Global warming stopped 16 years ago

[Langston Hughes]

 

 

Unless of course, it's not the right thing.

 

Renewable energy and a reduction of things like coal firing will always be the right thing.

[NickF1011]

 

Renewable energy and a reduction of things like coal firing will always be the right thing.

Only if the trade off isn't too impactful. Is it still absolutely, in ALL cases the "right thing" even if it costs hundreds of thousands of jobs or if it costs 10 times more?

[FiredMotorCompany]

 

Of course that you would say so but it's not true.

 

and it is a typical liberal response- let's do the right thing solely for the sake of doing the right thing.

Show me where that has been consistently done in practice, not lip service.

[Langston Hughes]

 

 

Only if the trade off isn't too impactful. Is it still absolutely, in ALL cases the "right thing" even if it costs hundreds of thousands of jobs or if it costs 10 times more?

 

Have you seen the impact that coal has on our enviroment, not even discussing climate change? It's always right to work to lessen it's usage.

[NickF1011]

 

Have you seen the impact that coal has on our enviroment, not even discussing climate change? It's always right to work to lessen it's usage.

Well it would lessen its impact to stop all coal power production immediately, right? So we should just go ahead and do that. That wouldn't have any negative impacts at all, right?

[FiredMotorCompany]

It's all about protecting the environment, until somebody decides your job is at stake.

 

Some people don't foresee the implications of good intentions. But latch onto the "feel good" band wagon.

[Langston Hughes]

 

 

Well it would lessen its impact to stop all coal power production immediately, right? So we should just go ahead and do that. That wouldn't have any negative impacts at all, right?

 

Hey, don't you start distorting what i'm saying now too. Moving away from coal does not mean that I want to stop it immediately, but we have to work HARD to find something to replace it because it's issues are known and not going away.

[NickF1011]

 

Hey, don't you start distorting what i'm saying now too. Moving away from coal does not mean that I want to stop it immediately, but we have to work HARD to find something to replace it because it's issues are known and not going away.

Umm. We've been moving away from coal for decades already.

 

Of course, it's the same "green" liberals who demand less coal who have also been standing in the way of our best hope of moving away from it more quickly by protesting every single attempt to build a new nuclear reactor in the US since the 1970's. I hear the administration has finally approved one token license for one additional reactor at an existing plant in Georgia. Gee, thanks, Obama. That oughtta do it!

Edited February 24, 2014 by NickF1011

[Imawhosure]

Umm. We've been moving away from coal for decades already.

 

Of course, it's the same "green" liberals who demand less coal who have also been standing in the way of our best hope of moving away from it more quickly by protesting every single attempt to build a new nuclear reactor in the US since the 1970's. I hear the administration has finally approved one token license for one additional reactor at an existing plant in Georgia. Gee, thanks, Obama. That oughtta do it!

Nick, I respect your position; I really do. But for those on the fence, let me explain why this debate is what it is, and Langston is going to jump all over it, but why should anyone be surprised.

 

This whole thing is about the West, and the haves, and the have nots, period. This all used to be about global cooling, we were going into an ice age, that didn't work, so it went to global warming. That stuck, so they stuck with that until things came out against it, so they switched from global cooling and warming, to just plain climate change. In this manner, they could blame everything on humans. Are you cold? Blame the West. Are you to hot? Blame the West too.

 

The real question is why? Why would the world as a whole, want to make this a focal point? Many proclaim it is because these sciences are funded with vast amounts of money, and that is true; and I have little doubt that is part of the reason. Free money makes people do strange things, which is proven by every welfare state on the globe, but I digress.

 

No, the real reason this became a focal point was economics.....the new economics of the West, or specifically, the whole American continent.

 

Few of us remember.......or maybe we do.........the predictions not so long ago that the world was going to run out of oil by the year 2000, or at the latest, 2010. If we look back, the predicted price by the start of this century for a barrel of oil was around 900, to 1000 bucks. The auto industry was going to collapse, it was going to be an energy crisis which the world had never seen before, and life as we knew it (especially life on the American continent) was going to end.

 

Well, of course the oil producing states were gleeful over this. They had the economic gold known as oil, they had control of the spigot, so they had control of the worlds cucaraches. This was how OPEC was born, ok maybe not born, but gained prominence.....or as I like to call them, OPRICK. To a lesser extent, so did Mexico, Venezuela, and a host of other non descript bassackwards countries that had oil production, no matter how small that production was. They were in the drivers seat, and here we were, the great American continent beholden to countries that didn't even have electricity to give to their populace. but had the power to keep our economic engine going on whatever their personal political whim was at the time.

 

And then, a few funny things happened.........

 

1. Our adversary, General Motors......created a vehicle that could run on coal. It was a rudimentary system that, believe it or not.........had a vibrating shaker box that you put coal into, it created dust, and the engine was able to run. This was announced in the late 70s or very early 80s. We could run cars on coal, yes it was prehistoric by todays standards, but it worked.

 

Within 2 years, the war on coal began, and it has gained steamed since that announcement. It even gained more steam when an inventor improved the Fischer Trope process that converted coal into liquid fuel. Eventhough using either method of coal conversion using our own resources on this continent proved we could continue on for 200, to 300 years under the old CAFE standards without a drop of imported oil, coal was all bad.

 

And then

 

2. Oil was discovered in Alaska, and the debate started over if we should extract it or not. I won't go over the arguments for or against, but I will say that the arguments against basically won out. It didn't make a difference if the oil was needed, it was all enviro based.

 

but then,

 

3. Canada and the United States said basically----------->hey, if there is oil in Alaska, maybe there is oil elsewhere we can get. And so it was found offshore....progressives screwed that.......it was found in sandpits.......Canada got that stuff, but American progressives found a way for it to be blocked coming here, then the United States discovered fracking and guess what, they found out they had more oil than almost the whole Middle East..........progressives block that too as best they can.

 

OK, so does anyone who actually THINKS believe that EVERY method of using coal, digging oil in Alaska, fracking, getting oil out of sand or tarpits, or drilling off shore is all wrong? Who is willing to say bravely that not one of these methods is reasonably safe; and yet the enviro lobby blocks them all.

 

Yep, nobody would believe it, and progressives across the world knew it too, especially those in oil producing countries.(including the sheiks, thieves, and crooks in The House of Saud, and every other oil producing nation that would lose their vast wealth and protection if we didn't need them any longer) You could throw 1, maybe 2, or maybe even 3 out, but all of them........not going to happen. Who would believe it? And if the pain at the pump or to heat your house became great, you would buckle. Even Europe knew this, especially the oil producers in the East.

 

Enter a big push for MMGW. This gives every group a reason to stop everything, except of course those facilities already built and running....... and an excuse for the American continent NOT to extract their great wealth while alleviating themselves of all those unstable oil producing countries. It basically props UP the price of a commodity that would more than likely be much lower. It also promotes transfer of wealth from those who have it all if they choose to use what they have, to those who do not have it all; even if they choose to use every resource they do have.

 

Now I am sure many of you will look at the above paragraphs with skepticism, and if it were me, I would too. It is a 180 degree turn about from what you have been led to believe. And yet, there is proof in the policies that are in use that prove this scenario out----------->

 

A. Who believes that there is no way of the 4 or 5 examples to extract our resources given, that are reasonably safe......or rather, are we to believe that anything/everything we come up with creates disaster, crisis? If not, why do they fight tooth and nail against every and all methods?

 

B. Why do they double regulate usage? In other words.......it makes no difference if you pay 5 bucks a gallon, 4 bucks a gallon, or 2 bucks a gallon if you already have CAFE standards. I get 20, 30, 0r 50 miles to the gallon, no matter what the price is to fuel the vehicle. Yes, I may take a few sidetrips at lesser cost of fuel, but that would be eaten up by all the electric vehicles they are pushing...........unless of course they are lieing through their teeth on how many people are purchasing electric vehicles, which is a whole other thread.

 

C. When oil prices go to high and slows economies, OPEC and friends open the spigots to LOWER the prices of oil to keep economies going, thus preserving their indentured servants healthy enough to keep the dollars flowing in. So, pray tell; what is the difference if we have control over our own spigots that we can turn up and down, and the energy money returns to us? Wouldn't that create jobs, and very GOOD paying jobs to boot?

 

D. If we are honestly one planet, and we hear complaints constantly how OUR LIFESTYLE pollutes the planet, contributes greenhouse gasses, and basically screws everything up.............why would we cede production to countries that have far LESS regulation on these fossil fuels than we do? And this goes both for the US and Canada! It is a virtual eco disaster in Mexico, Venezuela, and even Kuwait. Why would the eco people want to keep more production there than need be?

 

So when you use your logical skepticism to question what I have written above, also ask the same reasonable thinking to why things are, what they are. You DON't proclaim the right thing to do is outlaw chemical weapons, then gas your people. You don't proclaim that global warming from autos is causing the planet to collapse, so you tax your residents 65% on fuel and invest it in your healthcare program instead of fighting climate change problems like Europe does, do you? Unless of course you need the phoney excuse to create income to pay for it, yes? You don't insist that human personal transportation causes climate change, then fly around in your personal luxury jet airplane because you are so important like Al Gore does........while going from 2 million net worth, to over 200 million net worth because of your stance on climate change, and do it with a straight face.....while owning 3 mansions using fuel up the wazoo, do you?

 

And listening to the Hollyweird elites that their greatest claim to fame is........they have better looking genes than you do......tell you to drive a Prius to save the planet; while they drive up in Lincoln, Cadillac, or Lexus stretch limos to the Oscars?????????? You support this crap?

 

Well, if you do, then you believe there is a ruling class..........and you must not belong to it. Funny thing is----------> our great forefathers made your one vote just as good/important as theirs. MMGW is just something to keep you in your place, (a pol tax) and the faster you figure it out, the faster Iran, Iraq, and the house of Saud has no bearing at all on your lives.

 

The poorer countries of the world who drill oil, don't want to hear that. You are a bunch of idealistic Americans who want Canada to send their oil to........China? You do not care if your electricity prices rise, as long as you listen to the elite who can afford to pay it.....you may not be able to.......so what, who cares.......even as China and the rest use what you won't use to fuel their economy?

 

 

Once all the nations discovered that North Americans would DO what they THINK is correct for everyone, that is exactly when all of this nonsense came to be. They knew if they could convince you, you would pay through the nose, and they would reap the rewards of your paying for it because you are all good people. It wasn't what was right or correct, but rather what they could convince you of that would help them.

 

How is that working out for us as a country, and a continent? When you answer that honestly, you will force them to "practice what they preach" which they won't, or unleash upon the world the North American economy that each of you deserve to live in. Obviously, they don't want to hear this, and of course their low level "disciples" are expected to interject rebuttals. Guess who that would be, and I will give you three guesses, and the first two guesses don't count! But, just in case you don't get it, I would proclaim this LOW LEVEL rebuttal type person who has been indoctrinated and knows no better initials would be...no, I can't type it.... but rest assured, hello fellas, I am sure the house of Saud, Iran, and Putin says hello........and we in the oil industry of Eastern Europe say.......thank you so much for being dupes while duping the rest of your citizens; and we thank you for your support!

 

Good luck, and carry on.

Edited February 24, 2014 by Imawhosure

[the_spaniard]

Imma, the only thing I would say about the above is that no one ever goes into science for the money, because the money isn't there. How many millionaire scientists are there that got that way from research funding? To give you an idea just getting money for basic research can be damn near impossible. You pretty much have a 1 in 10 chance of getting a grant from the NSF, and that can be for an amount as little as $5000.

 

You can make money on the lecture circuits, if you are one of leading researchers in your field. You can make money off patents. But that isn't typical of scientists. You can teach, but tenured positions are tough to get. The highest paid tenured positions rarely reach $150K annually. Not really going to make you rich nowadays.

You aren't going to be a millionaire from research funding if you are doing ethical research. That is the point.

There is always incentive to compromise integrity for money. Laying all that on MMGW scientists without looking at the millions of dollars of junk science funded by the oil companies is a bit one-sided. Science falls on the side of the MMGW scientists, and not on the side of the oil companies. It really is just that simple. I'm not saying panic, and I'm not saying the sky is falling. I'm just saying ignoring the science benefits no one except the oil industry.

Do you agree that scientists should be free of political influence in their research?

Edited February 24, 2014 by the_spaniard

[Imawhosure]

Imma, the only thing I would say about the above is that no one ever goes into science for the money, because the money isn't there. How many millionaire scientists are there that got that way from research funding? To give you an idea just getting money for basic research can be damn near impossible. You pretty much have a 1 in 10 chance of getting a grant from the NSF, and that can be for an amount as little as $5000.

 

You can make money on the lecture circuits, if you are one of leading researchers in your field. You can make money off patents. But that isn't typical of scientists. You can teach, but tenured positions are tough to get. The highest paid tenured positions rarely reach $150K annually. Not really going to make you rich nowadays.

You aren't going to be a millionaire from research funding if you are doing ethical research. That is the point.

 

There is always incentive to compromise integrity for money. Laying all that on MMGW scientists without looking at the millions of dollars of junk science funded by the oil companies is a bit one-sided. Science falls on the side of the MMGW scientists, and not on the side of the oil companies. It really is just that simple. I'm not saying panic, and I'm not saying the sky is falling. I'm just saying ignoring the science benefits no one except the oil industry.

 

Do you agree that scientists should be free of political influence in their research?

To your last and most important question, yes I do.

 

Let me also say Spaniard------> For me, your opinion sucks. That doesn't make it wrong, nor correct. What it does make it is.........an area if we don't demand capitulation from the people we are talking with, you and I may be able to draw a reasonable conclusion on how to proceed; and quickly.

 

For both of our positions, that is what is missing. Sure, we can demand all day what we personally want, but we aren't getting anywhere. What I am willing to say is---------->I am more interested in discovering the truth, then holding my position politically.

 

Make no mistake, I believe I am correct, but for the good of everyone, I am willing to put what I believe on the line, in the search of truth so as we can work together.

 

In fairness to both of our positions, we can't take former models since they have been blown up into account.

 

There is not one person who has proven that what you say is incorrect; in fact, anything that has been drawn that suggests that your position is tenuous, has been drawn by those pointing to the fact that your side has been disengenuous! Therefore, may I suggest that we both draw from new models. As soon as they appear, please post them. Maybe in our own right, with civil discourse, we can alleviate on this board anyway, the idea that those from opposite sides can't agree on anything.

 

So then. post new models since the old have been debunked, and we will go from there.

 

Ima

[the_spaniard]

To your last and most important question, yes I do.

 

In fairness to both of our positions, we can't take former models since they have been blown up into account.

 

So then. post new models since the old have been debunked, and we will go from there.

 

Ima

 

Ima, I asked the last question because Rep. Tom Coburn (a Tea Party darling) supported amendments that limits the funding of independent studies of political science research.

 

"I’m pleased the Senate accepted an amendment that restricts funding to low-priority political science grants," Coburn said in a statement following the vote. "There is no reason to spend $251,000 studying Americans' attitudes toward the U.S. Senate when citizens can figure that out for free." - TC.

 

 

If he were so concerned with freedoms of Americans, wouldn't he promote independent research on how they view their government? Given how it breezed through the Senate I don't see a lot of concern anywhere. I wonder why?

 

As far as the climate science models, they have not been blown up. The most outspoken person claiming models are wrong is Roy Spencer. His points have been easily refuted, and if his connections to conservative religious groups (Heartland Institute) don't call his science into question, his labeling of MMGW types as "nazis" certainly don't help his credibility. I actually liked this guy until he exchanged scientific beliefs for political and religious ideology. This guy stopped being a real scientist long before he stated the following:

 

"I view my job a little like a legislator, supported by the taxpayer, to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to minimize the role of government."

 

Not to mention his commitment to An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming from the Cornwall Alliance.

 

 

The models have not been destroyed, blown up, or proven 100% inaccurate. As far as future models I am open to them. If you are not referring to Spencer, Christy or the continuously wrong Lindzen, could you let me know what source is referring to climate models as being "blown up"?

Edited February 25, 2014 by the_spaniard

[FiredMotorCompany]

Perhaps the federal funding of "independent research" constitutes a conflict of interest.

As MMGW has become the government's opinion du jour, how does a university of "independent researcher" put food on the table?

 

Well, you don't start by bucking the system with the biggest wallet and an agenda.

[TomServo92]

The models have not been destroyed, blown up, or proven 100% inaccurate. As far as future models I am open to them. If you are not referring to Spencer, Christy or the continuously wrong Lindzen, could you let me know what source is referring to climate models as being "blown up"?

I would say that nearly 100% of what the models predicted has not happened pretty much indicates they are inaccurate. Even the latest IPCC report states that the models didn't account for all climate variability.

[FiredMotorCompany]

I would say that nearly 100% of what the models predicted has not happened pretty much indicates they are inaccurate. Even the latest IPCC report states that the models didn't account for all climate variability.

But they keep sticking with their predictions.

 

What did Einstein say.............?

[NickF1011]

 

I would say that nearly 100% of what the models predicted has not happened pretty much indicates they are inaccurate.

Not happened at all or not happened to the level to which the models predicted?

 

Even the latest IPCC report states that the models didn't account for all climate variability.

Not all...but most?

[xr7g428]

When you develop a model it is expected that there will be an error. If you are forecasting tomorrows temperature, it is not expected that you will exactly right, but very very close if your model is working properly.

 

The seriousness of the error is calculated as a number of standard deviations from the mean. If you model for forecasting the temperature has a mean of 76 degrees, and a standard deviation of .25 degrees, and the actual temperature is 77 degrees, you are 4 standard deviations away from the mean. For a normal bell curve shaped distribution, th probability that you model is working is less than .1% if you are three standard deviations away from the mean.

 

The distance on either side of the mean, within a certain number of standard deviations, is called the confidence interval. A model is said to accurate if it produces results that fall within a specified confidence interval. A very broad confidence interval would be three standard deviations on each side. This would include about 99.6% of all possible results. Meaning you can be way off, but still fall within the broadest confidence interval. At this point virtually all of the models are forecasting results that fall outside of even this expected confidence interval.

 

The next factor is called the integration interval. This is a measure of time. The longer the integration interval the less impact that spikes will have on the data. Right now the main question that is being asked is what the appropriate integration interval is. In other words, is this a spike that will cancel itself out when the time base is extended?

 

The mathematicians and statisticians do not know climate but they do know the math. They are among the most skeptical as the standard of accuracy for climate predictions would be unacceptable in any other discipline. This doesn't mean they disagree with the idea of MMGW, only that the models currently being used are not sufficiently accurate to use for any meaningful purpose.

 

Again, if you ask virtually any one with reasonable mathematical ability, and knowledge of the heat island effect, if the average global temperature is being effected by human activities, they will unequivocally answer, yes. This doesn't mean they subscribe to the whole sky is falling scenario of Al Gore and company.

[Imawhosure]

When you develop a model it is expected that there will be an error. If you are forecasting tomorrows temperature, it is not expected that you will exactly right, but very very close if your model is working properly.

 

The seriousness of the error is calculated as a number of standard deviations from the mean. If you model for forecasting the temperature has a mean of 76 degrees, and a standard deviation of .25 degrees, and the actual temperature is 77 degrees, you are 4 standard deviations away from the mean. For a normal bell curve shaped distribution, th probability that you model is working is less than .1% if you are three standard deviations away from the mean.

 

The distance on either side of the mean, within a certain number of standard deviations, is called the confidence interval. A model is said to accurate if it produces results that fall within a specified confidence interval. A very broad confidence interval would be three standard deviations on each side. This would include about 99.6% of all possible results. Meaning you can be way off, but still fall within the broadest confidence interval. At this point virtually all of the models are forecasting results that fall outside of even this expected confidence interval.

 

The next factor is called the integration interval. This is a measure of time. The longer the integration interval the less impact that spikes will have on the data. Right now the main question that is being asked is what the appropriate integration interval is. In other words, is this a spike that will cancel itself out when the time base is extended?

 

The mathematicians and statisticians do not know climate but they do know the math. They are among the most skeptical as the standard of accuracy for climate predictions would be unacceptable in any other discipline. This doesn't mean they disagree with the idea of MMGW, only that the models currently being used are not sufficiently accurate to use for any meaningful purpose.

 

Again, if you ask virtually any one with reasonable mathematical ability, and knowledge of the heat island effect, if the average global temperature is being effected by human activities, they will unequivocally answer, yes. This doesn't mean they subscribe to the whole sky is falling scenario of Al Gore and company.

I don't know about the rest of you, but for me, XRs response was extremely fair to both sides of the debate. It might very well show that "both" sides are correct, just not in the extreme positions taken. I can live with that, and thanks XR.

[NickF1011]

I don't know about the rest of you, but for me, XRs response was extremely fair to both sides of the debate. It might very well show that "both" sides are correct, just not in the extreme positions taken. I can live with that, and thanks XR.

 

Which is basically how I've looked at it all along. It seems reasonable to believe we are having an impact on the climate based on the data and research available. I think it's also reasonable not to jump the gun with "solutions" that may or may not have any meaningful effect until we further understand it.

[akirby]

 

Which is basically how I've looked at it all along. It seems reasonable to believe we are having an impact on the climate based on the data and research available. I think it's also reasonable not to jump the gun with "solutions" that may or may not have any meaningful effect until we further understand it.

 

Now count how many times you've had to say this in this thread alone (I'm guessing at least 5) and you see why these debates are so pointless.

[xr7g428]

It seems reasonable to believe we are having an impact on the climate based on the data and research available.

 

 

This is an example of a conclusion that is not supported by the evidence. The data, at least for the moment, does not support this. This is the rub. The models are built around the assumption that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere will result in increased temperatures. So far, the actual data is not moving the way it was forecast. What pretty much everyone in the field is admitting now is that the models need to be revised to see if they can start actually predicting the future. The good news is that it isn't as hot as some thought it would be right now.

 

My opinion is that we are having some effect on the climate. History has shown that volcanoes can have a powerful effect on climate, but history also shows that the forces that regulate climate are able to reverse those changes very rapidly. We are probably living in the middle of a hysteresis curve where small changes happen continuously, but as boundaries are approached, the walls become much steeper. The earth did not become a permanent dead ball of ice during the ice age, and when CO2 was much more abundant, the planet did not overheat. In both cases it points out that the climate is incredibly resilient. There are multiple, probably innumerable, continuous positive and negative feedback loops that are constantly at play balancing the climate.

 

If you put a drop of water on top of an egg, it is impossible to predict exactly where the drop will run off, and that is with one constant: gravity, and one variable: shape. Climate has at least millions of variables, and constants at work. I don't think they will ever be able to predict it with accuracy to 1/2 a degree in temperature.

[FiredMotorCompany]

xr7, thank you for the cogent commentary.

Well spoken and reasonable. You have touched on most of the irritants I feel when presented with the MMGW assertions of most researchers.

[TomServo92]

 

 

Not happened at all or not happened to the level to which the models predicted?

 

 

Not all...but most?

 

Doesn't matter. Either way it indicates they are flawed and should not be used to formulate sweeping policies.

[TomServo92]

 

This is an example of a conclusion that is not supported by the evidence. The data, at least for the moment, does not support this. This is the rub. The models are built around the assumption that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere will result in increased temperatures. So far, the actual data is not moving the way it was forecast. What pretty much everyone in the field is admitting now is that the models need to be revised to see if they can start actually predicting the future. The good news is that it isn't as hot as some thought it would be right now.

 

My opinion is that we are having some effect on the climate. History has shown that volcanoes can have a powerful effect on climate, but history also shows that the forces that regulate climate are able to reverse those changes very rapidly. We are probably living in the middle of a hysteresis curve where small changes happen continuously, but as boundaries are approached, the walls become much steeper. The earth did not become a permanent dead ball of ice during the ice age, and when CO2 was much more abundant, the planet did not overheat. In both cases it points out that the climate is incredibly resilient. There are multiple, probably innumerable, continuous positive and negative feedback loops that are constantly at play balancing the climate.

 

If you put a drop of water on top of an egg, it is impossible to predict exactly where the drop will run off, and that is with one constant: gravity, and one variable: shape. Climate has at least millions of variables, and constants at work. I don't think they will ever be able to predict it with accuracy to 1/2 a degree in temperature.

 

Well said.

[the_spaniard]

Perhaps the federal funding of "independent research" constitutes a conflict of interest.

As MMGW has become the government's opinion du jour,

 

 

Because the federal government is evil, and liberal, and huh? Lets just forget about the federally funded research that have led to significant scientific breakthroughs because of their evil agenda. But hey, lets let Micheal Moore fund gun studies that lead to permanent gun legislation and have the completely unbiased oil industry conduct environmental research.

 

how does a university of "independent researcher" put food on the table?

 

 

Well if they aren't connected to academics or a think-tank, they do their own work, survive on research grants and here is a hint - they don't live like millionaires. I have never met a University professor with tenure that didn't do contract work on the side to supplement their salary.

 

Well, you don't start by bucking the system with the biggest wallet and an agenda.

 

 

And it's just a coincidence that climate denial funding overwhelmingly comes from conservative foundations? (Most with a connection to the oil industry)

Edited February 26, 2014 by the_spaniard