Remember me
▼ Content

First direct observation of carbon dioxide's greenhouse effect at Earth's surface


First direct observation of carbon dioxide's greenhouse effect at Earth's surface25-02-2015 23:23
orogenicman
★☆☆☆☆
(57)
Confirmed at last. All they have to do now is reproduce the results at many more locations. Now all they need to do is replicate their results at other locations. Any deniers care to respond?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0225132103.htm

Scientists have observed an increase in carbon dioxide's greenhouse effect at Earth's surface for the first time. They measured atmospheric carbon dioxide's increasing capacity to absorb thermal radiation emitted from Earth's surface over an 11-year period at two locations in North America. They attributed this upward trend to rising carbon dioxide levels from fossil fuel emissions. More at the link.

Also, a video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yq1MFUQ0fI&feature=player_embedded


'The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and seal. It could not be expressed better.'
-- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens
26-02-2015 00:00
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
Your science daily link doesn't seem to work. I think the ellipsis (ellipses?) need to be replaced with actual stuff.
26-02-2015 01:22
orogenicman
★☆☆☆☆
(57)
Hmm, I just tried it and it works for me. Just go to science daily. The article is on linked on the home page.
26-02-2015 13:26
Gonçalo Sousa
☆☆☆☆☆
(1)
If you want to keep track of carbon emissions, I recommend youto read this blog post with useful information and tools: http://abcofsolar.com/how-can-i-keep-track-of-carbon-emissions-and-climate-change/.
26-02-2015 23:36
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
That was handy information but I suspect that most people discussing this topic are already familiar with those sources and more. Be that as it may, welcome to the forum. It needs more active participants like you.

Abraham
19-11-2015 12:23
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Abraham3 wrote:
Your science daily link doesn't seem to work. I think the ellipsis (ellipses?) need to be replaced with actual stuff.

I could't get to the article either. Perhaps the author of the thread could post a working link.

orogenicman wrote:
Confirmed at last. All they have to do now is reproduce the results at many more locations.

If I recall correctly, this is an old article in which someone at a polar station observed CO2 absorbing IR outdoors (not so big a deal) and now the claim is that that alone is "greenhouse effect."

If that's the case then it wouldn't matter at how many different locations those same results are observed. It also renders meaningless the term "greenhouse effect" just to claim it exists.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
19-11-2015 15:15
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1091)
The argument, generally, is not about if CO2 does or does not absorb IR but if this is also done by water vapor which, generally, would mena that any such effect is already at maximum over most of the world.

Very dry areas such as the poles will not have much water vapor.

The next question would be to show how sensitive the effect is to increases in CO2 in situations where there is plentiful water vapor.

Then all you have to do is find the slightest support for the positive feedback effects that would make the IPCC's models work. Good luck on that.

Edited on 19-11-2015 15:15
19-11-2015 17:07
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@IBdaMann & Tim the plumber - or it could mean you to are so desperate to continue spouting your denialist drivel that you'll dredge up almost year old threads just to make it look like you're actually talking to someone who cares about anything you two have to say.


Certainly, no half-way intelligent polar bear would consider talking with either of you two!


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
19-11-2015 18:59
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1091)
trafn wrote:
@IBdaMann & Tim the plumber - or it could mean you to are so desperate to continue spouting your denialist drivel that you'll dredge up almost year old threads just to make it look like you're actually talking to someone who cares about anything you two have to say.


Certainly, no half-way intelligent polar bear would consider talking with either of you two!


It is interesting to see that this "proof" of global warming did not survive the scrutiny of the world. That is a decent reason to bring it back.

Also, why talk to me then?

Edited on 19-11-2015 19:12
19-11-2015 19:09
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
trafn wrote:
@IBdaMann & Tim the plumber - or it could mean you to are so desperate to continue spouting your denialist drivel that you'll dredge up almost year old threads just to make it look like you're actually talking to someone who cares about anything you two have to say.


Certainly, no half-way intelligent polar bear would consider talking with either of you two!


For a guy who hates the discussion "environment" of this site, you sure post a lot here.

For a guy who hates the site administrator and the "denialist trolls" he presumably harbors, you sure apparently like it here.

For a guy who has long ago effectively stated "I'm outta here, and I'll refer 'denialist trolls' to this site"...you sure do post a lot here as if you've never left.

For a guy who thinks this site is "dead"...you alone are keeping it alive with your voluminous posting. In fact, you've posted more than anyone else.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
20-11-2015 04:19
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
OK, I found the article. I noticed this section of the article.

The scientists measured atmospheric carbon dioxide's contribution to radiative forcing at two sites, one in Oklahoma and one on the North Slope of Alaska, from 2000 to the end of 2010. Radiative forcing is a measure of how much the planet's energy balance is perturbed by atmospheric changes. Positive radiative forcing occurs when the Earth absorbs more energy from solar radiation than it emits as thermal radiation back to space.


We're done. This is gibberish, intended for the scientifically brain-dead. This is nothing but one big violation of physics, i.e. a Global Warming miracle!

This article is not science. It is intended to keep the faith alive.


.
20-11-2015 10:49
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5148)
IBdaMann wrote:
OK, I found the article. I noticed this section of the article.

The scientists measured atmospheric carbon dioxide's contribution to radiative forcing at two sites, one in Oklahoma and one on the North Slope of Alaska, from 2000 to the end of 2010. Radiative forcing is a measure of how much the planet's energy balance is perturbed by atmospheric changes. Positive radiative forcing occurs when the Earth absorbs more energy from solar radiation than it emits as thermal radiation back to space.


We're done. This is gibberish, intended for the scientifically brain-dead. This is nothing but one big violation of physics, i.e. a Global Warming miracle!

This article is not science. It is intended to keep the faith alive.


.


I'm not surprised. I thought it might be the old 'forcing' argument based on magick gas.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 20-11-2015 10:49
21-11-2015 01:25
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
OK, I found the article. I noticed this section of the article.

The scientists measured atmospheric carbon dioxide's contribution to radiative forcing at two sites, one in Oklahoma and one on the North Slope of Alaska, from 2000 to the end of 2010. Radiative forcing is a measure of how much the planet's energy balance is perturbed by atmospheric changes. Positive radiative forcing occurs when the Earth absorbs more energy from solar radiation than it emits as thermal radiation back to space.


We're done. This is gibberish, intended for the scientifically brain-dead. This is nothing but one big violation of physics, i.e. a Global Warming miracle!

This article is not science. It is intended to keep the faith alive.


.


I'm not surprised. I thought it might be the old 'forcing' argument based on magick gas.


When I first read that article it was accompanied by photos of Arctic science stations to make it appear "scientific."


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
21-11-2015 22:56
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
OK, I found the article. I noticed this section of the article.

The scientists measured atmospheric carbon dioxide's contribution to radiative forcing at two sites, one in Oklahoma and one on the North Slope of Alaska, from 2000 to the end of 2010. Radiative forcing is a measure of how much the planet's energy balance is perturbed by atmospheric changes. Positive radiative forcing occurs when the Earth absorbs more energy from solar radiation than it emits as thermal radiation back to space.


We're done. This is gibberish, intended for the scientifically brain-dead. This is nothing but one big violation of physics, i.e. a Global Warming miracle!

This article is not science. It is intended to keep the faith alive.


.

The article is a press release from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 70 of whose scientists are members of the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS). The LBNL has produced 13 Nobel Prize winners and is one of the most highly regarded scientific research centres in the US.

The article is not gibberish; it's just that you don't understand it.
21-11-2015 23:44
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Surface Detail wrote:
The article is a press release from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 70 of whose scientists are members of the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS). The LBNL has produced 13 Nobel Prize winners and is one of the most highly regarded scientific research centres in the US.


Global Warming is a cult of personality. Look how you rush to tell me credentials of people apparently uttering gibberish, as if sufficient credentials somehow transform gibberish into science. How many credentials of Catholic clergy would get you to convert to Christianity? Hmmm?

Also, none of the people you apparently worship are present in this discussion. I cannot ask them any questions about their gibberish.

Surface Detail wrote: The article is not gibberish; it's just that you don't understand it.

You don't recognize gibberish when you read it.

If there is some part of the article you believe merits discussion then please, by all means, let's discuss.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
21-11-2015 23:52
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
The article is a press release from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 70 of whose scientists are members of the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS). The LBNL has produced 13 Nobel Prize winners and is one of the most highly regarded scientific research centres in the US.


Global Warming is a cult of personality. Look how you rush to tell me credentials of people apparently uttering gibberish, as if sufficient credentials somehow transform gibberish into science. How many credentials of Catholic clergy would get you to convert to Christianity? Hmmm?

Also, none of the people you apparently worship are present in this discussion. I cannot ask them any questions about their gibberish.

Surface Detail wrote: The article is not gibberish; it's just that you don't understand it.

You don't recognize gibberish when you read it.

If there is some part of the article you believe merits discussion then please, by all means, let's discuss.


.

I don't worship the authors, but I do believe that they are far more likely to know what they're talking about than you are. They have a track record of academic excellence; you have nothing.

Why, exactly, do you think it is gibberish? What do you dispute?
22-11-2015 04:57
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Surface Detail wrote:
I don't worship the authors, but I do believe that they are far more likely to know what they're talking about than you are.

Ergo, you have faith that what they tell you is the truth. I have never begrudged anyone having beliefs that are based purely in faith.

You do acknowledge that scientists can be religious, yes?



Surface Detail wrote: They have a track record of academic excellence; you have nothing.

You deeply believe that, yes?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-11-2015 08:06
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5148)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
The article is a press release from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 70 of whose scientists are members of the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS). The LBNL has produced 13 Nobel Prize winners and is one of the most highly regarded scientific research centres in the US.


Global Warming is a cult of personality. Look how you rush to tell me credentials of people apparently uttering gibberish, as if sufficient credentials somehow transform gibberish into science. How many credentials of Catholic clergy would get you to convert to Christianity? Hmmm?

Also, none of the people you apparently worship are present in this discussion. I cannot ask them any questions about their gibberish.

Surface Detail wrote: The article is not gibberish; it's just that you don't understand it.

You don't recognize gibberish when you read it.

If there is some part of the article you believe merits discussion then please, by all means, let's discuss.


.

I don't worship the authors, but I do believe that they are far more likely to know what they're talking about than you are. They have a track record of academic excellence; you have nothing.


You have denied your own argument and shown that you can't think for yourself. You depend on others to do your thinking for you.


The Parrot Killer
22-11-2015 22:45
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:

You have denied your own argument and shown that you can't think for yourself. You depend on others to do your thinking for you.

What argument have I denied? I haven't even made an argument! I'm simply asking IBdaMann to explain why he thinks the cited report is gibberish, thus far without success. If he can't explain why he thinks it's gibberish, why should I or anyone else pay any attention to his opinion?
22-11-2015 23:43
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1091)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

You have denied your own argument and shown that you can't think for yourself. You depend on others to do your thinking for you.

What argument have I denied? I haven't even made an argument! I'm simply asking IBdaMann to explain why he thinks the cited report is gibberish, thus far without success. If he can't explain why he thinks it's gibberish, why should I or anyone else pay any attention to his opinion?


This forum has a very high tollerance level.

I think that is a good thing.

It does mean that you have to put up with a lot and ignore a lot though.

Be Happy!
23-11-2015 00:02
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Surface Detail wrote:I'm simply asking IBdaMann to explain why he thinks the cited report is gibberish, thus far without success.

You're attempting to shift your burden of proof.

At the moment, you agree with me completely. You have not selected any conclusions from that article that are validly derived from any science that you have reviewed and understand. At the moment, as far as you know everything in that article is complete gibberish that has no standing in science. At the moment, all your beliefs about the article having standing in science is based on sheer faith, on the cult of personality of the religious individuals who wrote the article and who share your faith.

You and I are entirely in agreement.

...or...you can select some conclusion found int that article that you know is based on science and explain the science on which it is based, showing that we are not in agreement and that I am very much mistaken.

If you aren't aware of any non-gibberish in the article, why should I waste my time proving what you already know?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-11-2015 01:42
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:I'm simply asking IBdaMann to explain why he thinks the cited report is gibberish, thus far without success.

You're attempting to shift your burden of proof.

At the moment, you agree with me completely. You have not selected any conclusions from that article that are validly derived from any science that you have reviewed and understand. At the moment, as far as you know everything in that article is complete gibberish that has no standing in science. At the moment, all your beliefs about the article having standing in science is based on sheer faith, on the cult of personality of the religious individuals who wrote the article and who share your faith.

You and I are entirely in agreement.

...or...you can select some conclusion found int that article that you know is based on science and explain the science on which it is based, showing that we are not in agreement and that I am very much mistaken.

If you aren't aware of any non-gibberish in the article, why should I waste my time proving what you already know?


.

The article we're talking about:

http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/

reports on a recent paper published in Nature in which the authors explain how they measured the changes in downwelling IR radiation over the decade 2000 - 2010 and showed that these changes closely matched changes in CO2 concentration. It was, if you like, a failed attempt to falsify the greenhouse effect; as it turned out, their measurements were in close agreement with the predictions of greenhouse theory.

Now, although my PhD in physics is not in this field, it seems to me a perfectly valid experiment, and I see no reason to doubt their methodology. Nor, presumably, did those experts in the field who reviewed the paper before it was published in Nature.

Despite this, you claim, without giving any justification, that the article is gibberish. I repeat: Why do you think it is gibberish? Unless you can actually substantiate your opinion, then your opinion is worthless. That, my friend, is what makes the difference between a sceptic and a denier.
23-11-2015 01:50
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5148)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

You have denied your own argument and shown that you can't think for yourself. You depend on others to do your thinking for you.

What argument have I denied? I haven't even made an argument! I'm simply asking IBdaMann to explain why he thinks the cited report is gibberish, thus far without success. If he can't explain why he thinks it's gibberish, why should I or anyone else pay any attention to his opinion?


You have called upon the authority of others to justify your opinion. This is right after you said you do not 'worship' them (meaning their authority may be called into question).

By doing so, you have demonstrated that you are perfectly willing to let others do their thinking for you, meaning you are not thinking for yourself.

IBdaMann is not required to present any kind of evidence since he is not promoting any new theory. Supporting evidence is not even required to justify a new theory. Only a single solid piece of evidence is required to falsify a theory.

It is you that is trying to promote a theory. A theory that he and I have shot down numerous times with actual evidence from verifiable sources, and through the means of established principles of thermodynamics, classical mechanics, and relativity.

If the burden of proof is anywhere, it is upon you to justify how these existing theories must be adjusted.


The Parrot Killer
23-11-2015 02:00
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night,

Look back at the thread - I'm not trying to justify an opinion. I'm simply asking IBdaMann to explain why he thinks the article is gibberish. Any fool can look at evidence and say, "No, it's gibberish," but unless they can substantiate that opinion, then the opinion is worthless.

BTW, LOL at "established principles of thermodynamics, classical mechanics, and relativity." What, pray, does relativity have to do with the greenhouse effect?
Edited on 23-11-2015 02:01
23-11-2015 03:43
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Surface Detail wrote:
I'm not trying to justify an opinion. I'm simply asking IBdaMann to explain why he thinks the article is gibberish.


It's all bogus techno-babble that is obviously intended to "wow" a scientifically illiterate audience.

If you have any questions whatsoever about any part of the article, by all means, post the pertinent text here in this thread along with your question. I'll be happy to discuss it with you.

Surface Detail wrote: What, pray, does relativity have to do with the greenhouse effect?

That depends on the version; is "greenhouse effect" the same for all non-accelerating observers on earth's surface?

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-11-2015 04:31
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5148)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night,

Look back at the thread - I'm not trying to justify an opinion.

Than why you are putting this article up for discussion?
Surface Detail wrote:
I'm simply asking IBdaMann to explain why he thinks the article is gibberish.

He already answered you.
Surface Detail wrote:
Any fool can look at evidence and say, "No, it's gibberish," but unless they can substantiate that opinion, then the opinion is worthless.

He already answered you.
Surface Detail wrote:
BTW, LOL at "established principles of thermodynamics, classical mechanics, and relativity." What, pray, does relativity have to do with the greenhouse effect?

You wouldn't believe the kinds of explanations both of us have seen for the 'greenhouse effect'.


The Parrot Killer
23-11-2015 13:14
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night,

Look back at the thread - I'm not trying to justify an opinion.

Than why you are putting this article up for discussion?

I didn't; orogenicman did.

Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
I'm simply asking IBdaMann to explain why he thinks the article is gibberish.

He already answered you.

No, he didn't.

Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Any fool can look at evidence and say, "No, it's gibberish," but unless they can substantiate that opinion, then the opinion is worthless.

He already answered you.

No, he didn't. If you think he did, please quote what you consider to be his explanation.

Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
BTW, LOL at "established principles of thermodynamics, classical mechanics, and relativity." What, pray, does relativity have to do with the greenhouse effect?

You wouldn't believe the kinds of explanations both of us have seen for the 'greenhouse effect'.

Nobody has claimed to have used the principles of relativity to disprove the greenhouse effect other than you. I look forward to reading your explanation!
23-11-2015 20:36
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5148)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night,

Look back at the thread - I'm not trying to justify an opinion.

Than why you are putting this article up for discussion?

I didn't; orogenicman did.

Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
I'm simply asking IBdaMann to explain why he thinks the article is gibberish.

He already answered you.

No, he didn't.

Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Any fool can look at evidence and say, "No, it's gibberish," but unless they can substantiate that opinion, then the opinion is worthless.

He already answered you.

No, he didn't. If you think he did, please quote what you consider to be his explanation.

Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
BTW, LOL at "established principles of thermodynamics, classical mechanics, and relativity." What, pray, does relativity have to do with the greenhouse effect?

You wouldn't believe the kinds of explanations both of us have seen for the 'greenhouse effect'.

Nobody has claimed to have used the principles of relativity to disprove the greenhouse effect other than you. I look forward to reading your explanation!


They are not on this forum. They are on another forum. He has gotten twisted up on multiple absolutes.


The Parrot Killer




Join the debate First direct observation of carbon dioxide's greenhouse effect at Earth's surface:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Water Vapor is THE Dominant Greenhouse Gas1009-05-2018 22:58
Calculating the surface temperature of the moon2015-02-2018 23:51
Why the greenhouse effect does not violate the first law of thermodynamics35509-01-2018 14:22
Michael Mann The Madhouse Effect: Climate Change Denial in the Age of Trump016-11-2017 18:59
petition to encourage president to use executive order to seize carbon assets and place in public trust814-11-2017 22:12
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


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