Is it Game Over on the climate front?

[Daruwind]

Uh Oh...recent study proves the Mediterranean Sea was 3.6F hotter than it is today 2,000 years ago. The warm period was one of the most productive human periods in history. The preceding cold period led to the downfall of the Roman republic and the rise of the Roman Empire:

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/202...-roman-empire/

And yet AGW proponents are telling us that it is warming we should be worried about. It was the warmest period in the last 2500 years...and people ate well.

Again failing at basic logic. Nobody says the current temperature is the highest in Earth history or that there were not even recent periods with higher ones... Problem is current pace of chance.

I´m resting fine now knowing once temperature will hit such maximum, it will stay capped forever not moving degree further. Right? That is what you are trying to say?

[Genava]

recent study proves the Mediterranean Sea was 3.6F hotter than it is today 2,000 years ago.

Actually the study says: “about 2 °C warmer than average values for the late centuries for the Sicily and Western Mediterranean regions.”

The data is based on averages over several decades and most of the data doesn't go beyond the 1990s.

[Genava]

About the small debate we had about the dating of the Sphinx and its relation to past climate changes at the page 47, I found a video of an archaeologist talking about the topic. In case you are interested:

Just incredible! But the fact that you posted this as proof is a good example of how easily you consume deceptive material. I've seen Milo before. He's an academic wank.

If you watch the video with curiosity you might notice that he says he shows Schoch twice, but he doesn't and to make matters worse Schoch is not standing where he says he is standing in the video.

Milo tries to enhance his deception by claiming Schoch is wrong because rainfall was 3 times greater at the site 4,000 years ago. Three times mind you! Did you get that? Three times, I say! This was determined by ground core samples taken in Chad. Wow! Ground core samples taken in Chad can determine rainfall amounts at Giza 4,000 years ago!

What he doesn't say is that the average rainfall at Giza is less than an inch per year, sometimes much less than an inch. So, even with three inches of rain a year it would be impossible to erode that many feet of limestone in that framework of time. The erosion rate of various types of limestone is known.

I could go on, but it is off subject. I'll take a look at your other post later if I get time, but I've already warned you about posting a wall of links. I know you guys don't like staying with a singular issue because you can be boxed in. It's obviously the reason you haven't given a reasonable explanation for the summer solstice snowstorms that ruined AGW predictions. The best thing to do when your wrong is say I was wrong. I did it, so you can too. Go ahead, give it a try. You can do it and when you do you'll be a better scientist. Quit trying to believe you're infallible.

I found an interesting video from a geologist on the topic, again, in case you are interested:

The data on the glaciers, as far as I know, only goes back to about 1850. That was a time when they were still close to the maximum extent they reached in the mini-ice age in the 1700s. Nevertheless, the signs based on the predictions have come down in spite of what the so-called "fact checkers" claim. The extent of the Glaciers before the mini ice age, as far as I know, hasn't been determined.

I already answered you on this matter with this article:
"During the hot summer of 2003, reduction of an ice field in the Swiss Alps (Schnidejoch) uncovered spectacular archaeological hunting gear, fur, leather and woollen clothing and tools from four distinct windows of time: Neolithic Age (4900 to 4450 cal. yr BP), early Bronze Age (4100–3650 cal. yr BP), Roman Age (1st–3rd century AD), and Medieval times (8–9th century AD and 14–15th century AD). Transalpine routes connecting northern Italy with the northern Alps during these slots are consistent with late Holocene maximum glacier retreat. The age cohorts of the artefacts are separated which is indicative of glacier advances when the route was difficult and not used for transit. The preservation of Neolithic leather indicates permanent ice cover at that site from ca. 4900 cal. yr BP until AD 2003, implying that the ice cover was smaller in 2003 than at any time during the last 5000 years. Current glacier retreat is unprecedented since at least that time. This is highly significant regarding the interpretation of the recent warming and the rapid loss of ice in the Alps."
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/....1002/jqs.1111

But in case you are interested, recently:

The St. Patrick Bay ice caps in Canada have completely disappeared

The St. Patrick Bay ice caps on the Hazen Plateau of northeastern Ellesmere Island in Nunavut, Canada, have disappeared, according to NASA satellite imagery. National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) scientists and colleagues predicted via a 2017 paper in The Cryosphere that the ice caps would melt out completely within the next five years, and recent images from NASA’s Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer (ASTER) have confirmed that this prediction was accurate.

Mark Serreze, director of NSIDC, Distinguished Professor of Geography at the University of Colorado Boulder, and lead author on the paper, first set foot on the St. Patrick Bay ice caps in 1982 as a young graduate student. He visited the ice caps with his advisor, Ray Bradley, of the University of Massachusetts.

“When I first visited those ice caps, they seemed like such a permanent fixture of the landscape,” said Serreze. “To watch them die in less than 40 years just blows me away.”

In 2017, scientists compared ASTER satellite data from July 2015 to vertical aerial photographs taken in August of 1959. They found that between 1959 and 2015, the ice caps had been reduced to only five percent of their former area, and shrank noticeably between 2014 and 2015 in response to the especially warm summer in 2015. The ice caps are absent from ASTER images taken on July 14, 2020.

The St. Patrick Bay ice caps were one-half of a group of small ice caps on the Hazen Plateau, which formed and likely attained their maximum extents during the Little Ice Age, perhaps several centuries ago. The Murray and Simmons ice caps, which make up the second half of the Hazen Plateau ice caps, are located at a higher elevation and are therefore faring better, though scientists predict that their demise is imminent as well.

“We’ve long known that as climate change takes hold, the effects would be especially pronounced in the Arctic,” said Serreze. “But the death of those two little caps that I once knew so well has made climate change very personal. All that’s left are some photographs and a lot of memories.”

https://nsidc.org/news/newsroom/st-p...ly-disappeared

[B. W.]

I found an interesting video from a geologist on the topic, again, in case you are interested:




I already answered you on this matter with this article:
"During the hot summer of 2003, reduction of an ice field in the Swiss Alps (Schnidejoch) uncovered spectacular archaeological hunting gear, fur, leather and woollen clothing and tools from four distinct windows of time: Neolithic Age (4900 to 4450 cal. yr BP), early Bronze Age (4100–3650 cal. yr BP), Roman Age (1st–3rd century AD), and Medieval times (8–9th century AD and 14–15th century AD). Transalpine routes connecting northern Italy with the northern Alps during these slots are consistent with late Holocene maximum glacier retreat. The age cohorts of the artefacts are separated which is indicative of glacier advances when the route was difficult and not used for transit. The preservation of Neolithic leather indicates permanent ice cover at that site from ca. 4900 cal. yr BP until AD 2003, implying that the ice cover was smaller in 2003 than at any time during the last 5000 years. Current glacier retreat is unprecedented since at least that time. This is highly significant regarding the interpretation of the recent warming and the rapid loss of ice in the Alps."
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/....1002/jqs.1111

But in case you are interested, recently:

The St. Patrick Bay ice caps in Canada have completely disappeared

The St. Patrick Bay ice caps on the Hazen Plateau of northeastern Ellesmere Island in Nunavut, Canada, have disappeared, according to NASA satellite imagery. National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) scientists and colleagues predicted via a 2017 paper in The Cryosphere that the ice caps would melt out completely within the next five years, and recent images from NASA’s Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer (ASTER) have confirmed that this prediction was accurate.

Mark Serreze, director of NSIDC, Distinguished Professor of Geography at the University of Colorado Boulder, and lead author on the paper, first set foot on the St. Patrick Bay ice caps in 1982 as a young graduate student. He visited the ice caps with his advisor, Ray Bradley, of the University of Massachusetts.

“When I first visited those ice caps, they seemed like such a permanent fixture of the landscape,” said Serreze. “To watch them die in less than 40 years just blows me away.”

In 2017, scientists compared ASTER satellite data from July 2015 to vertical aerial photographs taken in August of 1959. They found that between 1959 and 2015, the ice caps had been reduced to only five percent of their former area, and shrank noticeably between 2014 and 2015 in response to the especially warm summer in 2015. The ice caps are absent from ASTER images taken on July 14, 2020.

The St. Patrick Bay ice caps were one-half of a group of small ice caps on the Hazen Plateau, which formed and likely attained their maximum extents during the Little Ice Age, perhaps several centuries ago. The Murray and Simmons ice caps, which make up the second half of the Hazen Plateau ice caps, are located at a higher elevation and are therefore faring better, though scientists predict that their demise is imminent as well.

“We’ve long known that as climate change takes hold, the effects would be especially pronounced in the Arctic,” said Serreze. “But the death of those two little caps that I once knew so well has made climate change very personal. All that’s left are some photographs and a lot of memories.”

https://nsidc.org/news/newsroom/st-p...ly-disappeared

I stopped watching the video at 13 minutes. He claimed that Schoch and others got their ideas from Edgar Cayce, which is complete baloney. It's just more of the same old "everyone who disagrees with Egyptolists' timeline of Egypt are just crackpots who want their five minutes of fame."

When someone starts their presentation with a boldface lie I'm not going to waste my time with it.

[Genava]

I stopped watching the video at 13 minutes. He claimed that Schoch and others got their ideas from Edgar Cayce, which is complete baloney. It's just more of the same old "everyone who disagrees with Egyptolists' timeline of Egypt are just crackpots who want their five minutes of fame."

When someone starts their presentation with a boldface lie I'm not going to waste my time with it.

Indeed Schoch claims that he didn't know about Edgar Cayce theory initially:

A curious aspect of the chamber under the left paw is the interest that certain people have shown in it. In particular, unknown to me in 1991 was the fact that the American psychic Edgar Cayce (1877–1945) had indicated (during his “trances” and “channeling sessions”) that the ancient continent of Atlantis had been destroyed circa 10,500 BCE and that the survivors had dispersed to various parts of the globe, founding new offshoot civilizations. One place the Atlanteans colonized, said Cayce, was Egypt, apparently constructing the pyramids and carving the Great Sphinx at that time. They also established a library, a “hall of records,” in the vicinity of the Great Sphinx, and by some interpretations of Cayce’s “readings” it was perhaps actually under a paw or the paws of the Great Sphinx. At any rate, Edgar Evans Cayce (1918–2013; one of Edgar Cayce’s sons) of the Association for Research and Enlightenment (which is the repository of Edgar Cayce’s archives and continues his mission) duly contacted me, filling me in regarding Cayce’s work. In his opinion, my research on the Great Sphinx went a long way toward corroborating Cayce.

However, I find this really hard to believe because from 1990 to 1993, he didn't come alone but with John Anthony West.

John Anthony West is strongly interested in unorthodox Egyptology since the 1970s at least: https://www.nybooks.com/articles/197...-the-pyramids/

His book "Serpent in the Sky. The High Wisdom of Ancient Egypt" has been published for the first time in 1979:
https://ibb.co/1sHRfGC

In this book he already mentioned Edgar Cayce and Atlantis.
John Anthony West meets Robert Schoch in 1989 and it's West that gave him pictures and started to talk about his intuition concerning the Sphinx and its weathering.

I doubt Robert Schoch was ignorant about Cayce and its foundation for more than 3 years. And if this was the case, anyway the hypothesis initially came from West.

Furthermore, during recent years Schoch has been invited by Edgar Cayce's foundation:

Edgar Cayce and the Great Sphinx: Guardian of an Archive for Over 12,000 Years. by Robert M. Schoch PhD
https://www.atlanticuniv.edu/media/1...s-schedule.pdf
https://www.robertschoch.com/appearances.html

So is it really a problem? meh.

[B. W.]

Indeed Schoch claims that he didn't know about Edgar Cayce theory initially:


However, I find this really hard to believe because from 1990 to 1993, he didn't come alone but with John Anthony West.

John Anthony West is strongly interested in unorthodox Egyptology since the 1970s at least: https://www.nybooks.com/articles/197...-the-pyramids/

His book "Serpent in the Sky. The High Wisdom of Ancient Egypt" has been published for the first time in 1979:
https://ibb.co/1sHRfGC

In this book he already mentioned Edgar Cayce and Atlantis.
John Anthony West meets Robert Schoch in 1989 and it's West that gave him pictures and started to talk about his intuition concerning the Sphinx and its weathering.

I doubt Robert Schoch was ignorant about Cayce and its foundation for more than 3 years. And if this was the case, anyway the hypothesis initially came from West.

Furthermore, during recent years Schoch has been invited by Edgar Cayce's foundation:

Edgar Cayce and the Great Sphinx: Guardian of an Archive for Over 12,000 Years. by Robert M. Schoch PhD
https://www.atlanticuniv.edu/media/1...s-schedule.pdf
https://www.robertschoch.com/appearances.html

So is it really a problem? meh.

First, I want to add to my comment about the video. Your man starts out by saying, "a lot of geologists agree with Schoch's interpretation of the geologic evidence of weathering". Actually, only a handful of geologists contest it. If you think the consensus for AGW is broad, it is nothing compared to the consensus of geologists supporting Schoch's interpretation of the weathering. You might be interested to know that the geologists supporting the mainstream archaeological view are either directly or indirectly on that pay stream.

I can't help but wonder if the way you pieced together the "evidence" you listed above is akin to the way you construct you AGW argument.

West got his idea about the water weathering from R. A. Schwaller de Lubicz, not Cayce. He spent years looking for a geologist that would go to Egypt and just look at the weathering in the Sphinx enclosure. He was introduced to Schoch by an English professor who taught at BU. Schoch refused to even go and look at it until he attained tenure, specifically because he was aware that it could be a controversial event if West was correct.

Apparently, every time West met a geologist he would show them a picture of the Sphinx enclosure wall and ask what type of weathering it was. The answer would always come back "rainwater". Then West would reveal that the picture was from the Sphinx enclosure and the geologist would end the conversation abruptly. So, it is obvious that the weathering was something well known among geologists and it was clear they were unwilling to enter any debate that might jeopardize their careers.

Doubting that Schoch knew about Cayce and Schoch knowing about every supposition put forward by Cayce are two completely different things. Cayce put forward hundreds or possibly thousands of suppositions. I don't doubt that Schoch may have heard of Cayce, nearly everyone has. But how many people know everything he talked about?

The fact that Schoch was asked to speak at a Cayce event is not surprising since his research produced evidence that, at least partly, supported what Cayce had claimed. And don't forget that people get PAID to speak at these events.

To be honest, I never given any credence to any of this until a few years ago. I had always been in the camp of the mainstream historians and archaeologists. Then one day I came across a little article describing the inscriptions on polished basalt statues as being rough. There were clearly two different levels of technological abilities there and it didn't make sense. It was only at that time that I started looking into the writings of people like West and others. The more I investigated the more I realized the established history didn't match the technical record. You should look into it yourself.

[Genava]

First, I want to add to my comment about the video. Your man starts out by saying, "a lot of geologists agree with Schoch's interpretation of the geologic evidence of weathering". Actually, only a handful of geologists contest it. If you think the consensus for AGW is broad, it is nothing compared to the consensus of geologists supporting Schoch's interpretation of the weathering. You might be interested to know that the geologists supporting the mainstream archaeological view are either directly or indirectly on that pay stream.

I have the feeling that most geologists do not have an opinion on this matter, especially with low number of quotes of Schoch's publications.

Could you demonstrate your claim?

Because if I want to show you that geologists mainly support the AGW theory, I can easily do it.

For example, with The Geological Society of America:
Statement of 2020: https://www.geosociety.org/gsa/posit...osition10.aspx
Statement of 2015: https://web.archive.org/web/20170701...osition10.aspx
https://web.archive.org/web/20170628...10_climate.pdf

Statement from American Geophysical Union:
https://www.agu.org/Share-and-Advoca...sition_Climate

Statements from Geological Society of London:
https://www.geolsoc.org.uk/climaterecord

Statements from the National Association of Geoscience Teachers:
https://nagt.org/nagt/policy/ps-climate.html

Position of the British geological survey society:
https://www.bgs.ac.uk/discoveringGeo...ange/home.html

Position of the European Geosciences Union:
https://www.egu.eu/policy/science/cl...d-its-impacts/

Statements from American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America and Soil Science Society of America:
https://www.soils.org/files/science-...-statement.pdf

Survey on Earth science students, graduates and active researchers:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....9/2009EO030002

[wanderwegger]

West was a decent Science Fiction writer. Why he made a career of it.

[B. W.]

Kangaroos fight in the snow during record breaking cold blast:

https://michaelsavage.com/meanwhile-...tarctic-blast/

[Daruwind]

Kangaroos fight in the snow during record breaking cold blast:

https://michaelsavage.com/meanwhile-...tarctic-blast/

Extreme weather <=> global warming

Actually thanks for proving our point

[Common Soldier]

Extreme weather <=> global warming

Actually thanks for proving our point

That seems like a "Get of Jail Free" card. No matter matter what happens, AGW including if glaciers covered New York. To the unconvinced, it seems like a madeup excuse to cover all your bets. Just makes skeptics more.skeptical. Just.FYI


Does anyone know what Plan B is if Plan A fails, and we can't stop the warming? Even countries committed to stopping AGW struggle with their goals. And there could be the off chance CO2 isn't the real driver, or the warming is natural, remote, but possiblem

Even if humans.are the cause, maybe it is all the forest we cut down. Or particulate pollution. What happens if we reduce CO2 and warming still occurs?

I think we need to be working on backup plan just in case. Millions of people displaced on islandz. where are they going to live? Domed cities under the sea? Vast floating cities? As habit areas shift, do we create habit reserves in new areas?

[wanderwegger]

Jesus, not certain Climate Change is man made too? How about evolution?

[Genava]

That seems like a "Get of Jail Free" card. No matter matter what happens, AGW including if glaciers covered New York. To the unconvinced, it seems like a madeup excuse to cover all your bets. Just makes skeptics more.skeptical. Just.FYI

Global warming: increasing CO2 => increasing greenhouse effect => increasing of the average global temperature

Climate change: increasing of the average global temperature => changes in intensity and frequencies of weather events => consequences on ice sheets, sea level, seasonal precipitation, maximum and minimum precipitation, average snow cover, maximum snow load etc.

I already gave to B.W. some excerpts explicitly expressing the possible consequences of the rising temperature on snowfall and what kind of trends the scientific community is expecting:
https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...1#post15929416

B.W. ignored my message, but if you see in it something you want to talk about you are welcome.

In the case of Launceston in Tasmania, this is probably caused by a negative Southern Annular Mode (so it is not necessarily related to global warming, ozone repletion is the only thing increasing it from a human induced cause relationship point of view):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_oscillation
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/sam/
http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/gla...-annular-mode/
https://www.agric.wa.gov.au/climate-...-land-division
https://www.abc.net.au/cm/lb/1011146...pacts-data.png

So increasing greenhouse gases is making this kind of snowfall rarer.

Does anyone know what Plan B is if Plan A fails, and we can't stop the warming?

See: NOAA Gets Go-Ahead to Study Controversial Climate Plan B
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...limate-plan-b/

Further readings:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....9/2012GL051652
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-53595-3

And there could be the off chance CO2 isn't the real driver, or the warming is natural, remote, but possiblem

Even if humans.are the cause, maybe it is all the forest we cut down. Or particulate pollution.

100% or absolute certainty is impossible. You cannot foresee the future so you must stick to the best evidences.

The theory that the current warming is due to greenhouse emissions from humans is the most solid theory. The only one that resisted multiple attempts of refutation.

We are observing an increase in greenhouse effect, we are observing the role of CO2 in this increase, this is matching our understanding of greenhouse gases physics and matching our understanding of atmospheric physics, the changes in the different layers of the atmosphere matches the theory and finally statistical analysis support it.

Land use changes is a topic of numerous studies:
https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/...12701-2014.pdf
http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_up...f_Land_Use.pdf
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.co...10970088/30/13

But the conclusion is that land-use changes is not currently leading the warming, quite the contrary:
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2...ing-the-world/

[B. W.]

Global warming: increasing CO2 => increasing greenhouse effect => increasing of the average global temperature

Climate change: increasing of the average global temperature => changes in intensity and frequencies of weather events => consequences on ice sheets, sea level, seasonal precipitation, maximum and minimum precipitation, average snow cover, maximum snow load etc.

I already gave to B.W. some excerpts explicitly expressing the possible consequences of the rising temperature on snowfall and what kind of trends the scientific community is expecting:
https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...1#post15929416

B.W. ignored my message, but if you see in it something you want to talk about you are welcome.

In the case of Launceston in Tasmania, this is probably caused by a negative Southern Annular Mode (so it is not necessarily related to global warming, ozone repletion is the only thing increasing it from a human induced cause relationship point of view):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_oscillation
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/sam/
http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/gla...-annular-mode/
https://www.agric.wa.gov.au/climate-...-land-division
https://www.abc.net.au/cm/lb/1011146...pacts-data.png

So increasing greenhouse gases is making this kind of snowfall rarer.



See: NOAA Gets Go-Ahead to Study Controversial Climate Plan B
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...limate-plan-b/

Further readings:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....9/2012GL051652
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-53595-3




100% or absolute certainty is impossible. You cannot foresee the future so you must stick to the best evidences.

The theory that the current warming is due to greenhouse emissions from humans is the most solid theory. The only one that resisted multiple attempts of refutation.

We are observing an increase in greenhouse effect, we are observing the role of CO2 in this increase, this is matching our understanding of greenhouse gases physics and matching our understanding of atmospheric physics, the changes in the different layers of the atmosphere matches the theory and finally statistical analysis support it.

Land use changes is a topic of numerous studies:
https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/...12701-2014.pdf
http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_up...f_Land_Use.pdf
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.co...10970088/30/13

But the conclusion is that land-use changes is not currently leading the warming, quite the contrary:
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2...ing-the-world/

I didn't ignore your message. I just don't see the purpose in straining my eyes going through reams of data that has been manipulated.

I did watch the 6 minute video however. It sure seemed like a long six minutes. Maybe that had something to do with the fact that I know someone has no intention of being honest about climate science when they start their timeline at 1880.

[brave_warrior]

I do believe if we don't do anything within the next 30 years, it will end in unbearably high temperatures in summer for most people. Even in Europe we have droughts now... despite it being one of the continents were it's rather cold and rains a lot. After the pandemic, the climate change debate will re-emerge again. How good would it be if politicians acted on climate change as fast as they did with Corona (at least in the majority of countries...). And I don't consider Corona a threat to humanity at all, but might give some people some ideas about biological weapons, so not looking good either.

[swabian]

Just a little something to raise the general level of neuroticism:

[Genava]

The scientist is himself optimistic we won't reach such extremes (which honestly is quite a high threshold even in the worst-case scenario of the IPCC).

However the feedback itself is debated: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019...scientists-say

And the worst-case scenario of the IPCC is itself unlikely: https://www.carbonbrief.org/explaine...rming-scenario

Gosh, the sad music with a bunch of cherry-picked information without any critical analysis. This has totally the opposite effect on me.

There is good reason why peak oil was a minority view: https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...14629618303207

[swabian]

And the worst-case scenario of the IPCC
is itself unlikely: https://www.carbonbrief.org/explaine...rming-scenario

I know what you mean. It's considered unlikely because there have been adaptations as a reaction to climate change in key countries since 2000. However they are not enough to securely avoid a 2.5°C+ scenario. At the same time, this goes to show the importance and further unused potential of adaptive measures.

Gosh, the sad music with a bunch of cherry-picked information without any critical analysis. This has totally the opposite effect on me.

I disagree. The argumentation includes the discussion of opposing arguments and is overall fairly consistent. Sources are also mentioned. Of course this is more agitation than information, but i can't dismiss it out of hand as you do. Even though i'm not convinced humanity is doomed, it looks fairly dark on the horizon to me.

edit: there's a bunch of linked sources below the video, albeit in french.

There is good reason why peak oil was a minority view: https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...14629618303207

Mh, ok. I totally forgot about peak oil theory. That doesn't change the necessity to develop independence from crude oil. So i don't see the relevance.

[swabian]

Eh.. ok, the video is sourced pretty badly. Most of the provided links are dead. Thanks for the update on peak oil. nvm.

[B. W.]

Recognizing AWG for what it really is, what the goals really are. The truth of AGW laid bare:

https://canadafreepress.com/article/...-human-history