Climate Change Denial

Denial, and discussion about denial, go here

Anything that doesn't fit anywhere else below.

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: Climate Change Denial

#5141  Postby Macdoc » Jan 15, 2017 3:26 am

Greed knows no shame .... :nono:
Travel photos > https://500px.com/macdoc/galleries
EO Wilson in On Human Nature wrote:
We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.
User avatar
Macdoc
 
Posts: 11873
Age: 70
Male

Country: Canada/Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Climate Change Denial

#5142  Postby felltoearth » Jan 15, 2017 3:39 am

So basically this this is Wyoming saying "fuck you, whatever" to Florida
"Walla Walla Bonga!" — Witticism
User avatar
felltoearth
 
Posts: 7452
Age: 50

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Climate Change Denial

#5143  Postby Macdoc » Jan 15, 2017 8:03 am

Well a few corrupt law makers in the pocket of the few remaining coal barons I hope are not representative of Wyoming in general. That proposal is not from ignorance ...only from greed.
Travel photos > https://500px.com/macdoc/galleries
EO Wilson in On Human Nature wrote:
We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.
User avatar
Macdoc
 
Posts: 11873
Age: 70
Male

Country: Canada/Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Climate Change Denial

#5144  Postby Caper » Feb 23, 2017 2:31 pm



Comeback at 2:25
Caper
 
Name: Glenn Smith
Posts: 407

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Climate Change Science [Strictly Moderated]

#5145  Postby Pulsar » Mar 30, 2017 6:10 pm

The sequel to An Inconvenient Truth:

"The longer I live the more I see that I am never wrong about anything, and that all the pains that I have so humbly taken to verify my notions have only wasted my time." - George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
Pulsar
 
Posts: 4615
Age: 40
Male

Country: Belgium
Belgium (be)
Print view this post

Re: Climate Change Denial

#5146  Postby Macdoc » Apr 05, 2017 12:43 pm

The 'simple question' that can change your mind about global warming

By John D. Sutter, CNN

(CNN)Fox News anchor Chris Wallace earlier this week asked one of the most important questions put to the Trump administration during its first 100 days in office.

"Simple question, what if you're wrong?" he asked on Sunday.

Wallace directed this short-but-mind-blowingly-critical question at Scott Pruitt, the head of the US Environmental Protection Agency. The context was climate change. The implication: What if you're wrong and carbon dioxide pollution -- from burning fossil fuels -- really is the main driver of global warming? That's what a near-consensus of climate scientists say, after all.
Pruitt earlier this year equivocated on this point, saying that he "would not agree that (carbon dioxide pollution is) a primary contributor to the global warming that we see."
"Mr. Pruitt, there are all kinds of studies that contradict you," Wallace said. "The UN's panel on climate change says it is at least 95% likely that more than half the temperature increase since the mid-20th century is due to human activities. NOAA -- that's our own National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration -- says there's more carbon dioxide now than in the last 400,000 years, and NOAA says 2015 and 2016 are the two hottest years on record.
"Mr. Pruitt, are we supposed to believe that that's all a coincidence?"
After some back and forth, that all-important question. What if ...
"What if, in fact, the Earth is warming? What if it is causing dramatic climate change and that we as humans through carbon emissions are contributing to it?" Wallace asked.
"Simple question, what if you're wrong?"
"Look, let me say to you, CO2 (carbon dioxide) contributes to greenhouse gas, it has a greenhouse gas effect and global warming, as methane does and other types of gases," Pruitt said. "The issue is how much we contribute to it from the human activity perspective and what can be done about it from a process perspective, Chris."
Wallace: "But don't you think the fact that we have these coal power plants belching carbon emissions into the air, you don't think that had -- plays a role?"
Instead of answering that, Pruitt talked about how the US supposedly has been burning coal "in a clean fashion."
Coal isn't clean. It contributes pollution related deaths as well as global warming. It's dirtier than natural gas, for instance. The United States' first "clean coal" plant opened in January, according to the Washington Post, but there are serious doubts about the technology -- which is designed to sequester carbon dioxide pollution -- and its affordability.
But ... I'm not here to fact-check Pruitt. Plenty of journalists have done that. Instead, I want to talk about Wallace and his awesome question. Because it's one that could change the way Americans -- 47% of whom say global warming is natural or they are unsure of its cause -- think about the climate crisis.
I know this is true because I talked this week with Jerry Taylor, a climate-skeptic-turned-believer.
And that very question helped reframe his thinking.
Taylor is president of the Niskanen Center, which advocates for a carbon tax as a conservative solution to climate crisis. But before that, he spent 23 years at the CATO Institute, a libertarian think tank, where he advocated for a study-more-but-do-nothing approach to the climate crisis. It's a position that's not terribly far out of step with the Trump administration, which appears to be trying to inject false doubt into climate science as a way to justify gutting pollution regulations.
Taylor's belief in climate skepticism collapsed because of a few arguments, he told me. But the "what if" was critical. Here's the evolution: After going on a cable TV show to promote climate skepticism, Taylor told me, the opposing guest pushed him to reread the 1988 congressional testimony of climate scientist James Hansen, former director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
"I would like to draw three main conclusions," Hansen told Congress nearly 30 years ago. "Number one, the Earth is warmer in 1988 than at any time in the history of instrumental measurements. Number two, the global warming is now large enough that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship to the greenhouse effect. And number three, our computer climate simulations indicate that the greenhouse effect is already large enough to begin to affect the probability of extreme events such as summer heat waves."
"I was fairly shaken by it," Taylor told me.
He realized he had been misrepresenting the research by not acknowledging that Hansen had put forward a range of global warming and emissions scenarios. And then he started to think about the risks of inaction.
If there was even a small chance that global experts like Hansen were correct (97% of the world's climate scientists say humans are largely responsible for global warming, according to peer reviewed research) then the world was in beyond-serious trouble, especially the long term.
Taylor met with a risk-management expert at Goldman Sachs, the Wall Street bank, he told me, and he told Taylor people should think about the risks of the climate crisis the same way they do about the risks in financial markets.
"He made the point that the debate about the most likely outcome (of climate change) is a secondary matter," Taylor said. "There is a full range of outcomes here in play and in risk management you have to take a look at this full range of outcomes and hedge against them. No one in their right mind in financial markets would consider saying otherwise ... In financial markets it would be insane to not hedge against risks."
Again, his thinking was rattled.
"In every other context where you have this degree of risk and uncertainty we rightly hedge, we rightly address the full range of possible outcomes," Taylor said. "To not do so in the climate arena when you have this much at stake is incredible to me ... Do we really want to go to Vegas and put all our money on one roulette wheel and say, 'Well, that's the most possible outcome?'"
If society does nothing and continues burning fossil fuels, scientists say we can expect worsening super droughts, deadlier heat waves, mass extinction in the natural world and rising seas that, as Taylor put it, will sink half of Florida as well as many coastal cities.
It's not a matter of if as much as when.
And we know the more pollution we create the riskier this all becomes. (Which isn't a particularly comforting thought if you know that the world creates 1,200 metric tons of carbon dioxide pollution every second, according to the Global Carbon Project and Climate Analytics.)
Plus, there are a number of "co-benefits" of transitioning away from fossil fuels, from cleaner air to a stronger and more modern economy.

Still don't buy any of this?

Don't think it's a big deal?

Ask yourself: What if you're wrong?


http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/05/polit ... ttommedium
Travel photos > https://500px.com/macdoc/galleries
EO Wilson in On Human Nature wrote:
We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.
User avatar
Macdoc
 
Posts: 11873
Age: 70
Male

Country: Canada/Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Climate Change Science [Strictly Moderated]

#5147  Postby WayOfTheDodo » Apr 11, 2017 9:05 am

Pulsar wrote:The sequel to An Inconvenient Truth:



Fuck yeah. Al Gore really gets those deniers riled up. And although I always point out that he's basically irrelevant when it comes to the science (because the science does not depend on him being wrong or right), he's doing good things when it comes to bringing the message out to the people.

This is going to make the deniers go fucking insane. They are going to attack him with everything they've got.
User avatar
WayOfTheDodo
 
Name: Raphus Cucullatus
Posts: 1881

Mauritius (mu)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Climate Change Denial

#5148  Postby Macdoc » Apr 29, 2017 12:36 pm

Read the comments

https://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/ ... ans/79112/

weep for planet :waah: ......and our species current crop of mighty intellectuals who troll the web denying the obvious .... :what: :nono:
Travel photos > https://500px.com/macdoc/galleries
EO Wilson in On Human Nature wrote:
We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.
User avatar
Macdoc
 
Posts: 11873
Age: 70
Male

Country: Canada/Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Climate Change Denial

#5149  Postby Animavore » Apr 29, 2017 6:08 pm

More of this honesty, please.

How a Professional Climate Change Denier Discovered the Lies and Decided to Fight for Science.

The hardest part of reversing the warming of the planet may be convincing climate change skeptics of the need to do so. Although scientists who study the issue overwhelming agree that the earth is undergoing rapid and profound climate changes due to the burning of fossil fuels, a minority of the public remains stubbornly resistant to that fact. With temperatures rising and ice caps melting — and that small minority in control of both Congress and the White House — there seems no project more urgent than persuading climate deniers to reconsider their views. So we reached out to Jerry Taylor, whose job as president of the Niskanen Center involves turning climate skeptics into climate activists.

It might seem like an impossible transition, except that Taylor, who used to be staff director for the energy and environment task force at the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and vice president of the Cato Institute, made it himself.

Sharon Lerner: What did you think when you first encountered the concept of climate change back in the 1990s?

Jerry Taylor: From 1991 through 2000, I was a pretty good warrior on that front. I was absolutely convinced of the case for skepticism with regard to climate science and of the excessive costs of doing much about it even if it were a problem. I used to write skeptic talking points for a living.

SL: What was your turning point?

JT: It started in the early 2000s. I was one of the climate skeptics who do battle on TV and I was doing a show with Joe Romm. On air, I said that, back in 1988, when climate scientist James Hansen testified in front of the Senate, he predicted we’d see a tremendous amount of warming. I argued it’d been more than a decade and we could now see by looking at the temperature record that he wasn’t accurate. After we got done with the program and were back in green room, getting the makeup taken off, Joe said to me, “Did you even read that testimony you’ve just talked about?” And when I told him it had been a while, he said “I’m daring you to go back and double check this.” He told me that some of Hansen’s projections were spot on. So I went back to my office and I re-read Hanson’s testimony. And Joe was correct. So I then I talked to the climate skeptics who had made this argument to me, and it turns out they had done so with full knowledge they were being misleading.

SL: So that was it? You changed your mind?

JT: It was more gradual. After that, I began to do more of that due diligence, and the more I did, the more I found that variations on this story kept arising again and again. Either the explanations for findings were dodgy, sketchy or misleading or the underlying science didn’t hold up. Eventually, I tried to get out of the science narratives that I had been trafficking in and just fell back on the economics. Because you can very well accept that climate change exists and still find arguments against climate action because the costs of doing something are so great.

SL: And the economic case eventually crumbled, too?

JT: The first blow in that argument was offered by my friend Jonathan Adler, who was at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Jon wrote a very interesting paper in which he argued that even if the skeptic narratives are correct, the old narratives I was telling wasn’t an argument against climate action. Just because the costs and the benefits are more or less going to be a wash, he said, that doesn’t mean that the losers in climate change are just going to have to suck it up so Exxon and Koch Industries can make a good chunk of money.

The final blow against my position, which caused me to crumble, was from a fellow named Bob Litterman, who had been the head of risk management at Goldman Sachs. Bob said, “The climate risks aren’t any different from financial risks I had to deal with at Goldman. We don’t know what’s going to happen in any given year in the market. There’s a distribution of possible outcomes. You have to consider the entire distribution of possible outcomes when you make decisions like this.” After he left my office, I said “there’s nothing but rubble here.”


SL: And then there’s the president, who claimed climate change is a Chinese hoax. What about changing his mind?

JT: Donald Trump clearly has lightly held views about climate, which means they can be easily moved. He has no ideology whatsoever, so the last person in the room who talks to him is the guy who wins the policy debate.


https://theintercept.com/2017/04/28/how ... r-science/
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 39175
Age: 39
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: Climate Change Denial

#5150  Postby Macdoc » Apr 29, 2017 7:20 pm

Yeah ...the biggest faceplant was wuwt hiring an honest scientist to disprove AGW...the Berkeley group instead proved the exact opposite and is now a respected source. Kudos to Richard Muller for following the science not the politics and conspiracy crap.

The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic
By RICHARD A. MULLERJULY 28, 2012

CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opini ... eptic.html

That he was hired by Dear Anthony has such delicious irony.....

•••

what should change his mind is the job numbers...

Solar-energy jobs are growing 12 times as fast as the US economy ...
www.businessinsider.com/solar-energy-job-growth-2017-1
Jan 26, 2017 - Those gains conflict with President Donald Trump's stance on energy. ... Energy's 2017 Energy and Employment Report suggests that the solar ...


Koch and others can buy politicians but jobs buy voters.....
Travel photos > https://500px.com/macdoc/galleries
EO Wilson in On Human Nature wrote:
We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.
User avatar
Macdoc
 
Posts: 11873
Age: 70
Male

Country: Canada/Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Climate Change Denial

#5151  Postby Animavore » May 08, 2017 2:43 pm

No country on Earth is taking the 2 degree climate target seriously

If we mean what we say, no more new fossil fuels, anywhere.


One of the morbidly fascinating aspects of climate change is how much cognitive dissonance it generates, in individuals and nations alike.

The more you understand the brutal logic of climate change — what it could mean, the effort necessary to forestall it — the more the intensity of the situation seems out of whack with the workaday routines of day-to-day life. It’s a species-level emergency, but almost no one is acting like it is. And it’s very, very difficult to be the only one acting like there’s an emergency, especially when the emergency is abstract and science-derived, grasped primarily by the intellect.

This psychological schism is true for individuals, and it’s true for nations. Take the Paris climate agreement.

In Paris, in 2015, the countries of the world agreed (again) on the moral imperative to hold the rise in global average temperature to under 2 degrees Celsius, and to pursue "efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees." To date, 62 countries, including the United States, China, and India, have ratified the agreement.

Are any of the countries that signed the Paris agreement taking the actions necessary to achieve that target?

No. The US is not. Nor is the world as a whole.

The actions necessary to hold to 2 degrees, much less 1.5 degrees, are simply outside the bounds of conventional politics in most countries. Anyone who proposed them would sound crazy, like they were proposing, I don’t know, a war or something.

So we say 2 degrees is unacceptable. But we don’t act like it is.

This cognitive dissonance is brought home yet again in a report published in October from Oil Change International (in collaboration with a bunch of green groups). It’s about fossil fuels and how much of them we can afford to dig up and burn, if we’re serious about what we said in Paris. It’s mostly simple math, but the implications are vast and unsettling.

Let’s start from the beginning.


https://www.vox.com/2016/10/4/13118594/ ... ssil-fuels
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 39175
Age: 39
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: Climate Change Denial

#5152  Postby ElDiablo » May 08, 2017 5:34 pm

Huh?
New Paper: 14 Scientists Affirm the Sun, Not CO2, is ‘Dominant Control’ of Recent Climate Change
http://principia-scientific.org/new-paper-14-scientists-affirm-sun-not-co2-dominant-control-recent-climate-change/
God is silly putty.
User avatar
ElDiablo
 
Posts: 3065

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Climate Change Denial

#5153  Postby Animavore » May 08, 2017 6:05 pm

A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 39175
Age: 39
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: Climate Change Denial

#5154  Postby felltoearth » May 08, 2017 8:01 pm

I think potholer54 had something on that.

Sorry on mobile and can't get a proper URL

https://youtu.be/VeOZSMrwnYw
"Walla Walla Bonga!" — Witticism
User avatar
felltoearth
 
Posts: 7452
Age: 50

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Climate Change Denial

#5155  Postby OlivierK » Jun 26, 2017 1:15 am

Sup, denialists?
User avatar
OlivierK
 
Posts: 7471
Age: 51
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Climate Change Denial

#5156  Postby Macdoc » Jun 26, 2017 2:03 am

They've been dying of the heat..

Image

Summary of the Great Southwest U.S. Heat Wave of 2017

Dr. Jeff Masters · June 24, 2017, 1:10 AM

Above: Motorists stop at an intersection where a sign displays the temperature on June 20, 2017 in Phoenix, Arizona. The Phoenix airport hit 119° that day, their fourth hottest temperature on record, and just 3° below their all-time hottest temperature ever recorded. Photo by Ralph Freso/Getty Images.
The great Southwest U.S. heat wave of 2017 is gradually diminishing, but it has left behind hundreds of smashed heat records, including at least four all-time hottest temperature marks for major stations. According to wunderground weather historian Christopher C. Burt, this week’s event has been the most intense heat wave yet recorded to affect the Southwest so early in the summer, coming about a week earlier than the previous great June heat waves that have affected the Southwest, like those of 2013, 1990 and 1994.

All-time hottest temperatures tied or broken during the heat wave:
Las Vegas, NV: 117° on June 20, tied the all-time record for the airport, which has a Period of Record (POR) back to 1937. However, there was a 118° reading measured by the official USWB COOP site on July 26, 1931.

Needles, CA: 125° on June 20, tied the all-time record. 126° was attained for a minute or two at one point, but not the 5-minute period needed to be deemed official. Previously, 125° was measured on June 20, 2016, and on July 17, 2005. POR: back to 1940.

Ocotillo Wells, CA: 124° on June 21, hottest temperature ever measured in San Diego County.

Prescott, AZ: 105° on June 21, tied the all-time record set on July 17, 1925. POR back to 1898.


https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/summa ... -wave-2017

And this from a place that is used to hot.

Instead of doing the Great Lakes loop in August and the US south in spring...it was so hot in the eastern US I gave up and went north.....even then coming around the end of Lake Superior it went from a pleasant 16 and sun to a blistering 32C in just a few miles.

Serious thunderstorms ensued.

Great Lakes overflowing...and interesting year :coffee:

Then of course there was London and Holland.....
Travel photos > https://500px.com/macdoc/galleries
EO Wilson in On Human Nature wrote:
We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.
User avatar
Macdoc
 
Posts: 11873
Age: 70
Male

Country: Canada/Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Climate Change Denial

#5157  Postby Macdoc » Jul 26, 2017 1:45 am

Fossil fuels are dead’ says rail baron who hauls 800,000 carloads of coal a year
CEO of CSX won’t buy any new locomotives for coal, undercutting Trump’s claims coal can be revived.


A CSX freight train that derailed in 2012. CREDIT: AP/Patrick Semansky
There’s no future in transporting coal, says Hunter Harrison, CEO of CSX freight railroad.
Harrison told analysts on Wednesday that CSX, one of the country’s largest transporters of coal, won’t buy any new locomotives to haul the fuel. “Coal is not a long-term issue,” he said. The company currently hauls some 800,000 carloads of coal a year.
“Fossil fuels are dead,” Harrison continued. “That’s a long-term view. It’s not going to happen overnight. It’s not going to be in two or three years. But it’s going away, in my view.”
Harrison joins a chorus of experts who understand that economic reality makes President Donald Trump’s pledges to significantly expand the use of coal just empty words.


https://thinkprogress.org/fossil-fuels- ... 77af077344
Travel photos > https://500px.com/macdoc/galleries
EO Wilson in On Human Nature wrote:
We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.
User avatar
Macdoc
 
Posts: 11873
Age: 70
Male

Country: Canada/Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Climate Change Denial

#5158  Postby DavidMcC » Jul 29, 2017 12:17 pm

“Fossil fuels are dead,...”
Is that meant to be a pun? :lol:
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14548
Age: 64
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Climate Change Denial

#5159  Postby Animavore » Aug 24, 2017 7:57 pm

Exxon Mobil ‘Misled’ Public On Climate Change For 40 Years, Harvard Study Finds

Researchers found a “systematic, quantifiable discrepancy” between what the oil giant said about climate change in private versus what it told the public.


Exxon Mobil Corp. deliberately deceived the public about the dangers of climate change for four decades, a new Harvard University study finds.


For the peer-reviewed study published in the journal Environmental Research Letters Wednesday, two Harvard researchers analyzed nearly 200 documents related to Exxon Mobil’s climate change communications. The researchers found that America’s largest oil producer had repeatedly made “explicit factual misrepresentations” about global warming in advertisements aimed at the general public, while simultaneously acknowledging its risks behind closed doors.


“Our findings are clear: Exxon Mobil misled the public about the state of climate science and its implications,” study authors Naomi Oreskes and Geoffrey Supran wrote in a New York Times op-ed this week. “Available documents show a systematic, quantifiable discrepancy between what Exxon Mobil’s scientists and executives discussed about climate change in private and in academic circles, and what it presented to the general public.”


The discrepancy, the researchers said, was staggering. About 80 percent of Exxon Mobil’s research and internal memos acknowledged that climate change was real and caused by humans. However, 80 percent of the company’s newspaper ads regarding climate change questioned this fact, the study found.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exx ... mg00000063

And that's the type of shit you can't sweep under no rug.
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 39175
Age: 39
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: Climate Change Denial

#5160  Postby felltoearth » Aug 25, 2017 2:51 am

Animavore wrote:
Exxon Mobil ‘Misled’ Public On Climate Change For 40 Years, Harvard Study Finds

Researchers found a “systematic, quantifiable discrepancy” between what the oil giant said about climate change in private versus what it told the public.


Exxon Mobil Corp. deliberately deceived the public about the dangers of climate change for four decades, a new Harvard University study finds.


For the peer-reviewed study published in the journal Environmental Research Letters Wednesday, two Harvard researchers analyzed nearly 200 documents related to Exxon Mobil’s climate change communications. The researchers found that America’s largest oil producer had repeatedly made “explicit factual misrepresentations” about global warming in advertisements aimed at the general public, while simultaneously acknowledging its risks behind closed doors.


“Our findings are clear: Exxon Mobil misled the public about the state of climate science and its implications,” study authors Naomi Oreskes and Geoffrey Supran wrote in a New York Times op-ed this week. “Available documents show a systematic, quantifiable discrepancy between what Exxon Mobil’s scientists and executives discussed about climate change in private and in academic circles, and what it presented to the general public.”


The discrepancy, the researchers said, was staggering. About 80 percent of Exxon Mobil’s research and internal memos acknowledged that climate change was real and caused by humans. However, 80 percent of the company’s newspaper ads regarding climate change questioned this fact, the study found.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exx ... mg00000063

And that's the type of shit you can't sweep under no rug.

Yep. The insurance industry is salivating.
"Walla Walla Bonga!" — Witticism
User avatar
felltoearth
 
Posts: 7452
Age: 50

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to General Debunking

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 4 guests