Verbal Posted 18 December, 2009 Share Posted 18 December, 2009 Lawson's 'scpeticism' amount to no more than the hopeful belief that 'I can't possibly see how puny little humankind could cause climate change.' It's about on a par with believing the earth HAS to be flat because he can't see how we would fall off otherwise. Quite pathetic really - and his lack of engagement with the scientific argument is, of course, to be expected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopGun Posted 18 December, 2009 Author Share Posted 18 December, 2009 I seem to remember reading somewhere that wind turbines work at 20% efficiency in the British Isles. At that rate the return on investment is questionable at best. The average for turbines in the UK is 25%. You need an average wind speed of about 7 metres /second to achieve that. Turbines generally work up to 12 metres/second when they will shut down. To say that wind is questionable is farcical as the UK has the best wind speeds in Europe and wind has proved itself more than adequately elsewhere in Europe as a viable form of commercial energy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 19 December, 2009 Share Posted 19 December, 2009 just been watching the news..it seems that the all important meeting in Denmark will not end with what was hoped for.. why, as a small nation are we being taxed to off-set our carbon footprint whilst the like of china can do what they like and put any effort we do into insignificance..? why as the only major economy still in recession is Brown giving away more money than most (in europe) for this effort when again, unless china and the USA take the lead, it is all pointless... I really cannot help thinking all this is another way to tax us... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopGun Posted 19 December, 2009 Author Share Posted 19 December, 2009 just been watching the news..it seems that the all important meeting in Denmark will not end with what was hoped for.. why, as a small nation are we being taxed to off-set our carbon footprint whilst the like of china can do what they like and put any effort we do into insignificance..? why as the only major economy still in recession is Brown giving away more money than most (in europe) for this effort when again, unless china and the USA take the lead, it is all pointless... I really cannot help thinking all this is another way to tax us... If you read the Copenhagen text you will realise that China is ready to do its bit. The problem with China is that people have this idea they open a coal-fired power station every two weeks, as gets reported in the media here. China is opening new coal power stations in some parts of the country but it is also a leading player in renewable power and CCS. It is also the world's leading producer and installer of solar PV panels. Ultimately the US has a carbon footprint that is 10x higher per person than China has. And the UK is also 5x higher than China per person. China just has lots of people and the often ignorant media here distorts the issue. Which leads to unknowingly ignorant views expressed widely as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 19 December, 2009 Share Posted 19 December, 2009 The average for turbines in the UK is 25%. You need an average wind speed of about 7 metres /second to achieve that. Turbines generally work up to 12 metres/second when they will shut down. To say that wind is questionable is farcical as the UK has the best wind speeds in Europe and wind has proved itself more than adequately elsewhere in Europe as a viable form of commercial energy. The UK is the world's leader in installed offshore wind capacity. Interesting fact. Nonetheless, the economics of offshore wind are quesitonable and it is completely reliant on regulatory support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopGun Posted 19 December, 2009 Author Share Posted 19 December, 2009 The UK is the world's leader in installed offshore wind capacity. Interesting fact. Nonetheless, the economics of offshore wind are quesitonable and it is completely reliant on regulatory support. Unlike nuclear? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 19 December, 2009 Share Posted 19 December, 2009 Quite unlike frying an egg on a hot stone anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 19 December, 2009 Share Posted 19 December, 2009 Unlike nuclear? Nuclear is the only option and we should have been building them 10 years ago. Everything else is expensive wishful thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopGun Posted 19 December, 2009 Author Share Posted 19 December, 2009 (edited) Nuclear is the only option and we should have been building them 10 years ago. Everything else is expensive wishful thinking. I agree with nuke build, because of the circumstances. Nuke is actually far more expensive to build short term (than CCGTs for example) and also long term to set aside money for depositing the waste safely but we have few options because of the shambolic energy policy that should have adopted more renewables years ago. The government is still debating what to do with the radioactive waste that we have stored in canisters as a short/medium term measure at Sellafield. TDD will also back me up when I say that we also have 13 defunct nuke subs sitting in Devon and Scotland quietly rotting away as no answer has been found for the disposal of the core reactors yet. Short of blasting nuke waste into space or quietly dumping it in the sea (as the USSR did) you need to build an effing big hole in the ground, as the US has done in the middle of nowhere. Edited 19 December, 2009 by TopGun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 19 December, 2009 Share Posted 19 December, 2009 What's wrong with building a big hole or dumping it in the sea? Serious question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopGun Posted 19 December, 2009 Author Share Posted 19 December, 2009 What's wrong with building a big hole or dumping it in the sea? Serious question. The sea is a no-no for environmental and political reasons. The USSR dumped four subs in their bit of the Arctic Sea and it makes Chernobyl look pleasant. A big deep hole would be fine (well, best option) but we don't have space in the UK to do that without it being near a community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 19 December, 2009 Share Posted 19 December, 2009 Even in Wales or Scotland? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 19 December, 2009 Share Posted 19 December, 2009 Even in Wales or Scotland? I take it that you are neither Welsh nor Scottish? You need long-term geological stability and there are possible sites but there is local opposition. Another part of the problem is that our breeder reactors have also been used to provide products for the UK nuclear weapons industry and there is a lot of reprocessing necessary before storage. The sea is probably the safest place but that's a political no-no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopGun Posted 19 December, 2009 Author Share Posted 19 December, 2009 Even in Wales or Scotland? You could dig a whacking great hole anywhere and stuff it full of high level radioactive waste and cover it up. Theoretically you could build the hole in Hampshire, not just Wales or Scotland. The NIMBY issue is probably a fair one in this case though, no matter where it might be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintsmike25 Posted 19 December, 2009 Share Posted 19 December, 2009 just been watching the news..it seems that the all important meeting in Denmark will not end with what was hoped for.. why, as a small nation are we being taxed to off-set our carbon footprint whilst the like of china can do what they like and put any effort we do into insignificance..? why as the only major economy still in recession is Brown giving away more money than most (in europe) for this effort when again, unless china and the USA take the lead, it is all pointless... I really cannot help thinking all this is another way to tax us... You have to be joking saying this is a way to 'tax us'. Frankly it's a shame this recession took place we took our eyes off the ball big time when it comes to Climate Change, and the US is the one that needs to do the most about it as they use up the most energy per person - China is industrialising still and think about it feeding 1 billion people? it takes some doing if China has to cut down we have to help them. India is the country that will really suffer when the rivers dry up because of climate change Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopGun Posted 19 December, 2009 Author Share Posted 19 December, 2009 You have to be joking saying this is a way to 'tax us'. Frankly it's a shame this recession took place we took our eyes off the ball big time when it comes to Climate Change, and the US is the one that needs to do the most about it as they use up the most energy per person - China is industrialising still and think about it feeding 1 billion people? it takes some doing if China has to cut down we have to help them. India is the country that will really suffer when the rivers dry up because of climate change TBF Mike, TDD normally signs off a post with a "tax payer" comment. Clearly the Navy spend their "tax payer" money efficiently and no other body does. I'd put TDD up for Chancellor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint George Posted 19 December, 2009 Share Posted 19 December, 2009 1) Actually, he's more concerned with Russia's gas industry. 2) As for empty accusations, you seem to keep making them - where is your EVIDENCE ? All you ever do is post up the results of your latest google trawl, or are you on an RSS feed from some of the right-wing denialist blogs ? 3) You still haven't answered my questions. :cool: You can cry conspiracy all you want but the fact is....When you put those removed temperature records back into the the system, there is 'no' Amageddon type unatural warming. http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/daleo-and-just-like-that-the-warmings-gone-pjm-exclusive/ They even knew it at Copenhagen.....What a total and utter Circus that was lol....Man, thankfully it couldn't have been a more spectacular failure.....Talk about the Obama effect...LMAO! As for "evidence"?....Fraid to say, its up to the wack jobs who present AGW as a taxable and lifestyle changing 'fact' to provide the evidence. Something they've failed to do time and time again, well at least without misrepresentation and fraud...Untill they can come up with something waaaay better than they have, I and the other realist's will be "carrying on regardless" heh I've still got my feet up and popcorn out enjoying the show.....This was funny a year or so ago now its ****ing hilarious....the whole shebang is imploding in the most amazing and spectacular way Oh what a Circus, oh what a show And Minty...."proceed with caution" is closer to my mantra...Unfortunatly "proceed with caution" is not on the agenda of the wack job alarmists....Can you honestly say you've heard a single one of them say that?.....Nope, thats right you can't......What you hear is ....."The debate is over"...."There is a scientific consenscencus".... "We 'must' act 'now' or it will be too late"..."The Coal trains of Death"...."The World 'must' pay" I dont see anything precautionary in there...If you sign up to the AGW bandwagon then thats what your'e signing up to....there is 'no' half measure with the whack jobs!...Just listen to Gordy And the dodgier their religion looks, the more desperate they're getting......Thankfully the world is not entirely full of the Dim and Gullible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 19 December, 2009 Share Posted 19 December, 2009 It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt. Mark Twain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopGun Posted 19 December, 2009 Author Share Posted 19 December, 2009 It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt. Mark Twain Indeed +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Landrew Posted 19 December, 2009 Share Posted 19 December, 2009 It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt. Mark Twain Yeah +2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 20 December, 2009 Share Posted 20 December, 2009 (edited) From http://greenerblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/todays-buzz-is-about-moscow-based-free.html "So I ask the Met Office for a comment. They reply: The World Meteorological Organisation chooses the set of stations designated as essential climate stations that have been released by the Met Office. These are evenly distributed across the globe and provide a fair representation of changes in global average temperature over land. We do not choose these stations and therefore it is impossible for the Met Office to fix the data. The global temperatures record, HadCRUT has been shown to underestimate the rise in global average temperatures over the past 30 years when compared against a fuller analysis of global temperatures. This analysis includes information from a wide range of sources such as satellites, radiosondes, and sea surface temperature data, but does not include surface observations used in HadCRUT, so is fully independent. The analysis shows that HadCRUT under-estimates the warming in the Russian region, in particular, because of the limited availability of Northern Hemisphere high latitude observations. The Met Office is keen to publish all underpinning station data as it becomes available. We are already in the process of seeking agreement to release the underpinning data from its owners. (emphasis added) So it looks as if the IEA have got it wrong about who removed the measuring points, and in any case, there is no evidence that they are removing stations that are too cold. So it looks as if it is another damp squib from the deniers. This will not stop them from spraying it around the blogosphere, and to news sources which are also in denial. A lie is halfway around the world before the truth has got its boots on. The red line shows readings from the smaller set of 121 stations, and the blue line is for the larger set of 476 stations. They agree very well since 1950. Before that, the red smaller set, the ones chosen by the data collectors, show colder temps. It is true that the pruned readings from 1990 on are fractionally warmer than the full set, but the difference is not significant, as both lines are cooler than the best estimate grey line.It is odd that the selected by the WMO is more cold in the 1880s, going beyond the grey line of total uncertainty. The key point is that the two sets agree very well from the 1960s onward. So - no goal for the skeptics at the Institute for Economic Analysis. Maybe they should stick to economics. " Edited 20 December, 2009 by badgerx16 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 20 December, 2009 Share Posted 20 December, 2009 CLIMATE NUT BROWN WILL RUIN BRITAIN http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/146922/Climate-nut-Brown-will-ruin-Britain Daily Express readers showed their distrust of Mr Brown’s sweeping plans this week, with an overwhelming 98 per cent of those taking part in a phone vote agreeing that the nation was being conned over global warming. The Commie Climate Comrades on this thread are dinosaur Socialists of the same ilk as Brown. You only have to look at the state of the economy that the Labour scum have given us to see how utterly retarded the entire party is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 20 December, 2009 Share Posted 20 December, 2009 CLIMATE NUT BROWN WILL RUIN BRITAIN http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/146922/Climate-nut-Brown-will-ruin-Britain Daily Express readers showed their distrust of Mr Brown’s sweeping plans this week, with an overwhelming 98 per cent of those taking part in a phone vote agreeing that the nation was being conned over global warming. The Commie Climate Comrades on this thread are dinosaur Socialists of the same ilk as Brown. You only have to look at the state of the economy that the Labour scum have given us to see how utterly retarded the entire party is. Shock, Horror ! Readers of a right-wing rag decide that they don't trust a Labour PM. Do try harder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 20 December, 2009 Share Posted 20 December, 2009 What happened to the ozone layer? we all stopped buying deodorant in the eighties and were told that we would all be wiped out in decades. In the seventies we were being told that we were on the verge of another ice age - man made of course! Scientists are fallible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 20 December, 2009 Share Posted 20 December, 2009 CLIMATE NUT BROWN WILL RUIN BRITAIN http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/146922/Climate-nut-Brown-will-ruin-Britain Daily Express readers showed their distrust of Mr Brown’s sweeping plans this week, with an overwhelming 98 per cent of those taking part in a phone vote agreeing that the nation was being conned over global warming. The Commie Climate Comrades on this thread are dinosaur Socialists of the same ilk as Brown. You only have to look at the state of the economy that the Labour scum have given us to see how utterly retarded the entire party is. Why do you persist in turning it into a political issue - all the main parties agree with climate change you retard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 20 December, 2009 Share Posted 20 December, 2009 What happened to the ozone layer? we all stopped buying deodorant in the eighties and were told that we would all be wiped out in decades. In the seventies we were being told that we were on the verge of another ice age - man made of course! Scientists are fallible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion The largest 'hole' so far observed in the ozone layer was in 2006, and a measurable recovery is not expected until at least 2024. The point about the 'new ice-age' predictions at the start of the 70's was being based on a presumed continuation of a slight cooling trend observed between the 1940's and the 1960's; this pre-dated the advances in climate science bought about by improved satellite observations, which in turn led to the global warming hypotheses, now proved to be correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 20 December, 2009 Share Posted 20 December, 2009 Why do you persist in turning it into a political issue - all the main parties agree with climate change you retard. Dune is a BNP supporter so it comes as no shock that he's a retard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 20 December, 2009 Share Posted 20 December, 2009 Why do you persist in turning it into a political issue - all the main parties agree with climate change you retard. Politicians know nothing about everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 20 December, 2009 Share Posted 20 December, 2009 Temperature measurements from satellite observations show no warming at all. The ground-based measurements are skewed by the fact that a large number of meteorological stations are located in cities and airports whose environments have changed considerably over the time periods that have been considered and so the readings have been 'adjusted' to take account of the local warming effects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 20 December, 2009 Share Posted 20 December, 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion The largest 'hole' so far observed in the ozone layer was in 2006, and a measurable recovery is not expected until at least 2024. The point about the 'new ice-age' predictions at the start of the 70's was being based on a presumed continuation of a slight cooling trend observed between the 1940's and the 1960's; this pre-dated the advances in climate science bought about by improved satellite observations, which in turn led to the global warming hypotheses, now proved to be correct. The ozone layer has no bearing on any global warming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 20 December, 2009 Share Posted 20 December, 2009 No WG I was merely pointing out that in the eighties there was hysteria about the Ozone layer which has now died down. Badger nothing has been proved 'correct'. What many people are saying is that the debate is ongoing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Landrew Posted 20 December, 2009 Share Posted 20 December, 2009 No WG I was merely pointing out that in the eighties there was hysteria about the Ozone layer which has now died down. Badger nothing has been proved 'correct'. What many people are saying is that the debate is ongoing. The hysteria about the ozone layer hasn't died down, as such. It has just been replaced by the hysteria of human influenced climate change. There is still an enormous hole in the ozone layer centred over the Antarctic, and it is very thin in the Antipodes. The hysteria of HICC is slowly being replaced by the hysteria of resource depletion. No doubt, that will be replaced by the hysteria of over-population, once the media decide that telling people they can have an absolute limit of two kids isn't a taboo subject anymore. Can you imagine how those nice people at the Daily Mail/Daily Express are going to phrase that subject so as to get the maximum fright reaction out of the British public..? And even more excitingly, who are they going to blame..? Ooh, I can't wait for the bullsh!t headlines..! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 20 December, 2009 Share Posted 20 December, 2009 I have been to the North Pole and can tell you, It is still farking cold and there is plenty of ice around HTH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 20 December, 2009 Share Posted 20 December, 2009 No WG I was merely pointing out that in the eighties there was hysteria about the Ozone layer which has now died down. I agree with you. Nobody even knew there was a hole until satellite measurements found it. The vast majority of the CFCs came from scrapping air-conditioning systems in american cars, which is easily avoided. I always thought that the ozone in the upper atmosphere was caused by the ionising solar radiation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Landrew Posted 20 December, 2009 Share Posted 20 December, 2009 I have been to the North Pole and can tell you, It is still farking cold and there is plenty of ice around HTH But a great deal less than there used to be, over an annual cycle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 20 December, 2009 Share Posted 20 December, 2009 i have been to the north pole and can tell you, it is still farking cold and there is plenty of ice around hth nhaa. Hth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 20 December, 2009 Share Posted 20 December, 2009 you what..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 20 December, 2009 Share Posted 20 December, 2009 Temperature measurements from satellite observations show no warming at all. The ground-based measurements are skewed by the fact that a large number of meteorological stations are located in cities and airports whose environments have changed considerably over the time periods that have been considered and so the readings have been 'adjusted' to take account of the local warming effects. You might want to inform NASA of your ground breaking news (probably best go into detail and explain them a bit more), this is their current findings... "Global surface air temperatures rose three-quarters of a degree Celsius (almost one and a half degrees Fahrenheit) in the last century, but at twice that amount in the past 50 years. Eleven of the last 12 years (1995-2006) are the warmest since accurate recordkeeping began in 1850. The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.18 degrees Fahrenheit since 1955." I might be wrong but I'm pretty sure NASA also use satellites and stuff, they are obviously not as advanced as yours tho. Also, I covered the Heat Island Effect in GCSE geography, I am shocked to find out NASA and all the World's leading scientists have not heard of it. Probably worth informing them about that too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 20 December, 2009 Share Posted 20 December, 2009 Also, I covered the Heat Island Effect in GCSE geography, I am shocked to find out NASA and all the World's leading scientists have not heard of it. Probably worth informing them about that too. They've heard of it but it's a question of how much correction is applied, and on what basis. Whichever way you look at them the figures have been 'adjusted'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 20 December, 2009 Share Posted 20 December, 2009 And just to balance the debate... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/4029837/Global-warming-Reasons-why-it-might-not-actually-exist.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 20 December, 2009 Share Posted 20 December, 2009 They've heard of it but it's a question of how much correction is applied, and on what basis. Whichever way you look at them the figures have been 'adjusted'. Two thirds of global temperature data comes from ocean records, free of UHI effect. For land records, urban trends are compared to nearby rural data - anomalous urban trends are homogenized to match rural records. However, in most cases, the urban temperature trend is observed to be little different to the rural trend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Landrew Posted 20 December, 2009 Share Posted 20 December, 2009 The ozone layer has no bearing on any global warming. Guess what WG, it isn't true. There is considered to be an indirect effect. I remembered reading something about it earlier this year. This isn't the same one, but it discusses the same thing, albeit in less detail. Antarctic Ice Cover Increasing Before you shout, told you so, note what it says about the Arctic ice though. Of course, having more ice locked up in the Antarctic region affects the global climate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 20 December, 2009 Share Posted 20 December, 2009 I can speak as a voice of "ITK"... have any of you been to the north pole/Arctic regions..? I have and can tell you that man made climate chamge is a lie....I have seen all the ice and stuff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 20 December, 2009 Share Posted 20 December, 2009 To be honest, whilst I agree that man made climate change is happening (I actually agree with the scientists who predict it to be worse than most think - they are generally the ones who have appeared to been right before) from a selfish point of view I am not really that worried. 1. It is ****ing freezing cold outside, I'd prefer it to be warmer. 2. The UK is very likely to be one of the countries least effected and might actually be one of the countries who benefit from a warmer climate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Landrew Posted 20 December, 2009 Share Posted 20 December, 2009 I can speak as a voice of "ITK"... have any of you been to the north pole/Arctic regions..? I have and can tell you that man made climate chamge is a lie....I have seen all the ice and stuff Were you there 40 years ago, and just a few years ago at the same time of the year, TDD..? Don't take us for plonkers, mate. I assume you're joking anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 20 December, 2009 Share Posted 20 December, 2009 (edited) Were you there 40 years ago, and just a few years ago at the same time of the year, TDD..? Don't take us for plonkers, mate. I assume you're joking anyway. no...seriously, I have been to the North Pole...and had a wonder round On 19 April 2004, Tireless and rendezvoused under the Arctic ice and surfaced together at the North Pole North Pole The North Pole, also known as the Geographic North Pole or Terrestrial North Pole, is, subject to the caveats explained below, defined as the point in the northern hemisphere where the Earth's axis of rotation meets the Earth's surface... . Edited 20 December, 2009 by Thedelldays Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 20 December, 2009 Share Posted 20 December, 2009 Guess what WG, it isn't true. There is considered to be an indirect effect. I remembered reading something about it earlier this year. This isn't the same one, but it discusses the same thing, albeit in less detail. Antarctic Ice Cover Increasing Before you shout, told you so, note what it says about the Arctic ice though. Of course, having more ice locked up in the Antarctic region affects the global climate. 'scientists believe' is another way of saying 'nobody knows' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 20 December, 2009 Share Posted 20 December, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 20 December, 2009 Share Posted 20 December, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 20 December, 2009 Share Posted 20 December, 2009 I can speak as a voice of "ITK"... have any of you been to the north pole/Arctic regions..? I have and can tell you that man made climate chamge is a lie....I have seen all the ice and stuff :smt023 I have, 79° north. There was lots of ice and stuff and all sorts of frozen things. But I don't think it proves anything. I've got the same stuff on the road outside my house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now