Remember me
▼ Content

Another Strike Against the True Believers


Another Strike Against the True Believers10-07-2017 20:07
Wake
★★★★★
(2586)
https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf
10-07-2017 22:05
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1672)
Seriously? It's just another piece of non-peer reviewed self-published junk. The lack of any mathematical analysis or graphs that haven't been lifted from other sources is surely a dead giveaway. For heaven's sake, stop being such a gullible old fool!
10-07-2017 23:09
Wake
★★★★★
(2586)
Surface Detail wrote:
Seriously? It's just another piece of non-peer reviewed self-published junk. The lack of any mathematical analysis or graphs that haven't been lifted from other sources is surely a dead giveaway. For heaven's sake, stop being such a gullible old fool!


Yeah, we understand you - any paper written and published and peer reviewed by some of the nations best scientists is junk if it is against AGW.

Just like you believe that one ocean not changing it's sea level doesn't mean that other oceans aren't changing theirs.

Just like consensus of scientists FOR AGW is meaningful but larger consensus of scientists against AGW means consensus isn't helpful.

Yeah, we've got your type down pat.
11-07-2017 01:08
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4319)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Seriously? It's just another piece of non-peer reviewed self-published junk. The lack of any mathematical analysis or graphs that haven't been lifted from other sources is surely a dead giveaway. For heaven's sake, stop being such a gullible old fool!


Yeah, we understand you - any paper written and published and peer reviewed by some of the nations best scientists is junk if it is against AGW.

Just like you believe that one ocean not changing it's sea level doesn't mean that other oceans aren't changing theirs.

Just like consensus of scientists FOR AGW is meaningful but larger consensus of scientists against AGW means consensus isn't helpful.

Yeah, we've got your type down pat.


Consensus is not used in science. No one 'votes' on science. No one 'owns' science.

Since the subject of an argument from randU was brought up by Surface Detail, I should I should ask:

What makes YOUR random numbers better than the ones given in this article?

At least the charts given in this article are more in line with individual NOAA station records.

Of course, you don't want to verify anything like that. One, it's too much work for a lazy ass like you, and two, it would show that this article has some information that is a reasonable argument.

It does, however, claim a temperature for the United States and a global temperature. Neither can be determined with any useful degree of accuracy.


The Parrot Killer
11-07-2017 01:36
Wake
★★★★★
(2586)
Into the Night wrote:

Consensus is not used in science. No one 'votes' on science. No one 'owns' science.

Since the subject of an argument from randU was brought up by Surface Detail, I should I should ask:

What makes YOUR random numbers better than the ones given in this article?

At least the charts given in this article are more in line with individual NOAA station records.

Of course, you don't want to verify anything like that. One, it's too much work for a lazy ass like you, and two, it would show that this article has some information that is a reasonable argument.

It does, however, claim a temperature for the United States and a global temperature. Neither can be determined with any useful degree of accuracy.


Every day people vote on science and you are totally unaware of it because you're uneducated and ignorant.

The ENTIRE object of "peer review" is voting for or against. Weren't just saying that this article wasn't "peer reviewed" when in fact it was? You don't even understand how to read let alone understand anything you're reading.

I don't use random numbers but you do. You don't even know what's going on around you but you continue on because you were never taught to remain silent when you don't know what you're talking about. Probably a throwaway child.

And if you had actually read the paper you'd have discovered they showed vast errors from changing the records to arrive at the results that NASA wanted. Your kind of science no doubt.

You know - where "heat" is "the flow of thermal energy" and not simply the temperature?

We have entire science projects to measure sea level in mm's and you don't even know that the easiest thing to measure is radiated energy.
11-07-2017 08:30
RealityCheck
☆☆☆☆☆
(28)
Wake wrote:

... you're uneducated and ignorant.
.... Probably a throwaway child.....



perhaps he should be forcibly sterilized so his defective genes cant be passed on...


You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.
Abraham Lincoln, (attributed)
16th president of US (1809 - 1865)



When a PROPHET SPEAKS and his words DO NOT come to pass

"If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him" (Deut. 18:22).
11-07-2017 15:54
Wake
★★★★★
(2586)
RealityCheck wrote:
Wake wrote:

... you're uneducated and ignorant.
.... Probably a throwaway child.....



perhaps he should be forcibly sterilized so his defective genes cant be passed on...


Actually when I say someone is stupid or a moron I do not mean that as they themselves personally. I mean their actions. Anyone can do stupid things and perhaps I'm a leader in that regard, but to continue doing them purposely because of some sort of belief is REALLY stupid.

I have a high IQ. But to me all that means is that I passed a test. I was an avid reader and so I had a whole lot more knowledge for my age than normal. So getting a high score on a test meant nothing.

I do not see that there are "stupid" people and smart people. I see people that refuse to learn and those who will learn. Even litebrain is as smart as anyone else. He just refuses to use his intelligence because of his religious beliefs. He is the ultimate True Believer in the Church of Global Warming.
11-07-2017 18:33
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4319)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Consensus is not used in science. No one 'votes' on science. No one 'owns' science.

Since the subject of an argument from randU was brought up by Surface Detail, I should I should ask:

What makes YOUR random numbers better than the ones given in this article?

At least the charts given in this article are more in line with individual NOAA station records.

Of course, you don't want to verify anything like that. One, it's too much work for a lazy ass like you, and two, it would show that this article has some information that is a reasonable argument.

It does, however, claim a temperature for the United States and a global temperature. Neither can be determined with any useful degree of accuracy.


Every day people vote on science and you are totally unaware of it because you're uneducated and ignorant.

No one votes on science. There is no one that conducts an election process for science. No one owns science. Perhaps you think there is some elite group responsible for declaring a theory 'science'.
Wake wrote:
The ENTIRE object of "peer review" is voting for or against.

Wrong. The peer review is used by publishers to filter their content. It does not prove a theory correct. It does not legitimize a theory in any way.
Wake wrote:
Weren't just saying that this article wasn't "peer reviewed" when in fact it was?

Who cares, besides you and other illiterates in science?
Wake wrote:
You don't even understand how to read let alone understand anything you're reading.

I understand that you apparently feel there is some elite group of individuals that declare a theory 'scientific'.
Wake wrote:
I don't use random numbers but you do.

I'm not the one quoting global temperatures or absolute sea level, dumbass.
Wake wrote:
...deleted insults...
And if you had actually read the paper you'd have discovered they showed vast errors from changing the records to arrive at the results that NASA wanted.

What results? Changing one set of random numbers for another set of random numbers doesn't really mean much.

As I have said before, individual NOAA station records are more in line with the summaries this article shows, but these summaries are create improperly. If you knew anything about statistical math, probability math, and random number math, you would know this.

None of these graphs for the temperature of the United States or of the global temperature are anything more than manufactured numbers, because of the demands of statistical analysis.

Wake wrote:
Your kind of science no doubt.

Math is not science. Don't confuse the two.
Wake wrote:
You know - where "heat" is "the flow of thermal energy" and not simply the temperature?

Go look it up, dumbass. Heat is a flow of thermal energy.
Wake wrote:
We have entire science projects to measure sea level in mm's

Not possible. No valid reference point. I see your the sort that puts a ruler on a wall and measures something is 6 inches high, regardless of where you place the ruler.
Wake wrote:
and you don't even know that the easiest thing to measure is radiated energy.

I would disagree. The easiest thing to measure is length. All you need is a cheap ruler or even your forearm or finger and a reference point.

Our eyes suck at measuring electromagnetic energy, since they are sensitive to such an incredibly narrow band of frequencies.


The Parrot Killer
11-07-2017 18:40
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4319)
Wake wrote:
RealityCheck wrote:
Wake wrote:

... you're uneducated and ignorant.
.... Probably a throwaway child.....



perhaps he should be forcibly sterilized so his defective genes cant be passed on...


Actually when I say someone is stupid or a moron I do not mean that as they themselves personally. I mean their actions. Anyone can do stupid things and perhaps I'm a leader in that regard, but to continue doing them purposely because of some sort of belief is REALLY stupid.
So you two have decided that insults are a valid argument eh?

Apparently you have never heard of the ad hominem fallacy. A fallacy is not a valid argument.
Wake wrote:
I have a high IQ. But to me all that means is that I passed a test. I was an avid reader and so I had a whole lot more knowledge for my age than normal. So getting a high score on a test meant nothing.

So why did you bring it up???
Wake wrote:
I do not see that there are "stupid" people and smart people.

I see people that refuse to learn and those who will learn. Even litebrain is as smart as anyone else. He just refuses to use his intelligence because of his religious beliefs. He is the ultimate True Believer in the Church of Global Warming.

You're a liar, dude. You have referred to litebeer as 'stupid'. If you say someone is 'stupid' or 'smart', then there ARE 'stupid' and 'smart' people.

Apparently your grasp of English is poor also.


The Parrot Killer
11-07-2017 23:32
Wake
★★★★★
(2586)
Into the Night wrote:
quote]Wake wrote:
You know - where "heat" is "the flow of thermal energy" and not simply the temperature?

Go look it up, dumbass. Heat is a flow of thermal energy.[/quote]

heat
hēt/Submit
noun
1. the quality of being hot; high temperature.
"it is sensitive to both heat and cold"

The CAUSE of heat is the vibration of molecules but that isn't the "flow of thermal energy" moron.
12-07-2017 00:31
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4319)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
quote]Wake wrote:
You know - where "heat" is "the flow of thermal energy" and not simply the temperature?

Go look it up, dumbass. Heat is a flow of thermal energy.


heat
hēt/Submit
noun
1. the quality of being hot; high temperature.
"it is sensitive to both heat and cold"

The CAUSE of heat is the vibration of molecules but that isn't the "flow of thermal energy" moron.[/quote]

Science does not use the colloquial definition of heat. Heat is the flow of thermal energy.

The vibration of molecules does not cause thermal energy. The vibration of molecules IS thermal energy.


The Parrot Killer
12-07-2017 16:09
Wake
★★★★★
(2586)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
quote]Wake wrote:
You know - where "heat" is "the flow of thermal energy" and not simply the temperature?

Go look it up, dumbass. Heat is a flow of thermal energy.


heat
hēt/Submit
noun
1. the quality of being hot; high temperature.
"it is sensitive to both heat and cold"

The CAUSE of heat is the vibration of molecules but that isn't the "flow of thermal energy" moron.


Science does not use the colloquial definition of heat. Heat is the flow of thermal energy.

The vibration of molecules does not cause thermal energy. The vibration of molecules IS thermal energy.[/quote]

Another moron passes on his inadequacies. That IS the scientific definition of heat.

Input of thermal energy causes increased vibration of molecules which IS heat.

Keep making your excuses as if you had a passing understanding of science while telling us about your PhD in plasma physics.
12-07-2017 18:44
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4319)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Science does not use the colloquial definition of heat. Heat is the flow of thermal energy.

The vibration of molecules does not cause thermal energy. The vibration of molecules IS thermal energy.


Another moron passes on his inadequacies. That IS the scientific definition of heat.

No, it is not. No matter how many times you say it is. Go look it up.
Wake wrote:
Input of thermal energy causes increased vibration of molecules which IS heat.

You have it exactly reversed. Heating a substance gives it thermal energy. The vibration of molecules IS thermal energy.
Wake wrote:
Keep making your excuses as if you had a passing understanding of science while telling us about your PhD in plasma physics.

I never said I have a PhD in plasma physics. Are you confused?

Science isn't credentials. Science isn't universities. Science isn't government agencies. Science isn't peer review. Science isn't consensus. No one owns science.

Science is just a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature.


The Parrot Killer
12-07-2017 18:58
Wake
★★★★★
(2586)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Science does not use the colloquial definition of heat. Heat is the flow of thermal energy.

The vibration of molecules does not cause thermal energy. The vibration of molecules IS thermal energy.


Another moron passes on his inadequacies. That IS the scientific definition of heat.

No, it is not. No matter how many times you say it is. Go look it up.
Wake wrote:
Input of thermal energy causes increased vibration of molecules which IS heat.

You have it exactly reversed. Heating a substance gives it thermal energy. The vibration of molecules IS thermal energy.
Wake wrote:
Keep making your excuses as if you had a passing understanding of science while telling us about your PhD in plasma physics.

I never said I have a PhD in plasma physics. Are you confused?

Science isn't credentials. Science isn't universities. Science isn't government agencies. Science isn't peer review. Science isn't consensus. No one owns science.

Science is just a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature.


You write with the idiocy of Surface Detail so closely that it's difficult to tell you two apart. He's the one making such claims and then making such basic math errors that he plainly has no such training.
12-07-2017 19:52
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4319)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Science does not use the colloquial definition of heat. Heat is the flow of thermal energy.

The vibration of molecules does not cause thermal energy. The vibration of molecules IS thermal energy.


Another moron passes on his inadequacies. That IS the scientific definition of heat.

No, it is not. No matter how many times you say it is. Go look it up.
Wake wrote:
Input of thermal energy causes increased vibration of molecules which IS heat.

You have it exactly reversed. Heating a substance gives it thermal energy. The vibration of molecules IS thermal energy.
Wake wrote:
Keep making your excuses as if you had a passing understanding of science while telling us about your PhD in plasma physics.

I never said I have a PhD in plasma physics. Are you confused?

Science isn't credentials. Science isn't universities. Science isn't government agencies. Science isn't peer review. Science isn't consensus. No one owns science.

Science is just a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature.


You write with the idiocy of Surface Detail so closely that it's difficult to tell you two apart. He's the one making such claims and then making such basic math errors that he plainly has no such training.


Despite his other problems, there are some things Surface Detail gets right. He even gets some of his math right.

Like you, however, he does not understand statistics, probability, or random number mathematics.

I don't think I can recall Surface Detail ever saying science is a set of falsifiable theories.


The Parrot Killer
12-07-2017 21:35
Wake
★★★★★
(2586)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Science does not use the colloquial definition of heat. Heat is the flow of thermal energy.

The vibration of molecules does not cause thermal energy. The vibration of molecules IS thermal energy.


Another moron passes on his inadequacies. That IS the scientific definition of heat.

No, it is not. No matter how many times you say it is. Go look it up.
Wake wrote:
Input of thermal energy causes increased vibration of molecules which IS heat.

You have it exactly reversed. Heating a substance gives it thermal energy. The vibration of molecules IS thermal energy.
Wake wrote:
Keep making your excuses as if you had a passing understanding of science while telling us about your PhD in plasma physics.

I never said I have a PhD in plasma physics. Are you confused?

Science isn't credentials. Science isn't universities. Science isn't government agencies. Science isn't peer review. Science isn't consensus. No one owns science.

Science is just a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature.


You write with the idiocy of Surface Detail so closely that it's difficult to tell you two apart. He's the one making such claims and then making such basic math errors that he plainly has no such training.


Despite his other problems, there are some things Surface Detail gets right. He even gets some of his math right.

Like you, however, he does not understand statistics, probability, or random number mathematics.

I don't think I can recall Surface Detail ever saying science is a set of falsifiable theories.


Long ago you showed total inability to even know what statistics or statistical probability is. Go tell us that you can't measure temperature from space, that heat doesn't radiate in electromagnetic bands or that your mother disclaimed you the day you were born. Oh,yeah, and that the dictionary doesn't "own" words and so they have the definitions incorrect.
12-07-2017 22:21
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4319)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Science does not use the colloquial definition of heat. Heat is the flow of thermal energy.

The vibration of molecules does not cause thermal energy. The vibration of molecules IS thermal energy.


Another moron passes on his inadequacies. That IS the scientific definition of heat.

No, it is not. No matter how many times you say it is. Go look it up.
Wake wrote:
Input of thermal energy causes increased vibration of molecules which IS heat.

You have it exactly reversed. Heating a substance gives it thermal energy. The vibration of molecules IS thermal energy.
Wake wrote:
Keep making your excuses as if you had a passing understanding of science while telling us about your PhD in plasma physics.

I never said I have a PhD in plasma physics. Are you confused?

Science isn't credentials. Science isn't universities. Science isn't government agencies. Science isn't peer review. Science isn't consensus. No one owns science.

Science is just a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature.


You write with the idiocy of Surface Detail so closely that it's difficult to tell you two apart. He's the one making such claims and then making such basic math errors that he plainly has no such training.


Despite his other problems, there are some things Surface Detail gets right. He even gets some of his math right.

Like you, however, he does not understand statistics, probability, or random number mathematics.

I don't think I can recall Surface Detail ever saying science is a set of falsifiable theories.


Long ago you showed total inability to even know what statistics or statistical probability is.

There is no such thing as 'statistical probability'. There is probability math, and there is statistical math (which uses probability math, which in turn uses random number math).

You apparently have never learned any of these three branches of mathematics. You keep thinking that the word 'average' means 'statistics'.

Wake wrote:
Go tell us that you can't measure temperature from space,

Okay. You can't measure temperature from space (other than the temperature of your own spacecraft).
Wake wrote:
that heat doesn't radiate in electromagnetic bands

Heat is not light. Thermal energy is not light. Heat does not have a frequency.
Wake wrote:
or that your mother disclaimed you the day you were born.

Sorry. I would have to lie to say that.
Wake wrote:
Oh,yeah, and that the dictionary doesn't "own" words

It doesn't.
Wake wrote:
and so they have the definitions incorrect.

Dictionaries don't even agree with each other. Now you are making the same kind of argument that the Christians make: "My bible is better than YOUR bible!".


The Parrot Killer
12-07-2017 22:59
Wake
★★★★★
(2586)
Into the Night wrote: Dictionaries don't even agree with each other. Now you are making the same kind of argument that the Christians make: "My bible is better than YOUR bible!".


And yet another case of "I'll define words to mean what I want them to mean".
12-07-2017 23:50
litesong
★★★★☆
(1861)
Another Strike Against the True Believers:
/////////
Meanwhile:
There are comparisons trying to show the size of the new Larsen C iceberg.... Delaware sized or enough water to fill 460 million Olympic swimming pools. Here's my estimate:
Larsen C iceberg (A68?) is the equivalent of an ice cube 6.5 miles long, 6.5 miles wide.... & almost 35,000 feet high!!!! The energy needed to melt such an ice cube would be 3.5 times the annual energy consumption of the U.S. Now, that it is free from the Antarctic landmass & if it moves away (it could also hang around the continent, too), the Larsen C iceberg will be able to melt, no longer constrained by cold Antarctica. One even larger Antarctic iceberg DID hang around the Antarctic coast & took 6 or 7 years to melt, even tho it broke up into smaller bergs over the years.
Edited on 12-07-2017 23:51
13-07-2017 01:15
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4319)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: Dictionaries don't even agree with each other. Now you are making the same kind of argument that the Christians make: "My bible is better than YOUR bible!".


And yet another case of "I'll define words to mean what I want them to mean".


Go read the article you quoted, dumbass.


The Parrot Killer
13-07-2017 16:17
Wake
★★★★★
(2586)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: Dictionaries don't even agree with each other. Now you are making the same kind of argument that the Christians make: "My bible is better than YOUR bible!".


And yet another case of "I'll define words to mean what I want them to mean".


Go read the article you quoted, dumbass.


And another case of "I'll define words to mean what I want them to mean. To hell with the actual definitions."
13-07-2017 18:30
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4319)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: Dictionaries don't even agree with each other. Now you are making the same kind of argument that the Christians make: "My bible is better than YOUR bible!".


And yet another case of "I'll define words to mean what I want them to mean".


Go read the article you quoted, dumbass.


And another case of "I'll define words to mean what I want them to mean. To hell with the actual definitions."


Go read the article you quoted, dumbass.


The Parrot Killer
14-07-2017 00:16
Wake
★★★★★
(2586)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: Dictionaries don't even agree with each other. Now you are making the same kind of argument that the Christians make: "My bible is better than YOUR bible!".


And yet another case of "I'll define words to mean what I want them to mean".


Go read the article you quoted, dumbass.


And another case of "I'll define words to mean what I want them to mean. To hell with the actual definitions."


Go read the article you quoted, dumbass.


And another case of "I'll define words to mean what I want them to mean. To hell with the actual definitions."
14-07-2017 00:28
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4319)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: Dictionaries don't even agree with each other. Now you are making the same kind of argument that the Christians make: "My bible is better than YOUR bible!".


And yet another case of "I'll define words to mean what I want them to mean".


Go read the article you quoted, dumbass.


And another case of "I'll define words to mean what I want them to mean. To hell with the actual definitions."


Go read the article you quoted, dumbass.


And another case of "I'll define words to mean what I want them to mean. To hell with the actual definitions."


You are just looping in a contextomy. You don't even know what you're talking about anymore.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 14-07-2017 00:29
14-07-2017 00:32
Wake
★★★★★
(2586)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: Dictionaries don't even agree with each other. Now you are making the same kind of argument that the Christians make: "My bible is better than YOUR bible!".


And yet another case of "I'll define words to mean what I want them to mean".


Go read the article you quoted, dumbass.


And another case of "I'll define words to mean what I want them to mean. To hell with the actual definitions."


Go read the article you quoted, dumbass.


And another case of "I'll define words to mean what I want them to mean. To hell with the actual definitions."


You are just looping in a contextomy. You don't even know what you're talking about anymore.


And another case of "I'll define words to mean what I want them to mean. To hell with the actual definitions." You just did it using "contextomy" which you show you don't understand but it like sounds really cool man.
19-07-2017 23:26
StarMan
★☆☆☆☆
(88)
Brilliant paper which comprehensively destroys the lies of the True Believers of climate change sharia:

http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/GWReview_OISM150.pdf
20-07-2017 02:47
litesong
★★★★☆
(1861)
stuffedman wrote:
Brilliant paper which comprehensively destroys the lies of the True Believers of climate change sharia:
http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/GWReview_OISM150.pdf


stuffedman is an AGW beginner or an old slow AGW denier liar whiner. His quoted decade plus old information accompanied the anti-AGW petition to develop signatures to bolster anti-AGW arguments. Thus, the petition was deemed dead-on-arrival. It was nothing more than more anti-AGW denier liar whiner PR propaganda poop.
20-07-2017 04:31
litesong
★★★★☆
(1861)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed: "My bible is better than YOUR bible!".

Larsen C iceberg (ice cube equivalent to 6.5miles by 6.5miles by ~ 35,000 feet high", is bigger than your iceberg.... ('cept for B15 & C19.... but you didn't own those).




Join the debate Another Strike Against the True Believers:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
The True Believers Are In Full Retreat1219-09-2017 01:54
The Stench of the True Believers1819-07-2017 22:41
True Believers Successful515-06-2017 01:50
The True Believer's Delima4024-05-2017 13:59
True Believers2025-02-2017 01:19
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Will Arctic summers be ice-free in this century?

Yes

No

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact