• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The truth of Global Warming

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'll give a bit more of direct addressing to your questions...

Man you are really out there! Do you think there is no limit to the number of people the earth can support without having serious social and ecological effects?

No, there IS a limit to how many people the earth could maintain... If the world lived like the West does, I mean, excessive waste, more food then we can handle, etc... then I do agree that 6 billion people living that lifestyle would drain resources far faster then is being produced. That said, with responsible development, new agricultural technologies, reallocation of certain spaces for food, etc... there could be 20 billion humans living a decent life, might have to put limits on meat because of the fact that every lb of meat requires something like 20 lb's of feed.

There are other mitigating factors here... do you expect that open air GMO foods might create some disastrous effects?? and I don't necessarily mean instantaneous, I mean like 2-3 generations down the road as the GMO plants and animals cross-breed with non-modified organisms.

Do you realize that the US alone uses up 25% of the earths resources? China is not far behind us now, so that's half the planet's resources for just 2 countries with the whole rest of the world having to split the remaining 50%.

Yes, and that split between the rich and poor sooner or later will need to be addressed... and, to an extent it already IS being addressed... If you're not in the 'too big to fail' then, more then likely you would be in the opposite category... as in 'too small to save'.

You also have to consider the ways in which the developing world is being oppressed and prevented from any meaningful development through policies like those put in place by organizations like the IMF, who will loan a country say 5billion, direct the country where to spend it, and then repay 10 billion dollars and still owe 50billion more.

Do you see a problem with this picture as the rest of the world begins to become as resource dependent as us?
If you're talking about resources like food, water, and housing... then yes... we have a very sick system.

If you're talking about energy resources, definitely not. The problem with oil is NOT that there's a lack of oil... the problem is a lack of refineries to make refined oil and related products. As for the west... well, we can more easily afford to implement large scale systems of alternative energy...

Population growth and practices will have to change to conserve a healthy environment in which people can continue to live an prosper. They are not suggesting killing off people as you imagine, they are showing us how not to **** inside the fort!

That is what your book is about.

Umm... there's several way I can address this, but consider that in the US there are 4400+ abortions performed per DAY!! That the western world has a birth rate >1... the majority of the population are soon to be retired baby boomers.

China has a birth rate that is controlled at just over 1 (farmers can have a second child)... but they also give forced abortions... like if a woman is pregnant with a second child she might walk down the street get, what amounts to kidnapped, have her baby aborted and returned home....

Now, here's the thing, places like parts of Africa have a birth rate of like 7-8... but that's what's necessary, because of all the famine, diseases, and poverty, to ensure that they will have at least one child survive into adult hood. As this situation improves that birth rate will lower accordingly... That's a separate debate as to whether the situation is ACTUALLY improving. (Zimbabwe's Population Size to Drop Nearly 25% Between 1992, 2010 Due to AIDS, Report Says)

Mind you, if someone like Bill Gates got AIDS there's be 3 separate cures within the week, but that's also a side issue.

If you didn't notice above, we have a very different interpretation of the subject matter. If you have some particular passage you think is damning, type it in here from your book and let's determine what they mean. It may be a while before I buy the book.

Look, I understand it's a lot to ask to read through several books like this... and not only that, but to then make the connection of who specifically was all involved in the writing of the books, and to see where they have focused their lives works in the same vein. I know I love to hate on Bill Gates, but that was originally just because the guy made a business model based on shoddy work practices... example, all new windows products when they are first released, should be released as 'free open-beta test' versions, considering that most windows products only become 'useable' after about the second service pack.

ANYWAY, the important part of the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation... first off, they put a HUGE sum of money into the account of this 'tax free foundation' and the interest goes towards operations of his choosing. What does he do???
- Mosquitos GMO'd to give a malaria vaccine when it bites you, including all related side-effects of the vaccine. Genetically Modified Mosquito Vaccinators Buzzin
- The polio vaccine program in Africa : Polio vaccine blamed for outbreaks in Nigeria - Health - Infectious diseases - msnbc.com
- Now he wants to create a 'global vaccination program database' to ensure that every individual gets every vaccine that any drug company can get liability protection for.... Bill Gates: mobile health technology will save lives, help overpopulation - SmartPlanet

Now, that's JUST Mr Gates... and that's JUST in the past decade.

TO get back to the subject...

It's not just the fact that population needs to be reduced and the justifications for such pushes, it's that... well, most countries are not nearly as bound by a constitution that puts the people's freedoms first, most countries are actually run by tyrants... so if you put these bunch of dictators in a room planning the future for society as their respective countries are concerned, why should you expect that they come out with some constitution in any way comparable to that of the US?

So, the problem I have are really in the means to the end, and really... most of the time 'communism' sounds really good... until you wind up with some spoiled leader that decides to keep the lions share to himself before 'spreading the wealth', and then usually winds up killing most of the people that stand opposed.

Which brings me back to the ultimate point... Even if we assume that CO2 DOES cause global warming... this is the LEAST of the matters to be concerned with, on literally EVERY ANGLE you can look at it... but CO2 is the PERFECT ISSUE because it can eventually be used to CONVINCE PEOPLE to take on this program of lowering population.
 
Last edited:
...cost? As opposed to the cost of launching something into freaking space? Do you have any idea how much it would cost to send that much material into high orbit? :D

You could put a hundred reflector arrays on the ground for the same price as a space-born one of the same total area. If not more than 100.

You really think so? Well, let's do it. Let's put some big reflectors in the deserts and send some of the heat back into space. If things cool off too much, we could always cover some of them up.

You may just have hit on a way to stop global warming, one that wouldn't cost more than that fence they want to build on the border. Unlike the fence, your reflectors could actually work.
 
You really think so? Well, let's do it. Let's put some big reflectors in the deserts and send some of the heat back into space. If things cool off too much, we could always cover some of them up.

You may just have hit on a way to stop global warming, one that wouldn't cost more than that fence they want to build on the border. Unlike the fence, your reflectors could actually work.

Why not put some solar cells on those reflector arrays while your at it an kill two environmental problems with one array, so to speak. :sun
 
I'll give a bit more of direct addressing to your questions...



No, there IS a limit to how many people the earth could maintain... If the world lived like the West does, I mean, excessive waste, more food then we can handle, etc... then I do agree that 6 billion people living that lifestyle would drain resources far faster then is being produced. That said, with responsible development, new agricultural technologies, reallocation of certain spaces for food, etc... there could be 20 billion humans living a decent life, might have to put limits on meat because of the fact that every lb of meat requires something like 20 lb's of feed.

The part I bolded is the main thrust of your book. Btw, we are almost to 7 billion now on the planet and our resources aren't keeping up.

There are other mitigating factors here... do you expect that open air GMO foods might create some disastrous effects?? and I don't necessarily mean instantaneous, I mean like 2-3 generations down the road as the GMO plants and animals cross-breed with non-modified organisms.

Not sure I'm following your "other mitigating factors." What are you implying?



Yes, and that split between the rich and poor sooner or later will need to be addressed... and, to an extent it already IS being addressed... If you're not in the 'too big to fail' then, more then likely you would be in the opposite category... as in 'too small to save'.

You also have to consider the ways in which the developing world is being oppressed and prevented from any meaningful development through policies like those put in place by organizations like the IMF, who will loan a country say 5billion, direct the country where to spend it, and then repay 10 billion dollars and still owe 50billion more.

I don't have any knowledge of the IMF practice that you speak of, but I'm glad you realize the split between the rich and the poor needs to be addressed.


If you're talking about resources like food, water, and housing... then yes... we have a very sick system.

Its not just those things, its peak oil, global warming, increased extinctions of plant and animal life that all represent a very sick system. That is what your book explores.


If you're talking about energy resources, definitely not. The problem with oil is NOT that there's a lack of oil... the problem is a lack of refineries to make refined oil and related products. As for the west... well, we can more easily afford to implement large scale systems of alternative energy...

That is not what the oil companies, the geologists, the military and all the world's leading experts have stated. And large scale systems for alternative energy are going to take decades to build.



Umm... there's several way I can address this, but consider that in the US there are 4400+ abortions performed per DAY!! That the western world has a birth rate >1... the majority of the population are soon to be retired baby boomers.

China has a birth rate that is controlled at just over 1 (farmers can have a second child)... but they also give forced abortions... like if a woman is pregnant with a second child she might walk down the street get, what amounts to kidnapped, have her baby aborted and returned home....

Now, here's the thing, places like parts of Africa have a birth rate of like 7-8... but that's what's necessary, because of all the famine, diseases, and poverty, to ensure that they will have at least one child survive into adult hood. As this situation improves that birth rate will lower accordingly... That's a separate debate as to whether the situation is ACTUALLY improving. (Zimbabwe's Population Size to Drop Nearly 25% Between 1992, 2010 Due to AIDS, Report Says)

Mind you, if someone like Bill Gates got AIDS there's be 3 separate cures within the week, but that's also a side issue.


I tried but failed to find your point there.


Look, I understand it's a lot to ask to read through several books like this... and not only that, but to then make the connection of who specifically was all involved in the writing of the books, and to see where they have focused their lives works in the same vein. I know I love to hate on Bill Gates, but that was originally just because the guy made a business model based on shoddy work practices... example, all new windows products when they are first released, should be released as 'free open-beta test' versions, considering that most windows products only become 'useable' after about the second service pack.

ANYWAY, the important part of the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation... first off, they put a HUGE sum of money into the account of this 'tax free foundation' and the interest goes towards operations of his choosing. What does he do???
- Mosquitos GMO'd to give a malaria vaccine when it bites you, including all related side-effects of the vaccine. Genetically Modified Mosquito Vaccinators Buzzin
- The polio vaccine program in Africa : Polio vaccine blamed for outbreaks in Nigeria - Health - Infectious diseases - msnbc.com
- Now he wants to create a 'global vaccination program database' to ensure that every individual gets every vaccine that any drug company can get liability protection for.... Bill Gates: mobile health technology will save lives, help overpopulation - SmartPlanet

Now, that's JUST Mr Gates... and that's JUST in the past decade.

You should buy a Mac computer.


TO get back to the subject...

It's not just the fact that population needs to be reduced and the justifications for such pushes, it's that... well, most countries are not nearly as bound by a constitution that puts the people's freedoms first, most countries are actually run by tyrants... so if you put these bunch of dictators in a room planning the future for society as their respective countries are concerned, why should you expect that they come out with some constitution in any way comparable to that of the US?


We all have to find ways to coexist, both with each other and with nature.


So, the problem I have are really in the means to the end, and really... most of the time 'communism' sounds really good... until you wind up with some spoiled leader that decides to keep the lions share to himself before 'spreading the wealth', and then usually winds up killing most of the people that stand opposed.

No one is promoting communism.

Which brings me back to the ultimate point... Even if we assume that CO2 DOES cause global warming... this is the LEAST of the matters to be concerned with, on literally EVERY ANGLE you can look at it... but CO2 is the PERFECT ISSUE because it can eventually be used to CONVINCE PEOPLE to take on this program of lowering population.

No one is suggesting not addressing our other problems and solely focusing on global warming, as your book, Global Biodiversity Assessment, should convince you. The reason AGW takes on such importance is because of the tipping point when it may be too late to stop devastating effects to the whole world even we if could manage to overcome the political hurdles to actually reduce our output of CO2.
 
Last edited:
Why not put some solar cells on those reflector arrays while your at it an kill two environmental problems with one array, so to speak. :sun

Reflectors are probably cheaper by far, since all you really need is something nice and shiny, but solar panels are also good!

I did think of an issue with ground-based reflectors: what happens when some poor bastard flying an airplane is caught in the path of the reflection? OH GOD MY EYES!
 
I've got a huge headache from reading all this stuff...... to hell with it .. according to *Mayan calendar 2012 is the end of all anyways, thinks I'll just enjoy life until then, if we made it to 2013 … I'll come back to this thread for any new developments

oh there is one thing I can agree with .... the earth can only hold a certain about of people, I know then cause in My college days we proved that a volkswagon bug could only hold so many people .... everything has a max capacity ....sooner or later
 
Last edited:
I've got a huge headache from reading all this stuff...... to hell with it .. according to *Mayan calendar 2012 is the end of all anyways, thinks I'll just enjoy life until then, if we made it to 2013 … I'll come back to this thread for any new developments

oh there is one thing I can agree with .... the earth can only hold a certain about of people, I know then cause in My college days we proved that a volkswagon bug could only hold so many people .... everything has a max capacity ....sooner or later

idk the world is pretty huge and by the time the population becomes large enough to completely overpopulate the planet we will probably have found some new inhabitable planet in the universe and some way to get too it lol, or at least some way of capitalizing on the 70% of the earth that is covered by water. + with that many people confined to one planet the chances of some sort of massive population control event are pretty high i.e. a plague or disaster.
 
idk the world is pretty huge and by the time the population becomes large enough to completely overpopulate the planet we will probably have found some new inhabitable planet in the universe and some way to get too it lol, or at least some way of capitalizing on the 70% of the earth that is covered by water. + with that many people confined to one planet the chances of some sort of massive population control event are pretty high i.e. a plague or disaster.

Space isn't the issue, resources will be the issue! There's only so much stuff around. Iron. Oil. Copper. Arby's Roast Beef. Our lifestyle has become so dependent upon materials that are in finite supply. With some resources we're already way, way past the sustainable levels. Others are on their way there. Gotta get more efficient. Gotta recycle better. Not gonna be our problem but our great-grandchildren are gonna be pretty upset with us!
 
I've got a huge headache from reading all this stuff...... to hell with it .. according to *Mayan calendar 2012 is the end of all anyways, thinks I'll just enjoy life until then, if we made it to 2013 … I'll come back to this thread for any new developments
.

The biggest threat in 2012 is that Obama could get reelected, which in turn would cause Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh's heads to explode in two huge world ending fireballs, thus fulfilling Mayan prophecy.
 
.

The biggest threat in 2012 is that Obama could get reelected, which in turn would cause Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh's heads to explode in two huge world ending fireballs, thus fulfilling Mayan prophecy.

Keep dreaming
 
The part I bolded is the main thrust of your book. Btw, we are almost to 7 billion now on the planet and our resources aren't keeping up.

Not quite... the resources ARE keeping up, at present. And, well, you got about 1 billion people on earth that are using about 50% of available resources... but then you got about 5-6 billion people that are living hand to mouth, are only able to keep themselves fed, OR are outright on the verge of starvation.... we don't see that because, in the western world, even the poorest of the poor can still make 500-800$/month... where, places like egypt as a recent example, many people have been living off the equivalent of 2$ / day. The point was, that if you raised the world simultaneously to a first world existence... then yes.. I agree that there wouldn't be enough for everyone...

Not sure I'm following your "other mitigating factors." What are you implying?
(I couldn't find the actual paper, but) Jeffrey Smith: Genetically Modified Soy Linked to Sterility, Infant Mortality in Hamsters

GMO foods have 3 main 'modifications'
- Sterile / terminator varieties
- BT - produces a 'natural' pesticide in the plant
- Roundup ready, allows the plant to 'drink' herbicides

Now, we may have been able to 'map' the genome of these various species, but I don't expect that we've fully discovered the intricacies of generational genetic replication, SO, it's really an 'unknown' whether several generations down the road these "safe" (and I use that term loosely based on that linked study) modifications might replicate and change in such a way that might turn an edible plant into a toxic plant.

So, there's a 'chance' that these open-air GMO's could cause disruptions in food supplies...

I don't have any knowledge of the IMF practice that you speak of, but I'm glad you realize the split between the rich and the poor needs to be addressed.

IMF policies are absolutely atrocious, designed for cronyism and detrimental to the people under their economic thumb. Think of the deals americans once made with the native americans a few hundred years ago, and you can get an idea of the deals that get signed... and the leaders of those countries, I imagine, have legitimate interests in helping their people, and sign onto these loans not knowing the long-term impact it will have.

Not specifically relevant, but the US and the EU are both into steps 2-5 (depending on the specific country)... step 5 is what is called the 'IMF riot'... like in Greece, where the standard of living gets dropped say 50-75% and the people riot for 6 months - 2 years and then they 'concede defeat' and give back 10%... the people feel like they've had victory because they can return to a sense of normalcy and have an economy again... the IMF wins because of the MASSIVE theft it represents... The relevant documents have been leaked if you're interested.

Its not just those things, its peak oil, global warming, increased extinctions of plant and animal life that all represent a very sick system. That is what your book explores.

I agree except for 2 :
- Peak oil : Maybe by like 2200 there would be a legitimate peak-oil crisis... assuming the system could be sustained that long...
- Global warming : Is just the TOOL through which people will come to accept the recommendations offered.... which would be nothing short of a communist / fascist model of control. Though, I am willing to concede that there IS a GRAIN of truth of the argument that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the EFFECTS of this on a global scale are THOROUGHLY over-estimated...

That is not what the oil companies, the geologists, the military and all the world's leading experts have stated. And large scale systems for alternative energy are going to take decades to build.
iea_weo_1998_fig7_4_opec_reserves.jpg

This isn't necessarily the whole story... Russia is now a larger oil producer then even Saudi Arabia...
I tried but failed to find your point there.

First, if you believe that the world is overpopulated, then we just need to raise the standard of living around the world, and the population rate will drop, because as a society becomes more 'modernized' there's less need to have as many children... for example, my dad was in a family of 7 children, his dad was in a family of 13 children, I was only child... and none of my cousins now have more then 1 child. Now, I know that my personal experience isn't any sort of standard, but it does illustrate my point...

Second, though I didn't specifically mention, even UN estimates are that by 2025 population levels will stabilize, by 2050 population will begin to drop, so there is no real population issue... except for that my generation will be forced to pay for the retirements of 5-6 people per worker (as an estimate, please correct me there)

Finally, that there's not so much of a motivation to CURE disease as there is to TREAT disease.... so, someone with excessive wealth could always privately fund a 'cure' for disease for themselves... but there's no profit in curing a disease when you can treat someone for the rest of their lives on a pharmacological treatment.

You should buy a Mac computer.

TO get back to the subject...

Too bad you missed the point on this one too...

We all have to find ways to coexist, both with each other and with nature.

I agree with the sentiment, but without a major paradigm shift in the population to have a motivation in doing so... I really don't see how this can be accomplished short of FORCING it on people.

No one is promoting communism.

Communism isn't the right word... because the solutions are never CALLED communism... but they most certainly are not solutions that are possible under the republic form of government.

No one is suggesting not addressing our other problems and solely focusing on global warming, as your book, Global Biodiversity Assessment, should convince you. The reason AGW takes on such importance is because of the tipping point when it may be too late to stop devastating effects to the whole world even we if could manage to overcome the political hurdles to actually reduce our output of CO2.

Now, I agree with MUCH of the problems... pollution is bad and should be limited wherever possible... but CO2 is NOT pollution (until you get to extreme levels), there is no 'tipping point'... NOT in the sense of Co2. There IS a tipping point with other issues; for example, heavy industry pollution could lead to a tipping point where an ecological system is destroyed, which would then cause ripple effects throughout the food chain and potentially cause catastrophic disruptions... maybe a bad example...

But, don't you see, how the debate shouldn't focus so exclusively on CO2 alone, but in the general sense of pollution, and even then these matters should be weighted on the immediacy of the problems created... Like what was done with CFC's, it was a specific problem, with a definitive causal relationship with the damage caused, and the issue was eventually dealt with... and so we should be taking the approach of being specific... and perhaps, change the system where a business model must prove it's ecological viability alongside it's business potential.

These are complex issues, and it's of foremost importance that we have proper information through which we can make proper solutions.
 
These are complex issues, and it's of foremost importance that we have proper information through which we can make proper solutions


Thanks for your opinion!
 
Last edited:
3 inches of snow yesterday and 10 degrees in Alabama. just sayin'.....
 
It seems a study shows that the climate is more natural than man.

The Weather Isn't Getting Weirder - WSJ.com

A study done by the NOAA(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)?

What could they possible know about the effects of global warming. I mean, it's not they are comprised of scientists from various fields, with various specialties relating to the ocean and weather and atmosphere, and such.

Oh wait... nevermind.
 
A study done by the NOAA(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)?

What could they possible know about the effects of global warming. I mean, it's not they are comprised of scientists from various fields, with various specialties relating to the ocean and weather and atmosphere, and such.

Oh wait... nevermind.

Then why are their temp data often used by the GW propagandist?

I see University of Colorado
 
Last edited:
It seems a study shows that the climate is more natural than man.

The Weather Isn't Getting Weirder - WSJ.com

A study done by the NOAA(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)?

What could they possible know about the effects of global warming. I mean, it's not they are comprised of scientists from various fields, with various specialties relating to the ocean and weather and atmosphere, and such.

Oh wait... nevermind.

It is funny how you guys are quick to embrace science when you think it disproves AGW. Scientists are constantly re-evaluating their previous work with new methodologies. What Ptif put up was an opinion piece by a skeptic that referenced The Twentieth Century Reanalysis Project.

Here is the actual report:

The Twentieth Century Reanalysis Project - Compo - 2011 - Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society - Wiley Online Library

Please quote the parts that you think disprove AGW, and please note for us the number of science academies around the world that have changed their position on AGW due to this new reanalysis.

I am glad however to see you both so interested in science now! :sun
 
It is funny how you guys are quick to embrace science when you think it disproves AGW. Scientists are constantly re-evaluating their previous work with new methodologies. What Ptif put up was an opinion piece by a skeptic that referenced The Twentieth Century Reanalysis Project.

Here is the actual report:

The Twentieth Century Reanalysis Project - Compo - 2011 - Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society - Wiley Online Library

Please quote the parts that you think disprove AGW, and please note for us the number of science academies around the world that have changed their position on AGW due to this new reanalysis.

I am glad however to see you both so interested in science now! :sun

From my link

In other words, researchers have yet to find evidence of more-extreme weather patterns over the period, contrary to what the models predict. "There's no data-driven answer yet to the question of how human activity has affected extreme weather," adds Roger Pielke Jr., another University of Colorado climate researcher.

We do know that carbon dioxide and other gases trap and re-radiate heat. We also know that humans have emitted ever-more of these gases since the Industrial Revolution. What we don't know is exactly how sensitive the climate is to increases in these gases versus other possible factors—solar variability, oceanic currents, Pacific heating and cooling cycles, planets' gravitational and magnetic oscillations, and so on.

Given the unknowns, it's possible that even if we spend trillions of dollars, and forgo trillions more in future economic growth, to cut carbon emissions to pre-industrial levels, the climate will continue to change—as it always has.
 
Last edited:
From my link

In other words, researchers have yet to find evidence of more-extreme weather patterns over the period, contrary to what the models predict. "There's no data-driven answer yet to the question of how human activity has affected extreme weather," adds Roger Pielke Jr., another University of Colorado climate researcher.

We do know that carbon dioxide and other gases trap and re-radiate heat. We also know that humans have emitted ever-more of these gases since the Industrial Revolution. What we don't know is exactly how sensitive the climate is to increases in these gases versus other possible factors—solar variability, oceanic currents, Pacific heating and cooling cycles, planets' gravitational and magnetic oscillations, and so on.

Given the unknowns, it's possible that even if we spend trillions of dollars, and forgo trillions more in future economic growth, to cut carbon emissions to pre-industrial levels, the climate will continue to change—as it always has.


I said quotes from the actual report, not what your skeptic friend thinks is in the report.
 
@ptif, wiseone: Is the NOAA worth listening to, or not? If it is, you should really listen to what they've been saying about global warming. If not, why are you using it's papers in the first place?

Scientific knowledge changes as more experiments are done, etc. What we're seeing with climate change is more and more details emerging, but the overall pattern staying the same - it's certainly happening, and it seems to be our fault.
 
I said quotes from the actual report, not what your skeptic friend thinks is in the report.

That ia a quote from a climate researcer from the University of Colorado.You must not have read it very well
 
@ptif, wiseone: Is the NOAA worth listening to, or not? If it is, you should really listen to what they've been saying about global warming. If not, why are you using it's papers in the first place?

Scientific knowledge changes as more experiments are done, etc. What we're seeing with climate change is more and more details emerging, but the overall pattern staying the same - it's certainly happening, and it seems to be our fault.

Look at what the university of Colorado climate researcher says about it
 
Look at what the university of Colorado climate researcher says about it
You really didn't answer my question there: try again. Is the NOAA a reliable source in your view?
 
You really didn't answer my question there: try again. Is the NOAA a reliable source in your view?

I have quoted the colorado climate research scientist

Where is NOAA named in my link?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom