Climate Change

[Benchwayze]

1947 Extreme weather.
1950s extreme floods.
1966 extreme weather.
1976 Extreme weather.
1996 Extreme weather.
2016 extreme weather.

You missed out the storm of the century 1953, The winter of 1963, The storm of 1987. Burns day storm 1990. Hottest day in History 2003, Boscastle 2004. http://www.bbc.co.uk/timelines/zcwj2hv

No rhythm in that.

1953 Storm of the century. Think you'll find I mentioned the 1950s, and I was thinking of all the sandbags! (I think 1953 was in the 50s.)

1987 well yes, that slipped my mind, but it slots in nicely after 1976 11 years afterwards. Eleven being the operative figure for me. None of these events precisely fits the Sun-spot cycle, but close enough for me to think it is not exactly coincidence.

The point being I do NOT believe any variances in climate or any freak events have anything to do with us. If that was so, I think there would have been a marked improvement, since we stopped burning domestic coal. There hasn't. It's just got worse! That kind of demolishes their argument that NOT burning fossil fuels will improve matters. All it improved was the breathable air. Again conveniently overlooked, in their efforts to blame us, and justify levying taxes.

Definitely I have no more to say.

 

[Rhyolith]

The point being I do NOT believe any variances in climate or any freak events have anything to do with us. If that was so, I think there would have been a marked improvement, since we stopped burning domestic coal. There hasn't. It's just got worse! That kind of demolishes their argument that NOT burning fossil fuels will improve matters. All it improved was the breathable air. Again conveniently overlooked, in their efforts to blame us, and justify levying taxes.

Definitely I have no more to say.

Its not the action of putting CO2 into the atmsophere that causes global warming, its the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere thats causes global warming. Just because we have reduced the amount of CO2 we are putting into the atmosphere does not mean the CO2 already there just magically dissipears, it stays there and so does the warming effect.

I should menation that CO2 can get removed from the atmosphere via absorption into the ocean (which is not good for sea life) and trees, (so de-ferotation obviously does not help either). Neither can remove it fast enough and human induced will conitnue to get worse until CO2 production breaks even with the abilies of the worlds forests and oceans to absorb it.

 

[Benchwayze]

The point being I do NOT believe any variances in climate or any freak events have anything to do with us. If that was so, I think there would have been a marked improvement, since we stopped burning domestic coal. There hasn't. It's just got worse! That kind of demolishes their argument that NOT burning fossil fuels will improve matters. All it improved was the breathable air. Again conveniently overlooked, in their efforts to blame us, and justify levying taxes.

Definitely I have no more to say.

Neither can remove it fast enough and human induced will conitnue to get worse until CO2 production breaks even with the abilies of the worlds forests and oceans to absorb it.

So you agree then? There's nothing we can do about it, even if it does happen to be true; which I don't accept.
You forget also that the sea pushes tons of CO2 into the atmosphere from the action of oceanic life, and the pollution from undersea volcanoes. Nothing is simple and straightforward in nature is it?'

 

[Rhyolith]

The point being I do NOT believe any variances in climate or any freak events have anything to do with us. If that was so, I think there would have been a marked improvement, since we stopped burning domestic coal. There hasn't. It's just got worse! That kind of demolishes their argument that NOT burning fossil fuels will improve matters. All it improved was the breathable air. Again conveniently overlooked, in their efforts to blame us, and justify levying taxes.

Definitely I have no more to say.

Neither can remove it fast enough and human induced will conitnue to get worse until CO2 production breaks even with the abilies of the worlds forests and oceans to absorb it.

So you agree then? There's nothing we can do about it, even if it does happen to be true; which I don't accept.
You forget also that the sea pushes tons of CO2 into the atmosphere from the action of oceanic life, and the pollution from undersea volcanoes. Nothing is simple and straightforward in nature is it?'

Can we do something about it? Yes, in theory its as simple has reducing CO2 and in practice is the subject of a lot current research.

Do you know the net CO2 production of the ocean? Because I am pretty sure it is negative (taking in more than giving off)

Why don't you accept the existance if human induced climate change? I ask because I don't see any reasons beyond simply choosing not to, which if course is everyones right.

 

[Benchwayze]

Ros.

It's quite simple. Of all these scientists, (The Consensus, they talk about) there might be just four or five that really understand climate well enough to explain whether or not we really do have an effect. That minority admits freely, there's no certainty, that human activity does have an effect The Climate Change Religion doesn't want you to know that.

The world seems to prefer to take the word of the grasping, self-serving Al Gore, even though his theories have been ripped to shreds. That's why I won't accept we are the main cause of Global Warming. Ros, I suggest you read and view a lot more evidence from the opposite camp; and then see if your opinions need reforming a little.

The truth is probably that because the Sun is warming the the globe, the warming atmosphere is causing the sea to give up it's CO2. It's a good job it does, because we need CO2 in the air. Without it, plant life would die, for a start. So before you condemn CO2 out of hand, consider what our bungling, interference might do, because we just DON'T understand how things work. We merely think we understand.

Too prove that the sea can give off CO2, just warm up some soda-water in a pyrex vessel. As soon as the water starts to get warm you will see the CO2 begin to form bubbles which float to the top. If you continue to heat the water, until this stops, you can taste the water and you'll find it will be 'flat'. Ergo, no more CO2 present in the water. Air temperature warms up the sea, as does underwater volcanic activity. This starts the transference of the CO2. Obviously more rapidly where there is volcanic activity, as well as adding more CO2 and other gasses. When the sea is cold, the water holds onto the CO2.

This tells me that the temperature drives CO2, and not the other way around; as is generally believed. So that's why I doubt that human interference is the true cause of the warming.

I've had enough. I have told you what I believe, and have given you a little experiment that in some way backs up what I believe. Make your choice Ros, but don't be a bigot. Try a bit of rethinking your opinion.

John

 

[Rhyolith]

First off let be no doubts that I respect your opinion, why would I bother trying to change its if I did not value it.

It's quite simple. Of all these scientists, (The Consensus, they talk about) there might be just four or five that really understand climate well enough to explain whether or not we really do have an effect. That minority admits freely, there's no certainty, that human activity does have an effect The Climate Change Religion doesn't want you to know that.

Sorry, but none of that is actually correct. Prove me otherwise with some references (like who said there is no certainty).

The level of certainty in climate science that humans are causing global warming is stated here as "very likely":

It is very likely that anthropogenic in uence, particularly GHGs and stratospheric ozone depletion, has led to a detectable observed pat- tern of tropospheric warming and a corresponding cooling in the lower stratosphere since 1961. {WGI SPM D.3, 2.4.4, 9.4.1, 10.3.1}

Page 48 of this (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-repor ... wcover.pdf), if you want to know the state of current climate science this is a good (but so long...) document.

The world seems to prefer to take the word of the grasping, self-serving Al Gore, even though his theories have been ripped to shreds. That's why I won't accept we are the main cause of Global Warming. Ros, I suggest you read and view a lot more evidence from the opposite camp; and then see if your opinions need reforming a little.

All the opposing "evidence" I have seen thus far as been speculative opinion at best, provide me with something better and I will gladly look over it.

The truth is probably that because the Sun is warming the the globe, the warming atmosphere is causing the sea to give up it's CO2. It's a good job it does, because we need CO2 in the air. Without it, plant life would die, for a start. So before you condemn CO2 out of hand, consider what our bungling, interference might do, because we just DON'T understand how things work. We merely think we understand.

I have explained the state of Climate science once already. In short, the atmosphere is well understood by 1000's of scientists.

CO2 is a necessary part of the atmosphere, your totally right on that. However like all the components of the atmosphere it needs to be there in the "right" proportions... for example if the oxygen (that we need too) content were over 35% (its 21% currently) things would be exploding & catching fire left right and centre.

The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased more in the northern hemisphere where more fossil fuel burning occurs. Since the Industrial Revolution the concentration globally has increased by about 40% (http://www.bbc.co.uk/climate/evidence/c ... xide.shtml)

.
A 40% increase is too much and its KNOWN to result in Global Warming.

Too prove that the sea can give off CO2, just warm up some soda-water in a pyrex vessel. As soon as the water starts to get warm you will see the CO2 begin to form bubbles which float to the top. If you continue to heat the water, until this stops, you can taste the water and you'll find it will be 'flat'. Ergo, no more CO2 present in the water. Air temperature warms up the sea, as does underwater volcanic activity. This starts the transference of the CO2. Obviously more rapidly where there is volcanic activity, as well as adding more CO2 and other gasses. When the sea is cold, the water holds onto the CO2.

I believe it is true that warming up the sea causes it to gives off more CO2.

I don't think underwater volcanoes make a significant difference to ocean temperatures on a scale large enough to effect the climate but I have not studied that specifically so cannot say with certainty.

This tells me that the temperature drives CO2, and not the other way around; as is generally believed. So that's why I doubt that human interference is the true cause of the warming.

You have pointed out a mechanism by which increasing atmospheric temperature can result in more CO2 releasing from the oceans. For this to be evidence that humans have not causes global warming you need to investigate whether this is actually happening in the real world (are the seas giving enough CO2 to account for the known increase in the atmosphere) and what caused the warming the first place; which I am confident would be human CO2 production.

Try a bit of rethinking your opinion.

Please make that mutual.

 

[Benchwayze]

Ros.

I can't see the point of showing you any contrary evidence at all, wherever it comes from. You don't want to listen to my opinion, because as you just said, you would rather get me to change it to suit yours.

There was a time when I believed as you do, but when they started throwing giant windmills up all over this fair land, and covering fields with solar panels, I began to wonder. I also realised someone was making a great deal of money out of those eyesores. I have heard rumours about a leading politician and one of his relatives heavily engaged in such investment; but I can't check the veracity of the stories so I'll just mention it.

Anyhow, as you asked me, just follow this link for a start; if you can be bothered.

http://www.newsmax.com/MKTNews/global-w ... id/601458/

I guess you'll just scoff, but the figures come from sources at least as trustworthy as Jerry D. Mahlman, who presented us with the 'hockey-stick' graph, which was part of the start of all this nonsense, and which had most of the data removed, so it suited Mahlman's theory.

You can find similar articles all over the internet and I could point you to endless lists of videos which should at least make you think. However, I fear that changing your opinion, or even to get you listen to me, isn't going to happen; any more than I could convince Justin Welby there is no God.

Oh and I did not say that my experiment was evidence that humans had no effect on climate. I said it suggests that the climate drives CO2 and NOT the other way around; I.e. CO2 drives the climate. That is to say it's the Sun which heats up the planet, and NOT CO2. I think I have already mentioned that water vapour is a much more efficient greenhouse gas that CO2. and if anything is holding in the heat it's water vapour.
John

 

[DTR]

Who is Ros???

 

[DTR]

Anyhow, as you asked me, just follow this link for a start; if you can be bothered.

http://www.newsmax.com/MKTNews/global-w ... id/601458/

I only glossed through it, but the figures in that article seem to be based on a 35 year period.

Oh and I did not say that my experiment was evidence that humans had no effect on climate. I said it suggests that the climate drives CO2 and NOT the other way around; I.e. CO2 drives the climate. That is to say it's the Sun which heats up the planet, and NOT CO2. I think I have already mentioned that water vapour is a much more efficient greenhouse gas that CO2. and if anything is holding in the heat it's water vapour.
John

It was mentioned further up the thread (I forget who, sorry) that positive feedback loops could be at work. Your example of water vapour holding heat could very well be an example of that. The fact that vapour will retain heat does not mean that CO2 is not also having the same effect.

Climate change aside, I still don't understand why we persist in burning fossil fuels with reckless abandon. Fossil fuels are a finite resource, and the heath effects (respiratory illness and so on) are very well documented. The London smog of the 1952 is believed to have killed 100,000 alone.

 

[Rhyolith]

There was a time when I believed as you do, but when they started throwing giant windmills up all over this fair land, and covering fields with solar panels, I began to wonder. I also realised someone was making a great deal of money out of those eyesores. I have heard rumours about a leading politician and one of his relatives heavily engaged in such investment; but I can't check the veracity of the stories so I'll just mention it.

Here we might be able to agree. I am very critical of big wind farms and similar projects such through by energy firms and politicians under the guises of being "Green", as always using it to justify projects for there own ends. Though I ultimately don't know much about the underlying economics/politics and other schemes I can say that such schemes are environmentally questionable. Your all to right to be critical of them.

http://www.newsmax.com/MKTNews/global-warming-hoax-facts/2014/10/17/id/601458/

This is full of errors. For example:

Weakening the global warming argument is data showing that the North Polar ice cap is increasing in size. Recent satellite images from NASA actually reflect an increase of 43% to 63%

There is no Northern Polar ice cap (in scientific terms), only sea ice which naturally melts and then re-forms each year (the general public often refer to this sea ice as a polar ice cap). I thought intailly they might mean the Greenland Ice sheet/cap... but they don't (the little images show the Arctic sea ice).

The Wall Street Journal went as far as to say, “The assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction.” Forbes headlined “Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring ’97% Consensus’ Claims.”

I have never heard this 97% claim... 97% of all scientists? Like Physicists, Chemists and Doctors too? It makes no sense to even make that claim. This is why I like peer reviewed stuff for this, none of this nonsense (agreeing with the article being critical, not their reasoning for being critical).

You can find similar articles all over the internet and I could point you to endless lists of videos which should at least make you think. However, I fear that changing your opinion, or even to get you listen to me, isn't going to happen; any more than I could convince Justin Welby there is no God.

I see your point here, I cannot expect you to change your opinion if I am not willing to do the same. Is that a fair assessment?

Oh and I did not say that my experiment was evidence that humans had no effect on climate. I said it suggests that the climate drives CO2 and NOT the other way around; I.e. CO2 drives the climate. That is to say it's the Sun which heats up the planet, and NOT CO2. I think I have already mentioned that water vapour is a much more efficient greenhouse gas that CO2. and if anything is holding in the heat it's water vapour.
John

Yes the sun's energy warms the Earth. This energy input is constant (in our lifetimes), yet the Earth's Global temperature varies. We KNOW CO2 is a greenhouse gas, this is a certain as the existence of gravity. So more CO2 defiantly makes the planet warmer through that greenhouse effect, its been well and truly tested.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

 

[Rhyolith]

Anyhow, as you asked me, just follow this link for a start; if you can be bothered.

http://www.newsmax.com/MKTNews/global-w ... id/601458/

I only glossed through it, but the figures in that article seem to be based on a 35 year period.

Yes this makes it statistically meaningless from a climate perspective, since human induced global warming is theorised to have started approx 200yrs ago.

Oh and I did not say that my experiment was evidence that humans had no effect on climate. I said it suggests that the climate drives CO2 and NOT the other way around; I.e. CO2 drives the climate. That is to say it's the Sun which heats up the planet, and NOT CO2. I think I have already mentioned that water vapour is a much more efficient greenhouse gas that CO2. and if anything is holding in the heat it's water vapour.
John

It was mentioned further up the thread (I forget who, sorry) that positive feedback loops could be at work. Your example of water vapour holding heat could very well be an example of that. The fact that vapour will retain heat does not mean that CO2 is not also having the same effect.

Climate change aside, I still don't understand why we persist in burning fossil fuels with reckless abandon. Fossil fuels are a finite resource, and the heath effects (respiratory illness and so on) are very well documented. The London smog of the 1952 is believed to have killed 100,000 alone.

There are a myriad of reasons to do a something about fossil fuels other than Global warming. However that is a big topic in itself.

Something else, Global warming is often referred to as a "crisis". Its not. Its a factor that makes a lot of other crisis's worse, such has drought, famine , and possibly (un-proven) weather. Drought is the biggest killer on the planet and is a much bigger problem for present civilisation than human induced Global warming, which is only one of many factors causing the droughts.

 

[morfa]

The 97% figure is here - http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

And comes from this paper - http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.10 ... 1/4/048002

Either way you slice it well over 90% of climate scientists agree. That is a clear majority regardless of the exact percentage.

Also even fairly small raises in temperatures can have fairly major negative effects. So even that 0.36 degF raise could still be caused by humans and have a negative effect.

Finally, you can say it's not happening, or that it's not caused by humans. Doesn't mean it's not going to happen, that's the terrible beauty of the natural world.

 

[Rhyolith]

The 97% figure is here - http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

And comes from this paper - http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.10 ... 1/4/048002

Either way you slice it well over 90% of climate scientists agree. That is a clear majority regardless of the exact percentage.

Also even fairly small raises in temperatures can have fairly major negative effects. So even that 0.36 degF raise could still be caused by humans and have a negative effect.

Finally, you can say it's not happening, or that it's not caused by humans. Doesn't mean it's not going to happen, that's the terrible beauty of the natural world.

I would be interested to see what that 3% who are put down as not agreeing say.

I believe the global average temperature has risen by 1.5 degrees C since the industrail revoltuion according to the IPCC. The effects of warming a complex and very hard to predict, more storms are a certain consquence of increasing sea temperatures (any rise).

The absolute key difference with todays Global warming is the speed in which its happening, naturally it simple does not happen as quickly as it is now.

 

[Benchwayze]

GW theorists claim one thing.
So-called deniers say the opposite.
They each can find evidence to support their views.
So who is right?
Which of the two does any neutral thinker believe?
There's the problem. Maybe no one truly knows, and we all just think we know.

I have no more to say on the subject.
I am off to bed. I have woodwork to see to tomorrow.

'Night All! ZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

 

[Dusty]

Evening all , heres my thoughts , I agree , we as the human race are not helping but it cant be pinned on us , The planet as a whole has been through many different phases and always survived . The point alot of people misunderstand is it could / may / probably cause the end of the human race at some point in time but the planet WILL go on , as it has done for millions of years and will do so for millions of years .

Just look at the typical images of the ice sheets receeding through giant valleys of rock and water , Those mountains formed long before the ice was there . It has been proven ( according to TV ) that there has been more than one ice age , and there is no reason to think it would happen again . It is shouted about the amount of Co2 being released from the ground , , , but , , , where do you think it all came from to start with ?

I agree it is not good , but back in the 80's we were warned of holes in the O-Zone layer , now thats all gone quiet ! Now the new thing is Co2 and every reason used to tax anything that may produce a milligram of soot . And then they create a Congestion zone in london on the pretense of being good for us . But the real question is , really how is the revenue used . I dont see millions of trees being planted in otherwise unusable land , air scrubbers being implemented .

The Severn Barrage that is being proposed accross from Burnham-on-sea to cardiff was planned as a means to utilise tidal energy , it will be umpteen miles of concrete dam , rising some meters out of the water , a real feat of engineering . It was meant to bring our Co2 usage down , but ask yourself of how many millions of tons of concrete it will take to build a 20 plus mile dam , at 1 ton of Co2 per ton of concrete . Doesnt look so "green" now !

The whole taxing it is just an excuse for stealth taxs and the driven hype over us being the main cause is just more hype to tax it . "apparently when the volcano went of in iceland it dumped god knows how much more Co2 than us , they would of taxed that if they could of .

Wind farms and solar farms are a waste of money ! the only people who really gain is the developers / producers , and if I choose to use "green" electric from my supplier I have to pay a premium , which is supposed to ease my consciounse as I am "doing my bit " . Wind farms can only operate at optimum speeds , too fast and they have to be shut down , solar only works at day time , and the real kicker is the goverment grants and farmers making a mint out of it, we have one near me who no longer farms , just sits on his twinky and twiddles his thumbs . And to add insult to injury , they still get paid wether they are neaded or not !

 

[RogerS]

.... And to add insult to injury , they still get paid wether they are neaded or not !

And don't forget that white elephant just off the M4 near Reading that USES power to keep it slowly rotating on windless and low wind days.

 

[Random Orbital Bob]

I think there's more than 1 "windfarm" operating in this thread!

 

[SammyQ]

"I think there's more than 1 "windfarm" operating in this thread!"

=D> =D> =D> =D> - speaking purely as a scientist of 35 years standing.


DATA, people! DATA! Not opinions, especially not at second-hand or filtered through an editor of a busy newsroom for TV sound-bites.

Sam

 

[Rhyolith]

GW theorists claim one thing.
So-called deniers say the opposite.
They each can find evidence to support their views.
So who is right?
Which of the two does any neutral thinker believe?
There's the problem. Maybe no one truly knows, and we all just think we know.

I have no more to say on the subject.
I am off to bed. I have woodwork to see to tomorrow.

'Night All! ZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

Global warming scientist's are backed by peer reviewed, internationally recognised scientific documents such as this: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-repor ... wcover.pdf
The skeptic are backed by ranting articles in general media, written by people who clearly know nothing about the science of climatic systems: http://www.newsmax.com/MKTNews/global-w ... id/601458/
If your going to take that as evidence that no one knows, then how can you be certain of anything :?

Evening all , heres my thoughts , I agree , we as the human race are not helping but it cant be pinned on us , The planet as a whole has been through many different phases and always survived . The point alot of people misunderstand is it could / may / probably cause the end of the human race at some point in time but the planet WILL go on , as it has done for millions of years and will do so for millions of years .

Yes it can... has been pinned on us. If you going to say otherwise back it up with some references.

On the subject of the Earth surviving, your right it won't be the coming of the Apocalypse as many zealots seem to preach. In the worse case scerios it will make the Earth in-hospitable for most life presently living on it (including humans).

Just look at the typical images of the ice sheets receeding through giant valleys of rock and water , Those mountains formed long before the ice was there . It has been proven ( according to TV ) that there has been more than one ice age , and there is no reason to think it would happen again . It is shouted about the amount of Co2 being released from the ground , , , but , , , where do you think it all came from to start with ?

So you think losing all the ice is a not an issue? How about 75 metres of sea level rise? Much of the Carbon comes from the Carboniferous period swamps, but thats not evidence that it being put back into the atmosphere is a good thing.

I agree it is not good , but back in the 80's we were warned of holes in the O-Zone layer , now thats all gone quiet ! Now the new thing is Co2 and every reason used to tax anything that may produce a milligram of soot . And then they create a Congestion zone in london on the pretense of being good for us . But the real question is , really how is the revenue used . I dont see millions of trees being planted in otherwise unusable land , air scrubbers being implemented .

I think its the "Kyoto" protocol (or one of them) that successfully banned CFC's and thus saved the Ozone layer (or at least stopped it getting any worse). You don't hear about it because the world did what it should do for CO2 and got the problem under control.

The Severn Barrage that is being proposed accross from Burnham-on-sea to cardiff was planned as a means to utilise tidal energy , it will be umpteen miles of concrete dam , rising some meters out of the water , a real feat of engineering . It was meant to bring our Co2 usage down , but ask yourself of how many millions of tons of concrete it will take to build a 20 plus mile dam , at 1 ton of Co2 per ton of concrete . Doesnt look so "green" now !

This is not a "Green" project, indeed huge scale projects like this are by their very nature unsustainable and bad for the environment (for the reason highlighted above).

The whole taxing it is just an excuse for stealth taxs and the driven hype over us being the main cause is just more hype to tax it . "apparently when the volcano went of in iceland it dumped god knows how much more Co2 than us , they would of taxed that if they could of .

The amount of CO2 released by Eyjafjallajökull was far less than that saved by all the flights being grounded as a result of it. I am not sure how trustworthy this article is, but the claims make sense that in general airplanes are known release a lot of CO2 and I don't believe Volcanoes do (though there are large natural variances).
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... -emissions

Wind farms and solar farms are a waste of money ! the only people who really gain is the developers / producers , and if I choose to use "green" electric from my supplier I have to pay a premium , which is supposed to ease my consciounse as I am "doing my bit " . Wind farms can only operate at optimum speeds , too fast and they have to be shut down , solar only works at day time , and the real kicker is the goverment grants and farmers making a mint out of it, we have one near me who no longer farms , just sits on his twinky and twiddles his thumbs . And to add insult to injury , they still get paid wether they are neaded or not !

Wind farms are an excellent example of the government trying to satisfy the growing demand to deal with global warming quickly, without actually understanding it (and possibly just using it as an excuse to line there pockets or those of developers). However this is not evidence the human induced global warming is not happening, only that its being tackled poorly.

"I think there's more than 1 "windfarm" operating in this thread!"

=D> =D> =D> =D> - speaking purely as a scientist of 35 years standing.


DATA, people! DATA! Not opinions, especially not at second-hand or filtered through an editor of a busy newsroom for TV sound-bites.

Sam

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-repor ... wcover.pdf

 

[Benchwayze]

Actually discussing climate change on line will make it worse (if it is our fault) so to help, stop posting.

:wink:

Pete

I have solar panels

Then you'd know about this Rhyo?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/solar-indust ... tml?ref=gs

Or perhaps this is another piece of denier-created fiction you'd dismiss? :wink:

John