• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

'The Great Global Warming Swindle': Is Climate Change A Myth?

Interesting, bigfoot, but another page from the skepticalscience site seems to suggest that the warming is isolated and largely explicable by other means:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global- ... system.htm

Interestingly enough re the charges laid against Russian involvement in the UEA hacking - there's a poster campaign advertising the news channel Russia Today running on the London Underground. This is one of the posters:

Russia-Today-Adverts-005.jpg


Well, they would say that wouldn't they?
 
The scepticalscience link was indeed cogent stuff.
The cosmic rays/'cosmic fluff' findings have only been out for a month or so and much further academic digestion is needed, particularly by not-very-scientific types like me.
Russia, the Land that Truth Forgot. The land that scuttles it's decommissioned nuclear powered subs with the reactors still inside.
 
Only 6 planets or moons out of the 100+ bodies in the solar system have been observed to be warming. On the other hand, Uranus is cooling
Click to expand...
:D

The cosmic rays stuff has not been out for nearly eight years, not a few months (check the publication dates on the links). It's a zombie theory, dead but refusing to lie down...
 
Good finds Rynner - I've seen the "oh it's cold so climate change must be rubbish" angle touted on the BBC news, of all places, several times this week. I was beginning to wonder if there were any news stories countering this fallacy.
Click to expand...

I think you must have been looking at a different version of the BBC website to me. The site has carried a number of stories about the current weather and its wider climatic implications, and all of them have concluded that all the evidence points to warming and that no conclusions can be drawn from the cold snap.

Perhaps I've missed the "climate change must be rubbish" story - I'd be interested in seeing it if you could link it.

As for Coren's article, it's rather disingenuous for him to bring up the Gulf Stream issue as no one, even the most fervent global warming soomsayer, is suggesting that the current cold period is due to the Gulf Stream shifting.

I would also take issue with this statement:


Nobody who understands the science is claiming that global warming (if it happens) is going to make Britain hotter in the long run.
Click to expand...

But they are aren't they? There have been various scare stories in recent years about the risk of tropical diseases and parasites coming to the UK as we warm up as well as suggestions that the London Underground may have to be abandoned as it will be too hot to travel on it in our new, 40C summers. Saying that in fact what climnate change scientists have been saying all along is that the UK is going to become really cold is absolute nonsense.
 
Nobody who understands the science is claiming that global warming (if it happens) is going to make Britain hotter in the long run.
Click to expand...

Hmm, well Doug Smith, a climate 'expert' at the UK Met Office is willing to put his reputation out there, as this Observer comment pieces shows.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/1 ... big-freeze

I'll just include below my own, subjective, highlights:

It may be a hard notion to accept after a week that has seen the nation paralysed by snow and ice. Nevertheless, meteorologists are adamant that our world is still getting warmer. Indeed, many now believe that 2010 may turn out to be the hottest year on record.

"The hottest year on record was 1998 and some people have argued that if global warming is really taking place, we should have had an even warmer year since then. We haven't, I admit. And yes, the weather is absolutely terrible at present. However, I am sure things will change – and we won't have to wait long either."

And now for a soundbite or two from Richard Betts, head of climate impact at the Met Office:

This takes us to the heart of the matter. Meteorologists may make errors with specific long-range forecasts. (This winter was more likely to be mild than severe, they thought.) There is no doubt about the overall trend. Each year, humanity pumps billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The inevitable result will be global warming and major, catastrophic climate change.

It is a bit like playing Pooh sticks, says Betts. "When you throw sticks off a bridge, you know they will all be swept downstream. You just don't know which one will move the fastest. It is the same with climate and the weather. We know the world is warming inexorably but we cannot say specifically which year is going to be the warmest. We can only indicate what are the general prospects of getting a record-breaking year. And despite the horrible weather at present, it is quite possible that we will get one this year."

So there you have it: the world, probably including GB is getting warmer and its CO2 what done it. But is that the end of the story? Well, for the vast majority yes. Confident and comforted that the overwhelming scientific consesus states that man-made carbon dioxide emissions are responsible for the current global temperature rise, they put their faith in the boffins and the politicians to tax our way out of this 'mess'.

However, other scientists have shown that carbon dioxide levels appear to have no statistical correlation to global temperature levels, from a historical perspective:

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010 ... 216970c-pi

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010 ... 65a970c-pi

It also appears where proxy data does not support the "overwhelming consensus", that data is ignored. the email hack of the CRU recently showed this was an accepted method of remaining "on message" to the media community.

here's just one example:

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index ... ure-story/

Are we affecting the environment? Yes, probably. Is the movement of our solar system through the interstellar medium, the affects of cosmic rays on clouds, the varying sun spot cycle, the earths precessional, elliptical orbit around the sun, the cyclical nature of hemispherical weather patterns, the amount of CO2 uptake by the oceans, volcanic activity, arctic and antartic pressure oscillations, and as yet imperfectly understood natural cycles affecting the environment? Almost certainly.

The graphs taken from this thought-provoking blog. Like the owner says, there's plenty of interesting articles on there:

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/my_weblo ... sites.html

As far as im concerned the jury is still out on mankinds level of input, a position i am aware that puts me in the holocaust-denying, flat-earthist, luddite, selfish, right-wing, free-market neo-fascist grouping, where i so obviously belong:)
 
This isn't aimed at your last paragraph Twin Star, honestly! I just thought it looked interesting, and apologies if its been posted before.

http://openleft.com/diary/16584/why-the ... ate-change



Climate change gives people a reason to implement left-wing policies. Leftists have always wanted to fight against corporations, capitalism and consumerism. Leftists have always wanted to take stuff away from the rich. Now they have an objective, scientific reason to do so, not merely an ideological one. Of course pro-market people like me are angry. I'm pretty sure that this is how politically correct liberals feel like when people talk about IQ studies.
But we just have to ignore our feelings and accept the cold, hard facts. Climate change is happening, it is anthropogenic and it will have serious consequences if we do nothing about it. Yes, left-wing, anti-market, anti-rich policies would be bad and immoral IF there was no climate change. But the fact is that climate change IS happening, so the usual moral and economic pro-market arguments don't apply anymore. I believe that many other environmental problems can be solved by free markets, but not this one.
Click to expand...
 
The whole issue has become very politicised and as I said earlier in the thread I would be surprised if there are any genuinely dispassionate scientists working in this area.

I do have concerns about the motivations of many of those protesting about climate change, which can often horribly authoritarian and capable of being summarised as "let's stop the oiks flying/driving".

In my view, while there are inevitably negatives associated with the car and affordable air travel, overall those things have brought ordinary people wonderful freedoms which they would never have had before. I am suspicious of the motivations of anyone that would curtail those freedoms.

Finally, dire warnings of an impending apocalypse have been a feature of the whole of human history. Perhaps this time the doomsayers are right. Perhaps in 100 years time historians will look back on the global warming hysteria as a curioisity and debate the reasons it became so ubiquitous.

Who knows?
 
Quake makes some good points. There are those who would happily have us all return to a hunter-gather existence. Well, maybe a gatherer existence, as they are usually vegan as well.

I'm not denying the reality of Global Warming or the part that WE have played in craeting it. But I dont want to see civilisation fall, lets see what we can do to protect and salve the environment without going back to knitting our own underwear.

Hi Tech civilisation is good! Many people would have nasty, brutal and short lives without it. (And in the developing world many people still have such lives)
 
Quake42 said:
The whole issue has become very politicised and as I said earlier in the thread I would be surprised if there are any genuinely dispassionate scientists working in this area
Click to expand...

I agree, it is politicised but then it HAS to be. The steps required to control climate change and pollution in general can only be initiated by the politicians. As it enters the political spheres you would expect their to be varying schools of thought as to how the science is interpreted.

~What IS odd is that the two major political parties in the UK agree over the fact that it's happening!
 
Quake42 said:
In my view, while there are inevitably negatives associated with the car and affordable air travel, overall those things have brought ordinary people wonderful freedoms which they would never have had before. I am suspicious of the motivations of anyone that would curtail those freedoms.
Click to expand...

Agreed, and this is certainly a powerful motivation for developing low-carbon alternatives. Cutting CO2 emissions need not curtail anyone's travel in the long run; equally, there's no reason why people travelling should be allowed to damage the planet. Most countries have emissions laws for all sorts of other pollutants, C02 is just another to add to the list.
 
I think there's a case for going back to large prop planes for local flights and travel to Europe, leaving jets for very long flights. This would seriously cut down on the fuel used for flying.
Also, for transport that isn't time-critical, there is perhaps a case for going back to airships. Some people have tried to do this several times without success.

I guess we've all been a bit spoilt by easy access to jet planes.
 
I think there's a case for going back to large prop planes for local flights and travel to Europe, leaving jets for very long flights. This would seriously cut down on the fuel used for flying.
Also, for transport that isn't time-critical, there is perhaps a case for going back to airships.
Click to expand...

I always think it's a great shame that airships have disappeared from the skies. They looked like a wonderful way to travel, although I don't know if they would pass muster in terms of safety nowadays.

Aviation is responsible for a relatively small proportion of emissions, and as such I wonder why it seems to be the focus of so much hatred from climate change activists. There seems to be a puritanical element, ie that people are enjoying themselves far too much with holidays, weekends abroad, etc and so guilt must be heaped upon air travellers. If guilt doesn't work then there must be punitive measures and/or rationing.

The Guardian carried a dreadful comment piece just before Christmas, with the author rejoicing that the poor weather might stop people travelling to see friends and family over the festive period. The article concluded by saying it was a good thing for people to have less mobility and if this meant never seeing friends and family again then tough.

This sort of attitude isn't about saving the planet. It's about keeping people in their place. Hence my scepticism about a lot of activists' motivation.
 
The fact remains though, that the transport industry around the world is almost entirely reliant on fossil fuels.

That has stemmed from the fact that the transport industry has never really pressed development of either highly efficient engines (aero, marine or road) or alternative fuels because of the relative abundance of fossil fuels.

The reality is that since 1937 when practical jet engines were developed, the major development has been around power, reliability and management, not efficiency. High bypass turbines guzzle fuel at alarming rates, though while providing incredible longevity and load carrying ability.
However, automotive, aero and marine engineering have moved on little in outright terms. A WWII engineer would not take very long to get to grips with a modern engine, bar the ECU.

So now, it is only as the pressure mounts that those truly recalcitrant are identified. US car makers in particular have been shown, through both environmental and economic pressures, to have been innovation bankrupt as they could not make the move from large, inefficient engines, to cleaner, smaller more efficient ones. So Japanese and European manufacturers trumped them. But now, even as a lowly 2.0l, straight 4 engine is regarded as inefficient (which it is) and not green enough (which it's not), all the car makers have been show to be short in innovation terms.

Even hybrids are lacking as the process required to produce the huge amounts of nickel used for the batteries is massively damaging to the environment and so, over their life time, are harder on the environment than traditional internal combustion only cars.
The great irony is that the greenest cars in the
world are Aton Martins because they are for the most part hand built from high quality parts and so last longer, are low volume and something like to thirds of all Aston Martins ever built are still in use!

Transport needs a kick in the arse to find the solutions to the problems it creates because it is a contributor only to CO2 emissions. The proportion attributable to transport alone is not enough of a spur. And the call to simply use it less will be as successful as the Vatican's "just say no" approach to teenage pregnancy - it ain't gonna fucking happen!

Were a far sighted government somewhere to say that a hard deadline was to be implemented for the complete eradication of internal combustion engines then there might be a sufficient push to finally consign the reciprocating internal combustion engine in particular to the scrap heap of history.

Until this kind of measure is taken, it is unlikely that real progress will be seen.

A
 
Mythopoeika said:
I think there's a case for going back to large prop planes for local flights and travel to Europe, leaving jets for very long flights. This would seriously cut down on the fuel used for flying.
Also, for transport that isn't time-critical, there is perhaps a case for going back to airships. Some people have tried to do this several times without success.

I guess we've all been a bit spoilt by easy access to jet planes.
Click to expand...


You think changing air travel is tough? Try getting people to cycle a few miles to work or the shops to help make our communities a little nicer to live in. :x
 
A bit of a relief, though small comfort, to know that the glaciers of the Himalayas are apparently melting away 10 times slower than originally forecast in the IPCC report.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/20/ipcc-himalayan-glaciers-mistake

IPCC officials admit mistake over melting Himalayan glaciers

Senior members of the UN's climate science body admit a claim that Himalayan glaciers could melt away by 2035 was unfounded

guardian.co.uk. Damian Carrington. 20 January 2010

The UN's climate science body has admitted that a claim made in its 2007 report - that Himalayan glaciers could melt away by 2035 - was unfounded.

The admission today followed a New Scientist article last week that revealed the source of the claim made in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was not peer-reviewed scientific literature – but a media interview with a scientist conducted in 1999. Several senior scientists have now said the claim was unrealistic and that the large Himalayan glaciers could not melt in a few decades.

In a statement (pdf), the IPCC said the paragraph "refers to poorly substantiated estimates of rate of recession and date for the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers. In drafting the paragraph in question, the clear and well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC procedures, were not applied properly."

It added: "The IPCC regrets the poor application of well-established IPCC procedures in this instance." But the statement calls for no action beyond stating a need for absolute adherence to IPCC quality control processes. "We reaffirm our strong commitment to ensuring this level of performance," the statement said.

The IPCC says the broader conclusion of the report is unaffected: that glaciers have melted significantly, that this will accelerate and affect the supply of water from major mountain ranges "where more than one-sixth of the world population currently lives".

Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, vice-chair of the IPCC, added that the mistake did nothing to undermine the large body of evidence that showed the climate was warming and that human activity was largely to blame. He told BBC News: "I don't see how one mistake in a 3,000-page report can damage the credibility of the overall report. "

The Indian environment minister, Jairam Ramesh, said earlier in the week: "The [glaciers] are indeed receding and the rate is cause for great concern … [but the claim is] not based on an iota of scientific evidence."

The Indian government criticised the IPCC's glaciers claim in November at the launch of its own discussion paper, written by geologist Vijay Kumar Raina, which admitted that while some glaciers in the Himalayas were retreating, it was "nothing out of the ordinary. Nothing to suggest as some have said that they will disappear."

At the time, the chairman of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, dismissed the report as not peer-reviewed and said: "With the greatest of respect this guy retired years ago and I find it totally baffling that he comes out and throws out everything that has been established years ago."

Georg Kaser, an expert in tropical glaciology at the University of Innsbruck in Austria and a lead author for the IPCC, said he had warned that the 2035 prediction was clearly wrong in 2006, months before the report was published. "This [date] is not just a little bit wrong, but far out of any order of magnitude," he said.

"All the responsible people are aware of this weakness in the fourth assessment. All are aware of the mistakes made," he said. "If it had not been the focus of so much public opinion, we would have said 'we will do better next time'. It is clear now that working group II has to be restructured."

The reports of the IPCC collate the work of thousands of scientists and are assessed through a process of peer-review and then approved by the 192 governments who are members of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Its work is seen as the most comprehensive account of global warming.

The chair of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, has made no personal comment on the glacier claim: But yesterday, at an energy conference in Abu Dhabi, he responded to British newspaper articles criticising his chairmanship of the IPCC. "They can't attack the science so they attack the chairman. But they won't sink me. I am the unsinkable Molly Brown. In fact, I will float much higher," he told the Guardian.

The row centres on the IPCC's "fourth assessment" report in 2007, which said "glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate." The claim appears in the full report, but not in the more widely read "Summary for policymakers".

The claim was attributed to a report by the campaign group WWF, but in the New Scientist article, Guardian writer Fred Pearce noted that WWF had cited a 1999 interview in the magazine with Indian glaciologist Syed Hasnain as the source of the claim. Hasnain told the magazine last week that "it is not proper for IPCC to include references from popular magazines or newspapers".

Additional reporting: Ian Wylie
Click to expand...
Emphasis mine

An off the cuff remark, printed in the media, got into the official report and no one bothered to check sources, for 10 years. Sloppy. Can happen, though. It's a big report.

The ice is still melting
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
The ice is still melting
Click to expand...

Or is that aggresively advancing?

http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content ... ot-melting

The second glacier, the Siachin glacier in Kashmir, is even more stable. Claims reported in the popular press that Siachin has shrunk as much as 50% are simply wrong, says Raina, whose report notes that the glacier has “not shown any remarkable retreat in the last 50 years.” These conclusions were based in part on field measurements by ecologist Kireet Kumar of the G. B. Pant Institute of Himalayan Environment and Development in Almora. Much like the hysteria about Greenland's ice cap, it seems reports of the glaciers' demise are a bit premature.

According to a report in the journal Science, “several Western experts who have conducted studies in the region agree with Raina's nuanced analysis—even if it clashes with IPCC's take on the Himalayas.” The “extremely provocative” findings “are consistent with what I have learned independently,” says Jeffrey S. Kargel, a glaciologist at the University of Arizona, Tucson. Many glaciers in the Karakoram Mountains, on the border of India and Pakistan, have “stabilized or undergone an aggressive advance,” he says, citing new evidence gathered by a team led by Michael Bishop, a mountain geomorphologist at the University of Nebraska.
Click to expand...
my emphasis


My what fun we all had when I pointed this out only last month.


http://www.forteantimes.com/forum/viewt ... &start=330

:roll:
 
Scunnerlugzzz said:
Pietro_Mercurios said:
The ice is still melting
Click to expand...

Or is that aggresively advancing?
Click to expand...

Well it depends whether or not you confuse the word 'many' with 'most' and what they tell you about a trend, really. Many people gained employment last year but does that mean that unemployment has declined? Indeed many people lost their jobs last year but does that mean most of are now unemployed?

In any case, surely the main points to be taken from this are

(a) the inaccuracy of their claim is an error of degree rather than of direction, the reverse of which is true for the sceptic's claims

and

(b) their misleading claim has been corrected, again something that can not be claimed of the sceptics' inaccurate claims.

More on the origin of that error fromthe corporation which only presents one set of views on global warming
 
ted_bloody_maul said:
the inaccuracy of their claim is an error of degree rather than of direction
Click to expand...

If you can explain to me in terms of C02 driven Global warming how some glaciers in the Himalaya region are moderately retreating whilst others are aggressively advancing I'd be much obliged.
 
Scunnerlugzzz said:
ted_bloody_maul said:
the inaccuracy of their claim is an error of degree rather than of direction
Click to expand...

If you can explain to me in terms of C02 driven Global warming how some glaciers in the Himalaya region are moderately retreating whilst others are aggressively advancing I'd be much obliged.
Click to expand...
It's probably not that surprising, rising temperatures are changing weather patterns around the globe. The weather systems of the Himalayas work by picking up cold and hot air flows from one place and precipitating snow and ice in another.

According to the Wikipedia, temperatures are still rising there, faster than in other parts of the World.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himalayas#Impact_on_climate

Impact on climate

The Himalayas have a profound effect on the climate of the Indian subcontinent and the Tibetan plateau. They prevent frigid, dry Arctic winds blowing south into the subcontinent, which keeps South Asia much warmer than corresponding temperate regions in the other continents. It also forms a barrier for the monsoon winds, keeping them from traveling northwards, and causing heavy rainfall in the Terai region. The Himalayas are also believed to play an important part in the formation of Central Asian deserts, such as the Taklamakan and Gobi.

The mountain ranges also prevent western winter disturbances in Iran from traveling further, resulting in snow in Kashmir and rainfall for parts of Punjab and northern India. Despite being a barrier to the cold, northernly winter winds, the Brahmaputra valley receives part of the frigid winds, thus lowering the temperature in the North East India and Bangladesh.

The Himalayas, which are often called "The Roof of the World", contain the greatest area of glaciers and permafrost outside of the poles. Ten of Asia’s largest rivers flow from here, and more than a billion people’s livelihoods depend on them. To complicate matters, temperatures are rising more rapidly here than the global average. In Nepal, the temperature has risen 0.6 degree C over the last decade, whereas the global warming has been around 0.7 degree C over the last hundred years.[6]

...
Click to expand...
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
It's probably not that surprising
Click to expand...

Actually it is surprising.

Quite apart from you assuming very specific localised Himalayan weather systems that no one else has ever mentioned in relation to this subject.

From the Telegraph article above;

Dr Raina, the country's most senior glaciologist, published...the rate of retreat ... had not increased in the past 50 years
Click to expand...

So this means that from 1960 the rate of retreat, of those glaciers that are retreating (we'll leave out the aggressively advancing ones for the moment), has remained constant.
Have you any idea how much CO2 has entered the atmosphere since 1960? Yet that vast amount of CO2 has had no effect on the rate of retreat of those glaciers that are retreating?

An independant observer might surmise that there is no relationship between the CO2 output and the glaciers decline (and growth).
 
Oh the irony...TERI scientists say that the effect of soot from developing countries has largely been ignored in glacial retreats;

Once the black carbon lands on glaciers, it absorbs sunlight that would otherwise be reflected by the snow, leading to melting. "This is a huge problem which we are ignoring," said Professor Syed Hasnain of the Energy and Resources Institute (Teri) in Delhi. "We are finding concentrations of black carbon in the Himalayas in what are supposed to be pristine, untouched environments."

The institute has set up two sensors in the Himalayas, one on the Kholai glacier that sits on the mountain range's western flank in Kashmir and the other flowing through the eastern reaches in Sikkim. Glaciers in this region feed most of the major rivers in Asia. The short-term result of substantial melting is severe flooding downstream.

Hasnain says India and China produce about a third of the world's black carbon, and both countries have been slow to act. "India is the worst. At least in China the state has moved to measure the problem. In Delhi no government agency has put any sensors on the ground. [Teri] is doing it by ourselves."

In August this year Yao Tandong, director of China's Institute of Tibetan Plateau Research, projected "a 43% decrease in glacial area by 2070", adding that "more and more scientists have come to recognize the impact of black carbon in glacial melting".

Black carbon's role has only recently been recognized ??“ it was not mentioned as a factor in the United Nation's major 2007 report on climate change ??“ but this month the U.N. environment program called for cuts in black carbon output. In November it will publish a report stating that 50% of the emissions causing global warming are from non-CO2 pollutants.

Decreasing black carbon emissions should be a relatively cheap way to significantly curb global warming. Black carbon falls from the atmosphere after just a couple of weeks, and replacing primitive cooking stoves with modern versions that emit far less soot could quickly end the problem. Controlling traffic in the Himalayan region should help ease the harm done by emissions from diesel engines.

Both New Delhi and Beijing, say experts, have been reluctant to come forward with plans on black carbon because they do not want attention diverted from richer nations' responsibility to cut carbon dioxide emissions.

At a high-level forum on energy in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, India's environment minister, Jairam Ramesh, rejected attempts to link black carbon to the efforts to reach an international agreement to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Black carbon had no place in the Copenhagen negotiations towards a global pact on global warming, he said. "Black carbon is another issue. I know there is now a desire to bring the black carbon issue into the mainstream. I am simply not in favor of it."
Click to expand...
 
Scunnerlugzzz said:
ted_bloody_maul said:
the inaccuracy of their claim is an error of degree rather than of direction
Click to expand...

If you can explain to me in terms of C02 driven Global warming how some glaciers in the Himalaya region are moderately retreating whilst others are aggressively advancing I'd be much obliged.
Click to expand...

I don't know and I don't pretend to know. What I can say with some confidence, however, is that unless you're claiming there is no retreat on any of the glaciers then clearly different glaciers in a similar part of the world can demonstrate contradictory ebbs and flows.

Could you explain - by any means of your choosing - what could be responsible for the contradictory data and why the fact that there would be any contradiction negates any claims about trends based on the data as a whole?
 
Scunnerlugzzz said:
ted_bloody_maul said:
the inaccuracy of their claim is an error of degree rather than of direction
Click to expand...

If you can explain to me in terms of C02 driven Global warming how some glaciers in the Himalaya region are moderately retreating whilst others are aggressively advancing I'd be much obliged.
Click to expand...
Here's a link to a presentation on that very subject. Soot deposition, changing weather patterns and increasing, or decreasing, 'advance' of glaciers included.

http://web.hwr.arizona.edu/~gleonard/2009Dec-FallAGU-Soot-PressConference-Backgrounder-Kargel.pdf
 
Since when has localised soot been anything to do with Global Warming guys?
Ever thought you're flogging a dead horse?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top