Some can do the climate change math
Tom Moriarty, Arvada
Published January 24, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
In his Jan. 8 letter, "Claims about climate change rebutted," Chuck Kutscher uses a March 2006 article in the journal Science by Isabella Velicogna and John Wahr to back up his doomsday scenario of a sea-level rise of one foot per decade. The second sentence of this very paper says the melting ice of Antarctica contributes "an equivalent of 0.4 millimeters of sea-level rise per year." That's 4 millimeters, or 0.013 feet per decade. There is a very big difference, Mr. Kutscher, between 1 foot and 0.013 feet.
This is not much to hang your hat on as justification for changing the world's economy. Velicog- na's noisy data covers only three years. It indicates several monthly ice volume changes that are almost as large as the cumulative three-year change when fit to a line. If only the last two years of her data are used, then the ice loss rate is reduced by 80 percent.
Another article in the June 24, 2005, issue of Science, by Curt Davis et al. considered the ice mass balance in Antarctica using 11 years of satellite radar altimetry data and concluded that overall the Antarctic ice is thickening.
What does the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change say about this? Their worst-case scenario has the oceans rising at an average of 2.6 to 5.9 centimeters (1.0 to 2.3 inches) per decade. Their most realistic scenario has the average ocean-rise rate of 1.8 to 3.8 centimeters (0.7 to 1.5 inches) per decade.
Be careful of what you say, Mr. Kutscher, some of us are listening and can do the math.
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
January 24, 2008
7:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
The Deniers are in the house.
Earl...no peer-reviewed, field appropriate scientists predicted the "ice age" of which you spout.
nice try though.
why is it that the right wing will listen to industry lobbyists, politicians and energy company paid, nonpeer-reviewed "scientists" over nearly every single peer-reviwed, field appropriate scientist on the planet?
who convinced you folks that believing the science made you LESS credible on any issue before the nation today (gw, stem cell, evolution etc)?
January 24, 2008
8 a.m.
Suggest removal
fiesty writes:
Jay, notice they also ignore the arctic shrinking in 1/2 in less than 24 years, all the recent ice breaks, record-setting temperatures, and increasing storm intensity. Nope, nothing to worry about!
January 24, 2008
8:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
fiesty writes:
Jay- the end of the world MUST be near, since you and I are actually agreeing on a subject! :-)
January 24, 2008
8:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
popo writes:
jay,
I agree. The same liars that spoke of "WMDs","mushroom clouds" and "this war isn't about OIL"(Opperation Iraqi Liberation), and "this war will last 6 weeks, I doubt 6 months", are the same oil-fueled bunch that right-wing extremists are still believing. God save us all from those who would save us from "Islamo-fascists"and "big government" by being Christo-fascist and HUGE government.
January 24, 2008
8:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
justright writes:
Tom has found one of thousands of known misrepresentations of the facts surounding man cauesed global warming. See when your objections to today's life styles are your real agenda then the facts get in the away and you have to result to emotion or personal attacks.
I have hundreds of scientist who will dispute your hundreds of scientist that man is causing global warming. My scientist might agree that the plant is warming but man is not the cause this time or the previous thousands of times the planet warmed. They will use the data from your scientist to make their point. Many if not most do it for the love of science where many on your side do it for the love of there research funding.
January 24, 2008
9:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
KW writes:
I was reading how the doomsday scientists have revised their predictions regarding increased hurricane activity.
They've now decided that GW will cause a reduction in both the number as well as the severity of hurricanes in the Atlantic.
How convenient.
I bet next they'll be saying we'll see an increase in snowfall in Colorado, huh?
January 24, 2008
9:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
kw do you mind posting a link to this peer reviewed article from field appropriate experts?
January 24, 2008
9:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
CWW writes:
Gee, I was hoping global warming would keep the ice off my windshield these last two weeks when the temp was below freezing. Oh well, I guess we will have global warming-----in July.
January 24, 2008
9:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
KW writes:
peer reviwed, peer reviwed, the sky is falling, peer reviwed
How about what I actually said jaybird? I said "I was reading how..." as in the newspaper. But here's a link to the AP wire so you can read it too.
I personally thought it belonged in the comics section myself.
http://www.stormtrack.org/forum/archi...
January 24, 2008
10:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
kw, surely you're familiar with the benefits of vetting hypothesis through peer review, no? Considering that the papers you referenced have yet to be peer reviewed...I think you've been duped into thinking that they're more credible than they are...but hey who knows...this quote from the site you posted seems to reinforce what we already know "On the other hand, warm water provides the energy that drives hurricanes, so warmer conditions should make the storms stronger."
January 24, 2008
10:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
KW writes:
So GW might cause hurricanes to increase, unless of course GW causes hurricanes to decrease, in which case the sea levels will fall, unless of course they rise, which in turn may kill millions of people. On the other hand more people might live therefore temperatures will increase but only after they decrease in proportion to the snow levels falling in Colorado along with the drought being experienced in the desert states.
Got it, thanks!
January 24, 2008
10:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
Spencer writes:
if it was George Bush claiming that there was global warming the right wingers would believe it. After all how many of them belive that there really were WMD's and that we were in imminent danger?
January 24, 2008
10:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
again kw...I ask...are you familiar with the concept of peer review...i'm wondering because you keep spouting nonpeer-reviewed opinion as if it was fact...
January 24, 2008
11:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
bigfoot...there were no peer reviewed scientists who supported the coming ice age predictions. nice try though...as far as widespread starvation in parts of the world...do you read much?
January 24, 2008
11:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
jgd writes:
Jay,
peer reviewed, peer reviewed, peer reviewed in your mind is someone who agrees with you. The list of scientist that agrees the present of some global climate change, but resist the assumption it is being cause by humans has been posted many times. Your idea of peer reviewed is nothing more than if Jay likes their position they are peer reviewed if he doesn't then they are not peer reviewed. So what you are actually saying is they are JAY-REVIEWED.
January 24, 2008
11:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
Eli writes:
Jay,
You ask for links a lot. Do you mind posting a link to anything? Anything at all? I have never seen you post a link to evidence that supports your positions. Not once on any thread on any topic. The last time you posted links, it was to articles that supported my position and invalidated your own. Can you provide evidence on this topic?
January 24, 2008
11:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
KW writes:
I think I've figured it out. Jay isn't a real person. He's a highly complexed computer mechanism programmed for the sole function of spam blogging. He's able to interpret key words or phrases and develop replies that appear as reasoned contrary positions but doesn't comprehend the actual topic within the thread.
Monty Python used this same science in a skit where two men are discussing why mere contradiction isn't the same thing as an intelligent argument. "Yes it is, no it isn't, yes it is!"
January 24, 2008
12:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
popo writes:
SASQUATCH
Your last post makes as much sense as believing your "peers" that are paid by the fossil fuel industry will give unbiased reports.
And "Tobacco is not addictive", as your corporate "peers" stated before Congress.
Did you believe them, too?
Both are hazards to public health.
January 24, 2008
1:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Oh_Wise_One writes:
Time for a drinking game whenever there is an article about GW and jay uses the word "peer" or "review". Two drinks for every time he uses them both.
January 24, 2008
1:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Eli writes:
Oh_Wise_One,
Hope you can hold your liquor...
January 24, 2008
1:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
CL writes:
Lets see. Mr. Moriarty tells us that a report in Science from 2005 concluded that over all the Antarctic ice is thickening and then asks what the IPCC have to say about this.
With all the IPCC experts around here I'm surprised no one cited what the IPCC actually had to say, so I guess I'll provide the cite.
From Topic 3, page 6 "3.2.3 Changes beyond the 21st century"
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-rep...
"Current global model studies project that the Antarctic ice sheet will remain too cold for widespread surface melting and gain mass due to increased snowfall."
How can that be - the IPCC says the models project Antarctic gaining ice and now the letter writer says a Science study shows the Antarctic is gaining ice? But here all along I thought the skeptics said the IPCC is a bunch of corrupt hooey and the climate models don't really predict any thing.
So why didn't any of the skeptics mention what the IPCC actually had to say???
January 24, 2008
2:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Eli writes:
CL,
There are quite a few reasons to be skeptical of the IPCC, or at least of its use as an authority for catastrophic predictions of AGW. I find the paragraph right before your quote to be particularly interesting:
“Dynamical processes related to ice flow – which are not included in current models but suggested by recent observations – could increase the vulnerability of the ice sheets to warming, increasing future sea level rise. Understanding of these processes is limited and there is no consensus on their magnitude.”
The title of Topic 3 should raise questions too: “Climate change and its impacts in the near and long term under different scenarios”.
The very title of Topic 3 says that it’s guesswork.
January 24, 2008
2:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
if your position doesn't stand up to the rigors of peer review....please don't pout about it okay kids?
January 24, 2008
2:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Eli writes:
Jay,
Do you have any response to my post at 11:30?
January 24, 2008
2:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
fiesty writes:
Geez, I can't believe I'm about to defend Jay but...
Sounds like a bunch of sour grapes from several posters here, probably because they CAN'T. Jay is perfectly right to insist on valid, peer-reviewed sources for your position on this issue, rather than accepting pop mazagine articles from individuals whose area of expertise isn't relevant.
January 24, 2008
2:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Eli writes:
Fiesty,
Jay was provided with a link to a peer-reviewed piece in a thread on this topic yesterday and offered no response. On the other hand, not a single time has he ever provided a link to any source that supported his positions. At least not that I have seen.
January 24, 2008
3:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
jgd writes:
Jay,
Your peer reviewed defense, is coming apart at the seams, so don't pout about it.
I will be looking forward to your response to Eli's post.
January 24, 2008
3:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
CL writes:
Eli -
My main point was the irony of the writer pointing to the reported ice gain in Antarctica as if was somehow totally at odds with GW theory when the reality is the writer is just ignorant of GW theory.
There's a lot of that sort of thing going around.
You do see the irony in it don't you??
As for the IPCC, I actually agree to some extent. Part of the problem is that the purpose of the IPCC is to provide some sort of guide to politicians as to the state of the science in a way that they can understand.
For example, I really dislike the % certainty thing. % certainty doesn't really exist anywhere except in statistics and really only in relation to sampling.
I'll disagree about calling it guesswork, but I'm not sure I can explain it well though. The scientists and researchers who work closest to the subject understand it in the most detail and as such tend to know or suspect when there's something taking place that isn't well understood. When I read things like:
"Understanding of these processes is limited and there is no consensus on their magnitude"
I tend to think along the lines that there's several researchers in the field who realize that something is going on and probably have some idea as to what it may be but they haven't nailed it down. I have to do the same thing all the time at my job. They aren't, however, just throwing darts to see where they land.
I think your problem with all this may be that the answers aren't "pi to 32 digits" precise. Unfortunately, much of science isn't like that. I suppose that's why you find the title "Climate change and its impacts in the near and long term under different scenarios" suspicious.
I don't get into the "catastrophic predictions of AGW". A big reason is that there's much I don't understand about what goes into the projections (my background is in a more historical science so I understand that part much better). On the other hand I see many skeptics waving the same "catastrophic predictions of AGW" claiming that because of that AGW is a farce yet they have little, no, or a very distorted understanding of what science there actually is behind it.
Which goes back to the irony of the writer's letter and the IPCC & models saying the Antarctic ice sheets will gain mass.
January 24, 2008
3:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"Jay was provided with a link to a peer-reviewed piece in a thread on this topic yesterday"
you have provided ZERO peer reviewed evidence from field appropriate experts that refutes the consensus behind gw...except in your own mind apparently...
January 24, 2008
3:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
CL writes:
hakj -
"Ever notice that the "peer review" have their funding from the same source as the as all those spouting off about GW? And that if a scientist finds something contrary to their reviews it does not get "peer reviewed" with few exceptions?"
That paragraph makes no sense.
Peer reviews have funding?
How can they find "something contrary to their reviews" if they don't get peer reviewed?
January 24, 2008
3:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Eli writes:
CL:
“You do see the irony in it don’t you??”
Yeah, I see your point there.
“…probably have some idea as to what it may be but haven’t nailed it down.”
This is exactly my issue with the alarmist aspect of global warming. Many people advocate extreme measures such as Kyoto when the science is not fully understood yet and any benefits of Kyoto are very questionable. You’re right in your guess that my problem with global warming theory is that it’s not exactly precise. These are guesses based on various scenarios, and I don’t think that implementing public policy that would have a significant effect on our economy based on these “what if” scenarios is a good idea. The fact that many of the catastrophic predictions are so far into the future makes it an even worse idea. I also take issue with those who present as undisputable fact models of the future based on variables that cannot possibly be known.
January 24, 2008
4:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Eli writes:
Jay,
The link is there still if you'd like to go check it out. The fact that you never bothered with it doesn't change the fact that it was a peer-reviewed paper just like what you asked for. I know the second link didn't work, but I pointed that out and referred you to the original link that was posted and you offered no response. Also, the fact that you have never supported any of your positions with evidence of any kind still stands.
Still no response to that 11:30 post I see.
January 24, 2008
4:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
tmsloan writes:
Why is anyone upset with Global Warming? We'll use less fossil fuels to heat our homes. More people die due to cold weather than they do due to warmer weather. And so what if the seas rise several feet excpt the people who live near the shore. Maybe Lex Luthor had it right- maybe it's time to buy ocean front property in Nevada. There is a great book by Bjorn Lomborg, a Dutch Economist, called "Cool It!" He agrees the earth is warming but has a very different take on how to address the problem. Al Gore has refused to speak at any event he attends. Maybe Al is not as sure of his facts as he leads us to believe.
January 24, 2008
4:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
denverinfidel writes:
The proof that global warming is a scam can be seen in the behavior of its biggest proponents. When the ones screaming the loudest don't change, you know you're being had. Algore and his ilk are nothing more than wannabe televangelists looking for a way to control your life via their gulfstreams. Its called socialism/communism/fill-in-the-blank. Don't ever trust politicians advocating prophesied disaster, no matter what stripes they wear.
What used to be red in the middle has painted itself green and come through the door of "saving the environment". The most frightening aspect of all this is how much it resembles organized religion (do it or else, you will pay, you'll end up in a fiery hell, etc, etc). Religion is something that no human society does without. Global warming is just a religion for agnostic yuppies who need something to latch onto.
All of you saying we should change our ways need to go first. Quit driving, quit flying, go back to living in a cave, because that is exactly what you are advocating (but not doing, which is the most telling part). Once I see this, then you can preach.
Somebody please give me an example of an "environmental catastrophe" that was ever predicted and actually happened? No ice age, no mass starvation, no empty mines, and on and on and on. This is no different. It takes a really special kind of idiot to believe humans can control the climate, one way or the other.
January 24, 2008
5:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
RainbowWarrior writes:
"Environmental catastrophe" that was predicted and actually happened...
How about the beatle kill going on right now. The natural solution is an extended period of sub zero weather, and that hasn't happened in Colorado for 30 years now.
Acid rain was just a joke right, so what made most of the lakes in the New England states go sterile and why have the carbonic levels of the ocean increased and the corals are dying?
We can move mountains and change the course of rivers, but our pollution has no effect on the environment?
Built Green was started right here in Denver, it improved the building of homes by reducing toxins, saving people money on their energy bills, using recycled materials that improved things like floor joists and roof truses. And when we first started we heard hysterical claims about how we intened to ruin the industry, they called of names and obstructed the proccess claiming we could only create something hippies would live in! It is now an international program and a building standard that has improved many lives.
Why wouldn't you want a pickup truck that can go 100 mpg? Why continue to aid and abette those mid east jerks with our hard earned money and tear up the planet when the technology is here now?
Live in a cave? Sir, I think you should come out of yours and smell the roses.
There is a possible future that we can start building today that does not need any excuses like global climate change or getting even with an enemy. The changes are minor and if done right you won't even know anything has changed, like my example of built green!
January 24, 2008
6:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
CL writes:
Eli -
"Many people advocate extreme measures such as Kyoto when the science is not fully understood yet and any benefits of Kyoto are very questionable."
I can agree with that. My concern is not only those advocating extreme measures, but those that squash what might be reasonable measures. What I mean here is that many take and push a position not so much to address the issue, but it fits some other agenda. Take the folks that wanted to get rid of the evil SUVs before GW became an issue - now that GW is an issue what's their solution - why get rid of the evil SUVs of course. On the other side of the coin are those who push an anti-GW agenda not so much to stop the real nonsense measures (ie banning incandescent light bulbs) but they see change coming and they fear change (that's a gross simplification).
I still take issue with what you call "guesses". Most are not known precisely, but do have upper and lower limits and a certain level of confidence of a range within those limits. I don't want to belabor that (otherwise we'll just end up going down the environmentalist/conservation route again), but what I don't get is when you say on one hand:
"There are quite a few reasons to be skeptical of the IPCC, or at least of its use as an authority for catastrophic predictions of AGW."
and then on the other:
"The title of Topic 3 should raise questions too: Climate change and its impacts in the near and long term under different scenarios."
If someone holds up the IPCC report and says "look the IPCC says sea levels will rise 10 feet (or whatever) in 50 years if we don't do X now" effectively countered with "sure - but only under the most extreme (and less likely) scenario A, but according to the IPCC, scenario D only has a rise of 3 inches in 100 years".
The point being not so much to be skeptical (although what I hear sounds more like cynicism), but rather the uncertainties (and degrees of uncertainty) in the report itself would seem to counter any argument that uses the report as a source of authority.
January 24, 2008
7:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Eli writes:
CL,
First off, I appreciate your very well thought out and well researched comments on this topic.
My issue with the IPCC reports is when that report is used to support the idea of extreme measures to prevent the as yet unknown effects of AGW. I take issue with this because of the fact that the IPCC reports are literally full of comments that basically say "we're not sure yet". Despite this, many alarmists cite the IPCC as reasons to implement measures like Kyoto. My argument is that the very source cited by these alarmists does not support their catastrophic predictions. I say "guesses" precisely because these effects are not yet known. Maybe "educated guesses" would be a better choice of words.
I don't get why you take issue with the two quotes that you provided from my previous post. The point was that use of the IPCC reports as a reason to implement extreme measures is questionable, given the fact that it does not in my view provide sufficient evidence to justify those measures. It doesn't provide sufficient evidence because of the very kind of contradictions you mentioned in your last paragraph.
January 24, 2008
10:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Castle writes:
What the hell are you people argueing about here?? Don't you know that there is now a consenes and no more thinking needs to be done?? How dare you disagree with Al Bore, the High Priest of pulling the wool over your eyes. Right now we should be waddling down to the sea shore, like a bunch of ducks, to watch the great flood. And to who asked, I have some "peer review" for you. I reviewed it and it's Bravo Serria!
January 25, 2008
9:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
CL writes:
Eli -
RE those two quotes - I don't take exception to them, they just illustrate something that I find a bit puzzling. You don't seem to really have a problem with the IPCC report itself - after all it lays out the uncertainties for all to see - but rather you have issues with those that would misuse the report to push for extremist measures.
What is puzzling is that you criticize the IPP report, citing specific items, and then try to use those same items as a source of authority to counter those who would use the same report to push for extreme measures - thereby undermining your own argument.
January 25, 2008
9:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
Eli writes:
CL:
"What is puzzling is that you criticize the IPCC report, citing specific items, and then try to use those same items as a source of authority..."
Not at all. I have a problem with the IPCC report in that it cites models predicting catastrophic future events and then goes on to pretty much say "we don't know how accurate this is". I will cite specific items from the report when people use it as a reason to justify extreme measures as an illustration that they have not actually read the report, or if they did read it they just choose whatever parts they find to be most convenient for their arguments.
I think you're misinterpreting my intent behind citing IPCC quotes. The idea is basically, "sure, the IPCC says X, but it also says X in direct contradiction so should we really be using this as an authoritative source?"
January 25, 2008
9:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
CL writes:
Eli - I wasn't misrepresenting your intent, that's how I see you coming across. I suppose I should have wrote "seem to" in my previous post to be more clear.
January 25, 2008
10:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
Eli writes:
Not "misrepresenting" as in purposely distorting. "Misinterpreting" as in mistakenly thinking that I'm trying to use the IPCC report to support arguments against extreme measures, when the idea I had with that was to show that it shouldn't be used as a source of information to justify things like the Kyoto protocol because of all the contradictions and uncertainties. The quotes are examples of those contradictions.
Also, reading the report I get a sense of bias from it in the way it's presented. It will consistently present predictions as "highly likely" and then go on to point out uncertainties and lack of definitive data.
I could be wrong, but it gives me the impression that the writers bank on people only paying attention to specific parts. Considerably less emphasis is placed on the very large amount of contradictions and uncertainties to be found in the report.
January 25, 2008
10:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
fiesty writes:
Eli- being critical of future predictions is a good thing. However, you simply have to look at current events to realize there is a problem, and if let continue, will cause problems. I've linked you before to the time lapse footage of the artic shrinking in 1/2 in only 24 years, as well as all the recent ice shelf breaks. These are proven facts, not nebulous predictions, and of concern, don't you think?
January 25, 2008
10:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
Eli writes:
I'm aware of the footage fiesty, I've seen it. It offers nothing concerning the effect man is having, what if anything can be done about it, what the exact effect of that melting ice will be, if growing ice in other areas makes any difference, whether or not it's part of a natural cycle, etc.
It's just pictures of melting ice.
January 25, 2008
12:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"The link is there still if you'd like to go check it out. The fact that you never bothered with it doesn't change the fact that it was a peer-reviewed paper just like what you asked for."
still waiting for that peer-reviewed evidence from field appropriate sources that refute the consensus behind gw eli.
still waiting....
January 25, 2008
1:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Eli writes:
Jay,
If you won't read it, then there is nothing else I can do. You can ignore politically inconvenient facts all you want, but that won't make them go away. The link is there, you and you apparently refuse to go read it. Ignore the peer-reviewed evidence all you want, but it's still there.
January 25, 2008
3:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
your link provides no peer reviewed evidence that refutes the consensus on gw, eli...or didn't you get that when you read it?
January 25, 2008
3:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
Eli writes:
Which link are you looking at Jay? From what exact post?
January 25, 2008
3:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Oh_Wise_One writes:
Troll (def.)- anything jay posts.
January 25, 2008
9:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Jack_Bauer writes:
Jay,
Do you have any polls to back up your stats on peer review?
Oh wait - polls do not decide if Global warming is real or not - er, oh wait again - they do if you're part of the IPCC.
And yes Jay some on the anti side are funded by big business and petroleum companies just like those on the pro-side are ALL funded by big government grants and carbon credit companies wanting to push their agenda down our throats so they can make their billions on your feel good ignorance.
That is until it is proven wrong, then they'll need to adjust to a new cause.
Go read another poll Jay.
January 26, 2008
8:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
mrcc writes:
www.aroadmap2extinction.com
A collection of news articles covering GW and peak oil