Remember me
▼ Content

Training Course on climate change adaptation in a changing environment


Training Course on climate change adaptation in a changing environment09-10-2015 10:10
IRES
☆☆☆☆☆
(1)
This training places local sustainability, its development challenges and local vulnerabilities in the context of climate changes at regional and global levels in order to understand their linkages. It is well recognized that a response strategy to climate change is an additional and new area of sustainable community development, that in addition to many other local priorities like reducing poverty, improving sanitation and safe access to fresh water, health issues and diminishing
ecological resiliency.


More Information
09-10-2015 10:29
EarthlingProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(107)
What "adaptation" needs to be taught to the masses?

How fast is climate changing?
09-10-2015 13:46
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
IRES wrote:
This training places local sustainability, its development challenges and local vulnerabilities in the context of climate changes at regional and global levels in order to understand their linkages.

...and the meaning of "climate" is presumed to be understood. Did you know that social changes constitute "climate change"? Awesome!

IRES wrote: It is well recognized ...

...by those selling the "training"...

IRES wrote: ...that a response strategy to climate change is an additional and new area of sustainable community development, that in addition to many other local priorities like reducing poverty, improving sanitation and safe access to fresh water, health issues and diminishing
ecological resiliency.

Fortunately now even the little guy will be able to become a certified IRES developer of priority response strategies in this "new and additional" area of the undefined "climate change" ...all for the incredibly low cost of:

Group Daily Cost (USD/EURO)
6-10 - $1,118.00/€1,018.00
11-15 - $1,721.00/€1,567.00
16-20 - $2,250.00/€2,048.00
21-25 - $2,706.00/€2,463.00
26-30 - $3,089.00/€2,811.00
30-50 - $4,556.00/€0.00
3-5 - $736.00/€670.00

...so multiplied by five for the five training days ... and add airfare to Kenya ... plus all visa/credential coordination...and lodging accomodations, and you've got yourself one heck of a deal!

When referring to its endorsing organizations, why does IRES use the wording "They Have Faith in Us"?


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
09-10-2015 15:33
EarthlingProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(107)
Most people are able to accept the concept of climate and climate change as easily as they accept the concept of weather and its changes.
09-10-2015 18:37
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Hi IRES,

Thanks for sharing the information. While this site does strive to include its share of illuminate, sadly it also attracts its own share of ignorate. Please excuse the bad behavior of the few.


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!
11-10-2015 04:53
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
trafn wrote: Hi IRES, while this site does strive to include its share of illuminate, sadly it also attracts its own share of ignorate. Please excuse the bad behavior of the few.

IRES, what trafn means is that you picked exactly the right audience who will buy into whatever crap you are selling. With the exception of one person (myself) the gullibility level here makes for a target-rich environment. You may be selling overpriced courses half-way around the world that are empty on content but this site is here for precisely the kind of person who eats up the buzz words you're peddling.

So, good choice.


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
11-10-2015 14:44
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@IBdaMann

Trafn's suggestion of the day:

What's the best way to respond to you when you routinely employ Religion, Repetitiveness and Redundancy, the preferred Three R's of the climate science illiterate? By not responding! Simply suggest that you go sit in the corner where all immaturely behaving children belong, like this:

NON-RESPONSE: please feel free to go sit in the corner!


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!
11-10-2015 16:47
EarthlingProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(107)
Asking posters to sit in a corner because they dare to disagree with you is a tad childish, IMHO.
11-10-2015 16:54
drm
★☆☆☆☆
(67)
Earthling wrote:
Asking posters to sit in a corner because they dare to disagree with you is a tad childish, IMHO.


I think that "pointless" would probably be better than childish. On the other hand, trying to debate with somebody who refuses to accept that evidence plays a role in science and who insists that the definition of the scientific method used by working scientists the world over is a Marxist plot is also pointless.
11-10-2015 16:59
EarthlingProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(107)
drm wrote:
Earthling wrote:
Asking posters to sit in a corner because they dare to disagree with you is a tad childish, IMHO.


I think that "pointless" would probably be better than childish. On the other hand, trying to debate with somebody who refuses to accept that evidence plays a role in science and who insists that the definition of the scientific method used by working scientists the world over is a Marxist plot is also pointless.
Agreed, but trfn is asking anyone who disagrees with him to sit in the corner.

I seems that this forum is basically for climate catastrophist crusaders, to the exclusion of all others.


"We have a vested interest in creating panic, because then money will flow to climate science." John Christy
11-10-2015 17:35
drm
★☆☆☆☆
(67)
Has trafn asked you to go to a corner? You are somebody I think is worth my time to debate. We disagree but have a framework or foundation we can talk from. I'm away at a conference this weekend (I took a train) so have not kept up with all the posts.
Edited on 11-10-2015 17:36
11-10-2015 18:02
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
I seems that this forum is basically for climate catastrophist crusaders, to the exclusion of all others.


Hi Earthling, I would disagree with this statement. I have stated a couple of times on this forum that I don't think that climate change will cause the end of the world or the end of humanity, and I have not been told to go and sit in the corner.

As for IBdaMann, until he posts some links/evidence to back up his 'scientific' claims, telling him to go and sit in the corner is the only reasonable response, unfortunately.
11-10-2015 21:59
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Earthling - I am probably the premier doom-and-gloomer around here, and I've taken the time to write a book about it. That doesn't make me right, it just means I've invested a considerable amount of my time and energy to share my insights with others. They don't have to agree with me, but it'd be nice if their responses were more than mere brush-offs, combined with considerable off topic distractions, simply because our perspectives differ. I think if you read the history of many of these threads, you'll see that my "NON-RESPONSE" posts were out of frustration at not being able to have thoughtful discussions that were on topic.

On the other hand, I will delete the part about sitting in the corner and just suggest that we stay on topic in the future.


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!

Edited on 11-10-2015 22:00
11-10-2015 22:24
drm
★☆☆☆☆
(67)
But Earthlings reaction is a good example of why the best way to deal with a situation like this is just to completely ignore posters who you think are not contributing anything useful. A response that tells them where to go, so to speak, is going to be taken negatively by others, especially lurker newcomers.
11-10-2015 22:48
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
drm wrote: On the other hand, trying to debate with somebody who refuses to accept that evidence plays a role in science...

I have always fully acknowledged that "evidence" plays a huge role in "The Science." It can't be any other way.

drm wrote: and who insists that the definition of the scientific method used by working scientists the world over is a Marxist plot ...

It appears that I have greatly underestimated your lack of reading comprehension.

drm wrote:is also pointless.

It is usually pointless to try to convert a science-based atheist to a WACKY religion.


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
11-10-2015 22:57
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
drm wrote:You are somebody I think is worth my time to debate. We disagree but have a framework or foundation we can talk from.

Good, you're getting there. What, exactly, might that common "framework" be? (Spoiler Alert):
1. No science.
2. Unfalsifiable dogma
3. Religious sensitivities riled when presented science that runs counter to said unfalsifiable dogma
4. Struggle to cite perceived authority figures who are not participants in the conversation and who cannot be cross-examined.
5. Complete inability to support numerous WACKY assertions.
6. Desperation to silence the messenger of science.

You can have grand conversations with Earthling because there is absolutely no risk that he will bring any science to the table. He has nothing to threaten your religious sensitivities. You two should get along very well.


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
11-10-2015 23:06
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Hi drm and IBdaMann,

The original topic of this post is Training Course on climate change adaptation in a changing environment.

Anyone clicking on this thread, especially a newcomer, is likely to be looking for information about that original topic. Unfortunately, like many threads here, they're going to find it has gone off topic into other areas and make it unlikely they will want to join the discussion.

While these other areas are of interest, it would be best to address them in a separate thread where they are the original topic and, therefore, on topic.

I think this will help us to draw more newcomers into the conversations here.

PS - IBdaMann, check your message box.


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!
11-10-2015 23:33
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
climate scientist wrote:As for IBdaMann, until he posts some links/evidence to back up his 'scientific' claims,

I realize it stings like a bitch to be exposed as a fraud. There you were pretending to be a scientist and all that implies, and it turns out that you are scientifically illiterate. In all likelihood you were lying about having a PhD. Second semester physics freshman have a better understanding of science than you. You need highschool science fundamentals explained to you. You are confused by simple arithmetic.

It is no wonder that you don't understand the basic premise of science that if you are the one making the assertion then you bear the full burden of support. You are the one claiming a "greenhouse effect." I am not the one making any assertion. There is no requirement on my end to support anything. You can't possibly have any science background whatsoever.

Additionally, science is expressed unambiguously in some formal specification which is usually math. The moment you began quibbling over what label I used for a given variable without being able to find any fault behind the measures or the relationships, you demonstrated the extent to which you are completely lost in any discussion of the falsifiable. Further, since relationships are expressed in math and not in English, your insistence that I am somehow obligated to find my explanation repeated elsewhere on the internet is just a way for you to tip your king.

No matter how you look at it, the only rational explanation for your complete ineptness is that you are a highschool dropout who needs to perform a internet charade to fool people into thinking you are smarter than you are. But being relegated to simply guessing at what/who is correct leaves you scrambling for perceived authority figures to obey, and apparently you have a long streak of guessing incorrectly and of willingly adopting religious dogma as science.

You will forgive me for no longer expecting you to be able to apply any sort of higher independent, rational analysis of...well...anything.

You had your chance.


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
11-10-2015 23:39
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Hi IBdaMann,

Anyone clicking on this thread, especially a newcomer, is likely to be looking for information about its original topic. Unfortunately, like many threads, due to recent posts here, they're going to find it has gone off topic into other areas and make it unlikely they will want to join the discussion.

While these other areas are of interest, it would be best to address them in a separate thread where they are the original topic and, therefore, on topic. For an example of this, see:

A better way to post on Climate-debate.com

I think this will help us to draw more newcomers into the conversations here and make this website more interesting for everyone!

PS - check your message box.


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!

Edited on 11-10-2015 23:40
12-10-2015 05:02
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
trafn wrote:Hi IBdaMann, Anyone clicking on this thread, especially a newcomer, is likely to be looking for information about its original topic.

All the information they could seek is in the first post, which is the first thing s/he will see.

Nonetheless, it is inappropriate for a business like IRES to spam this board in this way.

trafn wrote: Unfortunately, like many threads, due to recent posts here, they're going to find it has gone off topic into other areas and make it unlikely they will want to join the discussion.

1. All threads drift in many directions. All of them.
2. This thread was intended as advertising by IRES, not to be a discussion. Again, it was inappropriate for IRES to spam this board.


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
12-10-2015 08:35
EarthlingProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(107)
IBdaMann wrote:
I have always fully acknowledged that "evidence" plays a huge role in "The Science." It can't be any other way.
Really?
Please explain these two separate statements you made at another location:

"Evidence and consensus are the stuff of religions and have no role in science."

""Evidence" has no role in logic or science, only in conjecture, speculation and, of course, religion."

I have the necessary links if required.


"We have a vested interest in creating panic, because then money will flow to climate science." John Christy
12-10-2015 10:30
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
I realize it stings like a bitch to be exposed as a fraud. There you were pretending to be a scientist and all that implies, and it turns out that you are scientifically illiterate. In all likelihood you were lying about having a PhD.


I am not lying about my job. The site administrator can vouch for that.
12-10-2015 11:44
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
climate scientist wrote:I am not lying about my job. The site administrator can vouch for that.

I'm willing to stipulate you work with academics at a university.

I don't mean to offend but I can't see how you can have any degree in science whatsoever. Maybe you were a liberal arts major, I don't know but you need even basic highschool concepts explained to you. You demonstrated right here in this forum and inability to understand "A = B + C" even though you were the one who posted it. You claimed that my explanation of the arithmetic was incorrect just because I labeled a variable "C" instead of "X." You demanded I provide internet links to support my explanation of the arithmetic and to provide links showing that someone else has also labeled that variable "C".

How do you honestly expect anyone to believe you have a PhD in any field of science?

Additionally, science is about doubting and questioning. You refuse to doubt any aspect of your dogma, ever, even when there is science running counter to it, just as a fundamentalist Christian denying science showing the age of the earth is far more than a few thousand years old. No real scientist would simply dismiss verifiable science in favor of a pet belief.

Further, science is all about modifying, adjusting, changing, altering and fine-tuning falsifiable models. You boldly created a falsifiable model (credit where it's due) but then you refused to modify it when it was shown to be false. That's how the religious treat their dogma, i.e. as holy, sacrosanct, untouchable, inerrant, unmodifiable, the truth, the light and the way.

I'd be happy to work with you to refine a working model, but you don't appear to want to discuss science lest you discover that you need to change your model.


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
12-10-2015 11:56
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
How do you honestly expect anyone to believe anything that you post about climate change, the 1st LoT, or the greenhouse effect, if you refuse to provide any references or links to source information?
12-10-2015 12:19
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
climate scientist wrote:
How do you honestly expect anyone to believe anything that you post about climate change, the 1st LoT, or the greenhouse effect, if you refuse to provide any references or links to source information?

Are you asking why anyone would believe an explanation of science or math without accompanying internet links? Is that a serious question?

Are you asking me if citing religious preachers and other "evidence" equates to science?

Are you asking how I expect any religious zealot to accept contrary science that is henceforth presented?

Please explain to me your dependence on internet links. I really don't get it.


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
12-10-2015 12:25
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
Any link would be fine. Either from the internet, or a physics text book. I am not fussy.

You have not presented any science as yet. You have stated the same nonsense over and over again. Why don't I have a go at this:

There is no such thing as the moon. It is a myth, made up by political organisations such a NOAA. There cannot possibly be such a thing as the moon, because it dis-obeys Newton's Law of gravitation. You cannot argue with the science. Anyone who says that the moon exists is clearly an idiot. Post some science that proves that the moon exists.
12-10-2015 17:39
drm
★☆☆☆☆
(67)
Any insistence that we type in information already posted elsewhere is silly. That's why links were created, to avoid wasting time duplicating effort. So people who insist you not provide links must just want you to waste your time (which you may already be doing by reading their posts).

Or should we go back to the days of scribes, when a copy of anything required somebody to sit down and do so by hand?
12-10-2015 18:47
Totototo
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
I love how he ignored Earthling's comment about science and evidence.
12-10-2015 20:09
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
climate scientist wrote: Any link would be fine. Either from the internet, or a physics text book. I am not fussy.

You have not presented any science as yet.

What science am I supposed to present? I am not the one asserting a "greenhouse effect."

So you still don't understand the concept of "burden of proof" nor the fallacy of attempting to shift your burden of proof?

I'm making no assertion. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything.

What links did all of your education teach you that I am required to provide for that?


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
12-10-2015 20:29
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
I'm making no assertion. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything.


Global Warming is a religion


Evidence supporting the truth of a model has no role in science


Sorry, there is no falsifiable AGW model to "support,"


There is definitively no statistical correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and any atmospheric temperatures anywhere


Etc, etc, etc....

I would say that you have made quite a few assertions, actually. But you cannot back any of them up, with any scientific evidence, e.g. data, published papers, reports, text books, or even non-scientific evidence, such as blog entries and newspaper articles.

This is a forum to 'discuss climate change'. You have been arguing on this forum for days now, but apparently you don't even believe that there is such as thing as climate, or that it can change. In which case, why are you wasting your time, if not for the sole purpose of having an argument, just for the sake of it?
12-10-2015 20:56
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
climate scientist wrote: I would say that you have made quite a few assertions, actually.

You are locked into "attempting to shift the burden of proof" mode and I'm simply not going to take the burden off your shoulders.

If you're happy with "greenhouse effect" remaining an unfalsifiable religious dogma for which there is no science, then I'm happy as well. Neither of us needs to provide any support whatsoever. Case closed and we're done.


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
12-10-2015 21:01
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Hi IBdaMann,

Yes, it is an advertisement for a climate change training course, and on their website they say:

Who should attend: The course is intended for mid-career professionals, dealing with climate change adaptation and mitigation options in developing countries, working for a research organization, NGO, government or civil society. Participants need to have a relevant tertiary education with at least one year of experience in a course-related discipline like agriculture, disaster risk management, food security, water management, biodiversity, forestry, or other natural resources management.

While it is an interesting topic and relevant to our discussion here, I think if they took the time to read the threads that they'd have realized that none of us are likely to qualify. To their credit, they only posted it once on the website, and they were direct and brief about it (the weren't repetitive with redundant posts).

Overall, I'm finding it a bit of a grey area, but I agree with you seeing it as spam. People don't come here to be solicited, even if it is for something about climate change. They come here to discuss. Perhaps that is the real topic of this thread!


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!




Join the debate Training Course on climate change adaptation in a changing environment:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Adaptation of inland fisheries and aquaculture to climate change conference111-05-2017 01:00
Why ethanol is actually worse than fossil fuels for the environment (at least in the US)807-02-2017 00:12
The sufferance of people in Viet Nam, Changing climate cause the history flood4122-12-2016 17:55
Crown Capital Management Environmental Reviews 16 Things That Colleges are Doing to Help the Environment102-09-2016 10:35
But the Climate is Always Changing!16412-02-2016 04:49
▲ 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