in order to hedge your bets.

**ENT** · 31-08-2013, 05:45 AM

This year, warmest spring on record in NZ,..... warmest summer for seven years, UK,.... global temperatures risen by over one degree so far this last 100 years.

Both Arctic and Antarctic sea ice cover have extended this year, due in the north to a low pressure system in the atmosphere in that region.

Pacific sea temperatures have dropped also, this year, though ground temperatures in NZ are higher than last year, by aprox one degree.

El Nino/La Nina effect is regarded as having a part to play in this anomaly, and solar activity has just passed its cyclic peak, so less energy from the sun, so aiding the cooling process seen this last few months.

Global warming/climate change, caused by both natural and anthropogenic factors.

**hazz** · 31-08-2013, 11:50 AM

Originally Posted by GR3

You say we have moved the goal posts, that is wrong. The Dinosaurs became extinct because of climate change (not man made I might add!), there are paintings of people skating on the frozen Thames and Scotland in the past had Vineyards. So you are again misrepresenting what we have always said, in fact you are accusing us of the very crime your side are guilty off. First it was global warming then in the face of cooling you changed the name to climate change in order to hedge your bets.

Yes the dino's were killed off by climate change and yes that climate change was not of their doing. But given this lesson of what can happen when climate change occurs do you not think it would be rather foolish to then go off and deliberately cause that very change that has repeated caused extinctions in geological history?

Your problem is that you have already decided what you want to thruth to be, i.e. that climate change is not an issue that needs to be worried about. You have then gone off and found yourself an internet echo chamber which tells you what you want to hear.... a truth you never question. You come on here and make your claims, claims that are constantly being made on this thread, and claims that have been repeated debunked. An honest person, would come tell us these truths they believe in and explain how the debunking is incorrect.... but just like all denalist's you never do this. NAswering ones critics with evidence that their criticism is incorrect is what separates the Galileo's from the cranks. Please feel free to demonstrate you are not one of the cranks.
You could make an impressive start by explaining how the debunking of that rather tired 'but there were vinyards in the UK' claim are wrong.... rather than just posting it like a parrot.

**Umbuku** · 01-09-2013, 10:33 AM

Originally Posted by GR3

First it was global warming then in the face of cooling you changed the name to climate change in order to hedge your bets.

What cooling? There is an increasing trend in global temperature.

Global warming is the cause of climate change. Only the denialists claim there has been any name change. Perhaps the media uses climate change more than now but you won't find a geoscientist using those terms incorrectly. Perhaps for convenieinces sake they will say climate change and omit the 'induced by global warming' for the sake of brevity.

**JetsetBkk** · 01-09-2013, 02:38 PM

Originally Posted by Umbuku

Originally Posted by GR3

First it was global warming then in the face of cooling you changed the name to climate change in order to hedge your bets.

<snip>

Only the denialists claim there has been any name change.

<snip>

I call BS on that remark.

**Umbuku** · 02-09-2013, 08:11 AM

Really.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was founded in 1988. Scientists have been calling it climate change for over 30 years.

History of climate change science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It was the media that picked up on global warming as a headline and who have shifted in recent years to climate change. Scientists, as is there proclivity, always strive to use the correct terminology. Naming and defining is the way of science. You will not find a geoscientist using global warming and climate change as interchangeable terms. They are separate concepts but are part of a casual chain.

Global warming dates back to the 19th century when the first paleo data indicated great fluctuations in temperature in the geologic record and was used to describe the shift out of a glacial cycle and into an interglacial period. This research accelerated markedly after the turn of the 20th century when isotopal dating techniques were developed. Climate change came to the fore in the 1970s but as a concept was already in use in papers assessing the past glacial to interglacial periods and paleo environments of past eras.

**GR3** · 04-09-2013, 02:23 AM

Originally Posted by hazz

Originally Posted by GR3

You say we have moved the goal posts, that is wrong. The Dinosaurs became extinct because of climate change (not man made I might add!), there are paintings of people skating on the frozen Thames and Scotland in the past had Vineyards. So you are again misrepresenting what we have always said, in fact you are accusing us of the very crime your side are guilty off. First it was global warming then in the face of cooling you changed the name to climate change in order to hedge your bets.

Yes the dino's were killed off by climate change and yes that climate change was not of their doing. But given this lesson of what can happen when climate change occurs do you not think it would be rather foolish to then go off and deliberately cause that very change that has repeated caused extinctions in geological history?

Your problem is that you have already decided what you want to thruth to be, i.e. that climate change is not an issue that needs to be worried about. You have then gone off and found yourself an internet echo chamber which tells you what you want to hear.... a truth you never question. You come on here and make your claims, claims that are constantly being made on this thread, and claims that have been repeated debunked. An honest person, would come tell us these truths they believe in and explain how the debunking is incorrect.... but just like all denalist's you never do this. NAswering ones critics with evidence that their criticism is incorrect is what separates the Galileo's from the cranks. Please feel free to demonstrate you are not one of the cranks.
You could make an impressive start by explaining how the debunking of that rather tired 'but there were vinyards in the UK' claim are wrong.... rather than just posting it like a parrot.

You are not listening to me, if I type it in a big font will you listen? I have never said as you claim that climate change is not an issue to be concerned about. Indeed it is an issue to be concerned about. As the population of this planet rises and as we have already passed peak oil we will not be able to feed enough of the planet soon to stop food wars. Even slight changes in climate will make this worse. If climate change is natural and not manmade then we are fucked as there is nothing we can do but prepare for the worst. And all your bleating and taxing of carbon will make no difference. If it is manmade and we are going to melt the planet then I have to ask where are all those oil billionaires who pay the denyalist lobby going to live? The answers to manmade warming are out there google Tesla, why aren’t the governments investing my carbon tax into free energy for all? I work on VIP jets, why do I see daily so many of the green lobby flying out of London on private jet aircraft? If I was God I would cull three quarters of the human race and save the planet from mankind. I'm against the use of all oil. I'm a Vegetarian, don’t drink, don’t smoke and keep fit. I am not some kind of burn the candle at both ends and fuck the planet globalist. I do however see man made global warming as a red herring to raise tax for governments.

The Venerable Bede (c. 635-735) mentions vines in his ‘Ecclesiastical History of the English Nation’. In the Doomsday book thirty-eight vineyards are mentioned, some several acres of size.
The world has been cooling for 2000 years.

How did the Romans grow grapes in northern England? Perhaps because it was warmer than we thought.

A study suggests the Britain of 2,000 years ago experienced a lengthy period of hotter summers than today.

Tree-ring study proves that climate was WARMER in Roman and Medieval times than it is in the modern industrial age | Mail Online

Why has global warming stalled?

BBC News - Why has global warming stalled?

**GR3** · 04-09-2013, 02:33 AM

Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it

The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures
This means that the ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996

Read more: Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

**Boon Mee** · 04-09-2013, 05:05 AM

'Bout right.

Did you hear that in Alaska right now they are having the coldest weather on record? Late August it was like, 15 deg F. Must be a sure sign of that 'ol pesky MMGW stuff...

**GR3** · 04-09-2013, 07:51 AM

Originally Posted by Umbuku

What cooling? There is an increasing trend in global temperature.

Is there?
Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it | Mail Online

**Umbuku** · 04-09-2013, 09:53 AM

Yes.

Try quoting actual data sources and not the Daily Mail rag.

You know NASA, IPCC, NOAA, and other be-acronymed repositories of actual knowledge.

**MrG** · 04-09-2013, 10:04 AM

Originally Posted by Umbuku

Try quoting actual data sources and not the Daily Mail rag. You know NASA, IPCC, NOAA, and other be-acronymed repositories of actual knowledge.

Now you've gone and frightened the funny little things away.

**robuzo** · 04-09-2013, 10:13 AM

Anybody up for a climate-change war?
Your Labor Day Syria Reader, Part 2: William Polk - James Fallows - The Atlantic
Syria has been convulsed by civil war since climate change came to Syria with a vengeance. Drought devastated the country from 2006 to 2011. Rainfall in most of the country fell below eight inches (20 cm) a year, the absolute minimum needed to sustain un-irrigated farming. Desperate for water, farmers began to tap aquifers with tens of thousands of new well. But, as they did, the water table quickly dropped to a level below which their pumps could lift it. In some areas, all agriculture ceased. In others crop failures reached 75%. And generally as much as 85% of livestock died of thirst or hunger. Hundreds of thousands of Syria’s farmers gave up, abandoned their farms and fled to the cities and towns in search of almost non-existent jobs and severely short food supplies. Outside observers including UN experts estimated that between 2 and 3 million of Syria’s 10 million rural inhabitants were reduced to “extreme poverty.”

The domestic Syrian refugees immediately found that they had to compete not only with one another for scarce food, water and jobs, but also with the already existing foreign refugee population. Syria already was a refuge for quarter of a million Palestinians and about a hundred thousand people who had fled the war and occupation of Iraq. Formerly prosperous farmers were lucky to get jobs as hawkers or street sweepers. And in the desperation of the times, hostilities erupted among groups that were competing just to survive.

**Rainfall** · 04-09-2013, 10:29 AM

Originally Posted by GR3

The Venerable Bede (c. 635-735) mentions vines in his ‘Ecclesiastical History of the English Nation’. In the Doomsday book thirty-eight vineyards are mentioned, some several acres of size.
The world has been cooling for 2000 years.

The venerable Google (c.1998-) mentions 'nearly 400 vineyards in England and Wales' right now, the largest of them about 100 acres in size. The best British vineyard stays | Travel | theguardian.com

10 times as many vineyards suggests it is warmer now than during antiquity.

If it was so cozy in Roman times, how comes all the Scandinavians and Germans moved South?

**robuzo** · 04-09-2013, 11:15 AM

^Had some pretty decent English plonk at a wine-tasting in Tokyo last year. The reds need some work.

**GR3** · 05-09-2013, 04:08 PM

Originally Posted by Rainfall

Originally Posted by GR3

The Venerable Bede (c. 635-735) mentions vines in his ‘Ecclesiastical History of the English Nation’. In the Doomsday book thirty-eight vineyards are mentioned, some several acres of size.
The world has been cooling for 2000 years.

The venerable Google (c.1998-) mentions 'nearly 400 vineyards in England and Wales' right now, the largest of them about 100 acres in size. The best British vineyard stays | Travel | theguardian.com

10 times as many vineyards suggests it is warmer now than during antiquity.

If it was so cozy in Roman times, how comes all the Scandinavians and Germans moved South?

Maybe because of manmade global cooling?

**GR3** · 05-09-2013, 04:21 PM

Originally Posted by MrG

Originally Posted by Umbuku

Try quoting actual data sources and not the Daily Mail rag. You know NASA, IPCC, NOAA, and other be-acronymed repositories of actual knowledge.

Now you've gone and frightened the funny little things away.

You call it frightend away, I call it having to work for a living.
Anyway when losing the argument try "you must only use my sources of information" ok I will play your little game and tie one hand behind my back.

Practically everything you have been told by the mainstream scientific community and the media about the alleged detriments of greenhouse gases, and particularly carbon dioxide, appears to be false, according to new data compiled by NASA’s Langley Research Center. As it turns out, all those atmospheric greenhouse gases that Al Gore and all the other global warming hoaxers have long claimed are overheating and destroying our planet are actually cooling it, based on the latest evidence.
As reported by Principia Scientific International (PSI), Martin Mlynczak and his colleagues over at NASA tracked infrared emissions from the earth’s upper atmosphere during and following a recent solar storm that took place between March 8-10. What they found was that the vast majority of energy released from the sun during this immense coronal mass ejection (CME) was reflected back up into space rather than deposited into earth’s lower atmosphere.
The result was an overall cooling effect that completely contradicts claims made by NASA’s own climatology division that greenhouse gases are a cause of global warming. As illustrated by data collected using Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry (SABER), both carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), which are abundant in the earth’s upper atmosphere, greenhouse gases reflect heating energy rather than absorb it.

**GR3** · 05-09-2013, 04:26 PM

NASA Warns Earth May Be Entering a Period of “Global Cooling”

NASA Warns Earth May Be Entering a Period of “Global Cooling” « GeoEngineering Exposed

**GR3** · 05-09-2013, 04:28 PM

Whistleblower Outs NASA for Hiding Data of Global Cooling

Whistleblower Outs NASA for Hiding Data of Global Cooling | Co2 Insanity

**GR3** · 05-09-2013, 04:34 PM

Here you go I prepared your rebuttal for you;
A misinterpreted claim about a NASA press release, CO2, solar flares, and the thermosphere is making the rounds | Watts Up With That?

**S Landreth** · 05-09-2013, 05:56 PM

It’s no surprise that the initial line of denialist attack on the forthcoming IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), first installment due out later this month, will be the issue of “climate sensitivity”, that is, how much warming can we expect from a given level of greenhouse forcing. A number of high profile media spots have lately raised the question about whether scientists will be slightly lowering the estimates from the canonical 3° C plus or minus 1.5° or so, to maybe 2.5C or thereabouts. It’s a distinction without a difference is the first response – but even to get to that first response you have to understand something even more fundamental – a slightly lower rate of surface temperature rise over the last decade or so does not change the fact that the planet continues to gather heat. That heat is going somewhere, and has an effect on the system – surface thermometers are only one indicator of a relatively small portion of that heat imbalance.

**Zooheekock** · 05-09-2013, 06:37 PM

Originally Posted by GR3

Whistleblower Outs NASA for Hiding Data of Global Cooling

Whistleblower Outs NASA for Hiding Data of Global Cooling | Co2 Insanity

I got as far as :

A solar scientist insider who wishes to remain anonymous...

Worthless rubbish, as is essentially anything which has ever been published on WUWT - a source of lies and willful misinterpretation which is so shameless that it puts even The Daily Hate to shame.

**slackula** · 05-09-2013, 08:32 PM

Originally Posted by Zooheekock

I got as far as

You got farther than I did. I clicked on the previous link to chemtrailsplanet.net, a website with the by-line of

GeoEngineering Exposed
Global Warming Linked To Advanced Climate Modification Technology

Under the recent posts section are such revelatory articles as:

Creepy CIA and DHS Involvement With Modifying Hurricanes and Climate

DHS is modifying the climate?

SYFY Channel: Joe Rogan Show Linked to Chemtrail PsyOp Network

The SYFY Channel??? They only care about megasharks and stuff!

Pegeen Hanrahan Linked to Rockefeller “Buyout” of Mayors, Governors and Evengelicals to Promote Biomass?

Evangelicals interested in environmentalism?

National Call to Take Back America If You Can Find It

And there we have it.

This GR3 nutbag goes on ignore. Yet another FOX spouting loon with no clue. I pity him for his ignorance.

Thread: Any doubts about Climate Change?

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions