The ocean gets warmed by it. How would you like to describe that process? And, has Biden chimed in on this topic? How does this relate to the OP's title?
Biden Climate 'Facts' and Policies "FACT CHECKED", Earns 4 Pinnochio's
- Thread starter Billy_Bob
- Start date
Billy_Bob
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #22
I have shown you several times why it can not happen... Get a new schtick... Solar Dimming... What is at stake With This Change on our Sun?
Since you have never attended a class in thermodynamics and your conclusions are at odds with several published studies on IR warming of the oceans, guess whose conclusions I favor?
Billy_Bob
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #24
LOL... You are too funny... Once again with the personal attacks.. And not once do you address the science presented. Tell me Crick, how energy emitted outside the band where it can be absorbed to depth can warm something with a thermocline barrier? I'll wait. Even the papers I cited, in that thread, you have chosen to ignore.
This is just one more circle jerk attempt by you. Address the Content. Since you cannot, it remains unchallenged.
Sunsettommy
Diamond Member
- Mar 19, 2018
- 16,288
- 14,006
- 2,400
Your inability to develop a countering argument has become legendary among Climate Realist who sees you this way every day here as your cult team membership in various forums is getting smaller and smaller over time as their thick skulls begins to comprehend, they realize they are being misled by the Climate Crisis cabal who lies and misrepresent the science every day.
FACT:
The SUN is the dominant source of energy inflow into the waters of the planet to the 99.99998 % level.
Every time an El-Nino comes around there is large outflow of that energy into the atmosphere which is then distributed poleward as weather systems partake of it in it travels on the prevailing currents.
The very fact that there is a warming in the atmosphere in the North Polar region is a sign of an increased outflow of energy into space a COOLING mechanism you warmist/alarmists continually misunderstand.
FACT:
NO Lower Tropospheric Hot Spot exist.
NO Positive Feedback Loop exist.
This after 32 years of looking.
There goes the stupid AGW conjecture, it is really that simple, but YOU are stuck in a climate crisis cult which is why you ignore many inconvenient facts over and over because you can NOT address them.
Where is the Climate Emergency?
Serious Climate Misinformation in Seattle Time Headline Article
Then we have this despite your holy IPPC bible stating in the 2001 report that there would LESS snow and MORE rain and freezing rain over time,
and,
LINK
===
You have ignored this well measured reality:
You have ignored this over and over because you can't address it:
"Next, here is the radical change in downwelling radiation at the surface from the increase in CO2 that is supposed to be driving the “CLIMATE EMERGENCY!!!” What I’ve shown is the change that in theory would have occurred from the changes in CO2 from 1750 to the present, and the change that in theory will occur in the future when CO2 increases from its present value to twice the 1750 value. This is using the generally accepted (although not rigorously derived) claim that the downwelling radiation change from a doubling of CO2 is 3.7 watts per square metre (W/m2). The purpose is to show how small these CO2-caused changes are compared to total downwelling radiation.
The changes in downwelling radiation from the increase in CO2 are trivially small, lost in the noise …"
Simple math is too hard for you to handle which is why you ignore it over and over a sign that YOU are a brainwashed warmist/alarmist who worships at the IPCC altar.
Really sad that you continue to defend that government institution.
I'm legendary? Wow. Did you mean climate realists or is there some group named Climate Realist? And I have a cult team with members? And we are led by the Climate Crisis Cabal? Wooo... I have fallen behind the times. Or your stoned out of your ******* mind.
The 99.99998% level? Ok. Carry on.
So... the atmosphere of the whole planet consistently flows towards the poles? Doesn't that cause something of a high pressure issue up there? And kind of a vacuum at the Equator?
So... I've been getting this wrong my whole life. What you're saying is that when I want to cool off my house I should turn on all the stove burners and light up the fireplace.
Climate scientists find elusive tropospheric hot spot
Researchers have published results in Environmental Research Letters confirming strong warming in the upper troposphere, known colloquially as the tropospheric hotspot. The hot has been long expected as part of global warming theory and appears in many global climate models.
The latest estimate from the IPCC's Sixth Assessment report on climate science is that it ranges from 2.5C to 4.0C, a slight increase from the Fifth Assessment Report. That says that positive feedbacks exist. What science do you have that indicates there is no positive feedback? And you don't get to use Billy Boy as a reference.
I've addressed all of them.
Earth. And, I'm really sorry, but Anthony Watts doesn't do science so I don't do Anthony Watts
Are you ******* kidding me. That's what you want to throw up against a thousand PhDs?
Then we have this despite your holy IPPC bible stating in the 2001 report that there would LESS snow and MORE rain and freezing rain over time,
Total snow for northern hemisphere - excluding mountains - from the GlobSnow program (v1.3) of the Finnish Meteorological Institute. That is... really... something. Let's see what else we can find
But, visiting your link to the GCW site and their trackers, I found this plot, which seems a good bit better sourced than your Finnish flatlands plot
GMASI Snow Extent Trackers
The GMASI Snow Trackers are derived from combined observations of METOP AVHRR, MSG SEVIRI, GOES Imager and DMSP SSMIS. The Global Multisensor Snow/Ice Cover Map (GMASI) algorithm is fully automated. It is a NOAA/NESDIS product.That looks more in line with the Rutgers data as well.
You don't think some portion of these data trends might be due to better forecasting, better computers, better communication, MUCH better medicine, better transportation, and since it includes heat deaths: air conditioning, refrigerators, fans. I haven't addressed it before now because I couldn't believe you were stupid enough to post it.You have ignored this well measured reality:
You have ignored this over and over because you can't address it:
A link would be handy because the only clue that this came from someone else is the single quote mark at the beginning of the paragraph above. So, what the text says is that the graphs were created from the accepted values of mainstream science. Unfortunately, all this tells me is that someone has been feeding your ilk the idea that data should be plotted at large scales making small changes invisible in an attempt to minimize the impressions they give. This is exactly like Billy Boy plotting a two degree change on a 140 degree scale. If you accept the mainstream climate sensitivity and the mainstream CO2 forcing then you have to accept the mainstream projected warming and the mainstream estimated costs of mitigation, immigration, crop losses, severe weather losses, sea level rise and all the rest."Next, here is the radical change in downwelling radiation at the surface from the increase in CO2 that is supposed to be driving the “CLIMATE EMERGENCY!!!” What I’ve shown is the change that in theory would have occurred from the changes in CO2 from 1750 to the present, and the change that in theory will occur in the future when CO2 increases from its present value to twice the 1750 value. This is using the generally accepted (although not rigorously derived) claim that the downwelling radiation change from a doubling of CO2 is 3.7 watts per square metre (W/m2). The purpose is to show how small these CO2-caused changes are compared to total downwelling radiation.
The changes in downwelling radiation from the increase in CO2 are trivially small, lost in the noise …"
I'm not the one with the intentionally deceptive plots and, except for noting that the sun is the source of energy for our oceans, you fucked up every single other claim you made in this post.
My apologies for being an American citizen asshole.
Sunsettommy
Diamond Member
- Mar 19, 2018
- 16,288
- 14,006
- 2,400
Professor Sherwood's claim has never been accepted by the NOAA who obstinately clings to the Weather Ballow data as it is they never adjusted for the crap Sherwood produced about the data that he mangled to support his lies.
I went over this in DETAIL a while back in the other forum which you IGNORED as well as others not going to bother repeating as it was a lot of work.
Sherwood's claims have been long shredded a DECADE ago!
LINK
and,
LINK
The official data doesn't support it:
Temperature change at 200hPa (c. 12 km height) between 20oN and 20oS since 1979, according to HadAT. The thin blue line shows the monthly values, while the thick blue line represents the simple running 37 month average, nearly corresponding to a running 3 yr average. The stippled red line shows the linear fit for the period shown, with basic statistics shown in the upper left corner of the diagram. The data were normalised by setting the average of their initial 120 months (10 years) from January 1979 to December 1988 = 0. Last month shown: December 2012. Last diagram update: 4 May 2013.
and,
Temperature change at 300hPa (c. 9 km height) between 20oN and 20oS since 1979, according to HadAT. The thin blue line shows the monthly values, while the thick blue line represents the simple running 37 month average, nearly corresponding to a running 3 yr average. The stippled red line shows the linear fit for the period shown, with basic statistics shown in the upper left corner of the diagram. The data were normalised by setting the average of their initial 120 months (10 years) from January 1979 to December 1988 = 0. Last month shown: December 2012. Last diagram update: 4 May 2013.
and,
Diagram showing observed linear decadal temperature change at surface, 300 hPa and 200 hPa, between 20oN and 20oS, since January 1979. Data source: HadAT and HadCRUT4. Click here to compare with modelled altitudinal temperature change pattern for doubling atmospheric CO2. Last month included in analysis: December 2012. Last diagram update: 4 May 2013.
LINK
Sherwood's bogus hot spot crap hasn't been accepted by the NOAA.
I went over this in DETAIL a while back in the other forum which you IGNORED as well as others not going to bother repeating as it was a lot of work.
Sherwood's claims have been long shredded a DECADE ago!
Sherwood’s devout unscientific faith in “climate change” and the hot spot
LINK
and,
Even gurus of warming admit the hot spot went missing
LINK
The official data doesn't support it:
Temperature change at 200hPa (c. 12 km height) between 20oN and 20oS since 1979, according to HadAT. The thin blue line shows the monthly values, while the thick blue line represents the simple running 37 month average, nearly corresponding to a running 3 yr average. The stippled red line shows the linear fit for the period shown, with basic statistics shown in the upper left corner of the diagram. The data were normalised by setting the average of their initial 120 months (10 years) from January 1979 to December 1988 = 0. Last month shown: December 2012. Last diagram update: 4 May 2013.
and,
Temperature change at 300hPa (c. 9 km height) between 20oN and 20oS since 1979, according to HadAT. The thin blue line shows the monthly values, while the thick blue line represents the simple running 37 month average, nearly corresponding to a running 3 yr average. The stippled red line shows the linear fit for the period shown, with basic statistics shown in the upper left corner of the diagram. The data were normalised by setting the average of their initial 120 months (10 years) from January 1979 to December 1988 = 0. Last month shown: December 2012. Last diagram update: 4 May 2013.
and,
Diagram showing observed linear decadal temperature change at surface, 300 hPa and 200 hPa, between 20oN and 20oS, since January 1979. Data source: HadAT and HadCRUT4. Click here to compare with modelled altitudinal temperature change pattern for doubling atmospheric CO2. Last month included in analysis: December 2012. Last diagram update: 4 May 2013.
LINK
Sherwood's bogus hot spot crap hasn't been accepted by the NOAA.
Sunsettommy
Diamond Member
- Mar 19, 2018
- 16,288
- 14,006
- 2,400
Crick writes:
"The latest estimate from the IPCC's Sixth Assessment report on climate science is that it ranges from 2.5C to 4.0C, a slight increase from the Fifth Assessment Report. That says that positive feedbacks exist. What science do you have that indicates there is no positive feedback? And you don't get to use Billy Boy as a reference."
My reply,
I never said there is no positive feedback as that is well established for a long time what I am talking about is the Positive Feedback LOOP according the AGW conjecture where such a loop creates an escalating run-away warming trend which never happened in the 1 billion years of the past.
That is what doesn't exist and stupid too since there are existing damping effects in the atmosphere and weather processes that gets overlooked all the time.
===
Crick lies hard since he NEVER addressed this article details.
"I've addressed all of them."
Ok show us the link where you addressed the CONTENT of this article:
Where is the Climate Emergency?
LINK
Snicker.......
Now he tries this desperate argument over this chart that obviously bothers him:
Crick writes,
"You don't think some portion of these data trends might be due to better forecasting, better computers, better communication, MUCH better medicine, better transportation, and since it includes heat deaths: air conditioning, refrigerators, fans. I haven't addressed it before now because I couldn't believe you were stupid enough to post it."
The charts say the death rate dropped over 90% in 100 years' time that destroys one of the pillars of the stupid climate crisis claims which you clearly endorse in your numerous posts here in the forum here that the bogus Climate Crisis claims in the near future will generate a massive death rate and create a massive transfer of climate victims (50 Million climate Refugees by 2010) LINK to the cooler areas of the world thus you are still LYING anyway.
===
Crick writes this howler,
"A link would be handy because the only clue that this came from someone else is the single quote mark at the beginning of the paragraph above. So, what the text says is that the graphs were created from the accepted values of mainstream science. Unfortunately, all this tells me is that someone has been feeding your ilk the idea that data should be plotted at large scales making small changes invisible in an attempt to minimize the impressions they give."
Another stupid I don't remember the article that I have posted a more than a DOZEN times in this liars face that had a link with it which I stopped posting when he continually ignored the CONTENTS of the article which were drawn from the following:
NASA, NOAA, EMDAT, NationalWS, ACE, JapanMA, ChinaMA, Nature, National Hurricane Center, BOM, KNMI, IMBIE, FinnishMI, PMSMI, Berkely Earth, IUCN, IBA, U.N. Canadian National Fire Database, Time Magazine, NYT, NCEI, IPPC and a number of published science papers
LINK
LINK
Did you see a link somewhere below the Where is the climate emergency? heading the one you are so TERRIFIED to answer in detail.
You will ignore it with a dumb blanket statement because everyone here knows you can't address the contents of the article just as YOU and other warmist/alarmists did HERE in this forum already along with another forum which has over 900 cumulative posts with ZERO counters to the CONTENT of the article.
Warmists/alarmists are lazy and foolish.
===
Crick writes another blanket statement:
"I'm not the one with the intentionally deceptive plots and, except for noting that the sun is the source of energy for our oceans, you fucked up every single other claim you made in this post."
But yet no counterpoints at all thus worthless.
He ends with this classic self-putdown:
"My apologies for being an American citizen asshole."
"The latest estimate from the IPCC's Sixth Assessment report on climate science is that it ranges from 2.5C to 4.0C, a slight increase from the Fifth Assessment Report. That says that positive feedbacks exist. What science do you have that indicates there is no positive feedback? And you don't get to use Billy Boy as a reference."
My reply,
I never said there is no positive feedback as that is well established for a long time what I am talking about is the Positive Feedback LOOP according the AGW conjecture where such a loop creates an escalating run-away warming trend which never happened in the 1 billion years of the past.
That is what doesn't exist and stupid too since there are existing damping effects in the atmosphere and weather processes that gets overlooked all the time.
===
Crick lies hard since he NEVER addressed this article details.
"I've addressed all of them."
Ok show us the link where you addressed the CONTENT of this article:
Where is the Climate Emergency?
LINK
Snicker.......
Now he tries this desperate argument over this chart that obviously bothers him:
Crick writes,
"You don't think some portion of these data trends might be due to better forecasting, better computers, better communication, MUCH better medicine, better transportation, and since it includes heat deaths: air conditioning, refrigerators, fans. I haven't addressed it before now because I couldn't believe you were stupid enough to post it."
The charts say the death rate dropped over 90% in 100 years' time that destroys one of the pillars of the stupid climate crisis claims which you clearly endorse in your numerous posts here in the forum here that the bogus Climate Crisis claims in the near future will generate a massive death rate and create a massive transfer of climate victims (50 Million climate Refugees by 2010) LINK to the cooler areas of the world thus you are still LYING anyway.
===
Crick writes this howler,
"A link would be handy because the only clue that this came from someone else is the single quote mark at the beginning of the paragraph above. So, what the text says is that the graphs were created from the accepted values of mainstream science. Unfortunately, all this tells me is that someone has been feeding your ilk the idea that data should be plotted at large scales making small changes invisible in an attempt to minimize the impressions they give."
Another stupid I don't remember the article that I have posted a more than a DOZEN times in this liars face that had a link with it which I stopped posting when he continually ignored the CONTENTS of the article which were drawn from the following:
NASA, NOAA, EMDAT, NationalWS, ACE, JapanMA, ChinaMA, Nature, National Hurricane Center, BOM, KNMI, IMBIE, FinnishMI, PMSMI, Berkely Earth, IUCN, IBA, U.N. Canadian National Fire Database, Time Magazine, NYT, NCEI, IPPC and a number of published science papers
Where Is The “Climate Emergency”?
LINKLINK
LINK
Did you see a link somewhere below the Where is the climate emergency? heading the one you are so TERRIFIED to answer in detail.
You will ignore it with a dumb blanket statement because everyone here knows you can't address the contents of the article just as YOU and other warmist/alarmists did HERE in this forum already along with another forum which has over 900 cumulative posts with ZERO counters to the CONTENT of the article.
Warmists/alarmists are lazy and foolish.
===
Crick writes another blanket statement:
"I'm not the one with the intentionally deceptive plots and, except for noting that the sun is the source of energy for our oceans, you fucked up every single other claim you made in this post."
But yet no counterpoints at all thus worthless.
He ends with this classic self-putdown:
"My apologies for being an American citizen asshole."
Any feedback of the same polarity as the initial driver (positive feedback for warming, negative feedback for cooling) creates a "loop". It is whether or not that loop can be maintained that determines whether or not it is a "runaway" loop. Obviously, no runaway loops have existed in the Earth's history. That does not mean we have not had negative and postive feedbacks to temperature changes.
You keep an eye on ol' Billy Boy, don't you. On the scale in which warming has taken place naturally in the past, weathering has been the primary "damping" factor. Carbon dioxide reacts with rain water to create carbonic acid which dissolves calcium bearing minerals to form carbonates and other soluble minerals which get washed into the ocean where they generally stay in solution or are fixed by molluscs and corals eventually getting sequestered as submarine rocks. The problem here is that CO2 is growing far too rapidly in this human-driven cycle for this process to help.
I addressed that load of crap once when I pointed out that Anthony Watts and WattsUpWithThat have never published any science. I can back that up with the CV of the author of your peronsal graph collection: Willis Eschenbach has a bachelor's in psychology and is a certified massage therapist. He has NO training in ANY field of science. Do you got that? NO SCIENCE. He doesn't know WHAT the **** he's talking about. Yet Watts publishes him frequently and Heartland Institute invites him to their NO_GLOBAL_WARMING conferences. He has NEVER had a SINGLE paper published anywhere except WattsUpWithThat. Yet you think he has overturned the science done by thousands of PhDs over decades of study. Pathetic.
I stand firmly by my argument above and would add that no one is claiming we are already in a crisis condition or that immigrants are deaths, as you seem to be claiming. I still think you're an idiot to be posting this, but since you've done nothing the last several weeks but mine Eschenbach's collection of graphs for discussion boards, that doesn't really need saying.Now he tries this desperate argument over this chart that obviously bothers him:
Crick writes,
"You don't think some portion of these data trends might be due to better forecasting, better computers, better communication, MUCH better medicine, better transportation, and since it includes heat deaths: air conditioning, refrigerators, fans. I haven't addressed it before now because I couldn't believe you were stupid enough to post it."
The charts say the death rate dropped over 90% in 100 years' time that destroys one of the pillars of the stupid climate crisis claims which you clearly endorse in your numerous posts here in the forum here that the bogus Climate Crisis claims in the near future will generate a massive death rate and create a massive transfer of climate victims (50 Million climate Refugees by 2010) LINK to the cooler areas of the world thus you are still LYING anyway.
I still stand by this comment as well. Why do you go to the trouble of creating links that only say "LINK" when, with one click, you could create a link that clearly identifies where its going. And, I repeat, I DID respond to that link when I told you that I don't bother with WattsUpWithThat or Anthony Watts because neither it nor he does science. At all.
I don't respond to links to WattsUpWithThat
Every single one of which believes global warming is happening, that its primary cause is human GHG emissions and that it presents a real risk of harm to the species (and all life really). The question is "why don't YOU get it?"
We've already addressed this crap.
I don't answer crap.
I'm sorry to say but the most likely explanation is that's because IT'S SO ******* STUPID.
If you look up Oxford Dictionary's EXTREME IRONY, it leads you to the above comment.
Warmists/alarmists are lazy and foolish.
I'm sorry dude, but you have to earn my attention. I've already spent ten times the amount of effort on you that your posts are worth. But I'm trying to turn over a new leaf and be kind to the handicapped.
Would there be some reason you avoid posting what you said that earned that comment?
Sunsettommy said:
Really sad that you continue to defend that government institution [the IPCC].
The IPCC is a scientific panel formed by the UN, not an institution of the US government
So, you have fun with your pretty Eschenbach pictures. Maybe if you're loyal enough he'll give you a nice massage.
Please provide us your definition of "POLTICAL" (sic) "ORGINIZATION" (sic) or even a "political organization" if you'd like. Because the IPCC was formed by the UN which is an INTERgovernmental organization and includes members with all manner of different political viewpoints, agendas and plans for the world.
And then, if you don't mind, could you use your advanced education to explain for us how the published studies on which the IPCC's assessments are based qualify as pseudoscience because definitions I find for that term, like
Pseudoscience: a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.
Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that claim to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method. Pseudoscience is often characterized by contradictory, exaggerated or unfalsifiable claims; reliance on confirmation bias rather than rigorous attempts at refutation; lack of openness to evaluation by other experts; absence of systematic practices when developing hypotheses; and continued adherence long after the pseudoscientific hypotheses have been experimentally discredited.
Pseudoscience: a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific
Pseudoscience is a proposition, a finding or a system of explanation that is presented as science but that lacks the rigor essential to the scientific method. Pseudoscience can also be the result of research that is based on faulty premises, a flawed experimental design or bad data.
Would seem a term far more applicable to the arguments you and other AGW-deniers have brought forth, such as, oh... let's see
using a graph of climate-related deaths to argue that humans are not responsible for increasing atmospheric CO2. Or that despite the strong correlation, claiming that water (the oceans) cannot absorb IR backscatter. Or that the difficulty in detecting a tropospheric hotspot refutes greenhouse warming. Or that the ability to make troubling data trends (temperature, CO2) disappear by plotting them on absurdly oversized scales has some pertinence. Or claiming CO2 can have no significant warming effect because it is only a trace gas. Or that the conclusions of blatantly biased individuals completely funded by the fossil fuel industry can be counted on to produce reliable, objective data. Or claiming that AGW fails because no global catastrophe has yet occurred. Or that we should take the word of a massage therapist over the conclusions of thousands of published PhDs. Or claiming that global warming is simply our normal glacial cycle. Or claiming that the only thing that could cause the Earth to warm is the sun. Or claiming that AGW is a complete hoax perpetrated by people who want to rule the world. Or claiming that ALL the world's climate scientists have been in a tightly coordinated conspiracy to manufacture all the evidence for global warming and increased human GHG emissions for decades so that they can get rich from research grants. Or actually being stupid enough to think you could get away with claiming to have a doctorate in atmospheric physics.
CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 160,673
- 87,117
- 2,645
CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 160,673
- 87,117
- 2,645
"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy..." Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC
Again, the UN is an intergovernmental organization whose members span the entire political spectrum with differing agendas, differing outlooks, differing viewpoints and differing ideas about what's best for the world. Which of these do you believe the IPCC serves?
Was this to counter all the Gore-sourced data I've posted? He must be the richest man on the planet. Way richer than Trump, or Zuckerburg, or Gates, or Musk. Right?
CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 160,673
- 87,117
- 2,645
There's big money in pushing the Climate Scare, right?
CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 160,673
- 87,117
- 2,645
The UN is not some saintly do-gooder organization! The IPCC serves the WEF.
In any even, there no science that shows:
- that an additional 120PPM of CO2 can raise temperature by any measurable amount
- that CO2 drives climate on planet Earth
- that mankind even has a measurable impact on global CO2
The IPCC was formed by the UN, not the WEF. The WEF does not control the UN or the IPCC. The WEF has concerns about global warming because, like anyone with reasonable intelligence, they underestand that putting off dealing with problems only increases the cost. Doing things your way will beggar the world.
There are mountains of evidence. You simply don't care to admit it. That makes this a lie.
Billy_Bob
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #39
The IPCC is a POLTICAL ORGINIZATION and its "science" is politicly driven. All of their "policy papers" are political documents and not driven by science.
The TOTAL global warming, to date, is less than the expected warming by CO2 alone of 2.1 deg C. that is reflected in the log of this gas. This means that our atmosphere, without considering any other driver, is DAMPENING the actions of this GHG and all of the others. Ie: No positive feedback loop.
Now when we remove the other natural drivers, ie; Natural Variation, this significantly lowers the potential affect that GHG's have. Now tell me how you stopped Natural Variational drivers. This would indicate you have weather control over our climatic system to do this. If you have this then there is no problem you cant just wish away and there is no problem. OR You do not have this capability and we have no problem... SO which is it Crick?
Last edited:
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
Adult Illegal Alien Caught Posing as Virginia High School Student, Charged with Molesting Nine Children- Started by tyroneweaver
- Replies: 2
-
-
In his 1938 work The Great Heresies, Hilaire Belloc devoted a chapter to Islam:- Started by excalibur
- Replies: 1
