Remember me
▼ Content

22 Reasons to be Skeptical of Man-Made Global Warming



Page 4 of 6<<<23456>
24-01-2020 01:20
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
keepit wrote:
ITN and IBDM,
You both keep saying countless times that emissivity has no frequency term.
Nevertheless frequency influences emissivity.
It's kind of like this - the velocity of a wave is influenced by frequency yet when you calculate the time it takes for the wave to get to a certain place you use the term velocity without discussing the wavelength.
It is similar to emissivity and SB law. Emissivity was influenced by wavelengh in coming to the SB conclusions.


If they actually wanted to engage to topic they could explain the emissivity of snow as they understand it.

They won't because they don't understand it.

Why on Earth would someone getting it wrong mean you can't get it right? But nope, they just pretend it makes sense to only point out their theory on how many mistakes you made without offering a correct answer to anything.
Edited on 24-01-2020 01:22
24-01-2020 01:51
keepit
★★★★☆
(1682)
And - the SB law isn't a relativistic law and what i said was just an analogy.
The fact remains that frequency influences emissivity as the snow graph shows.

If one uses the term emissivity one has to accept the factors that influence it (snow graph).

By the way, there is no word "radiativity" in wiki. Did you make that word up as part of your semantics ruse or what?

I should have used F=ma. If one talks about "F", does that mean that mass has no influence in "F"?
Edited on 24-01-2020 02:07
24-01-2020 02:11
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
keepit wrote:...frequency influences emissivity...
Or you could say that the absorptivity and reflectivity of a material is not the same at every wavelength. That's of course what we are talking about.

emissivity is technically just dealing with the radiance coming off an object. While it corresponds to the albedo they aren't the same thing.
24-01-2020 02:12
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13273)
tmiddles wrote:
keepit wrote:
ITN and IBDM,
You both keep saying countless times that emissivity has no frequency term.
Nevertheless frequency influences emissivity.
It's kind of like this - the velocity of a wave is influenced by frequency yet when you calculate the time it takes for the wave to get to a certain place you use the term velocity without discussing the wavelength.
It is similar to emissivity and SB law. Emissivity was influenced by wavelengh in coming to the SB conclusions.


If they actually wanted to engage to topic they could explain the emissivity of snow as they understand it.

Already did. RDCF. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
They won't because they don't understand it.

We both understand it. RDCF. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
Why on Earth would someone getting it wrong mean you can't get it right?

We are right, you are wrong. RDCF.
tmiddles wrote:
But nope, they just pretend it makes sense to only point out their theory on how many mistakes you made without offering a correct answer to anything.

Lie. Answer was provided. RDCF. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
24-01-2020 02:14
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13273)
keepit wrote:
And - the SB law isn't a relativistic law and what i said was just an analogy.
The fact remains that frequency influences emissivity as the snow graph shows.

There is no frequency term in emissivity.
keepit wrote:
If one uses the term emissivity one has to accept the factors that influence it (snow graph).

There is no frequency term in emissivity.
keepit wrote:
By the way, there is no word "radiativity" in wiki. Did you make that word up as part of your semantics ruse or what?

Wikipedia summarily dismissed as a reference.
keepit wrote:
I should have used F=ma. If one talks about "F", does that mean that mass has no influence in "F"?

No.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
24-01-2020 02:14
keepit
★★★★☆
(1682)
I don't think you have answer.
24-01-2020 02:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13273)
tmiddles wrote:
keepit wrote:...frequency influences emissivity...
Or you could say that the absorptivity and reflectivity of a material is not the same at every wavelength. That's of course what we are talking about.

emissivity is technically just dealing with the radiance coming off an object. While it corresponds to the albedo they aren't the same thing.

One is the inversion of the other. There is no frequency term in emissivity (or albedo).


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
24-01-2020 02:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13273)
keepit wrote:
I don't think you have answer.

To what?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
24-01-2020 02:16
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
keepit wrote:
I don't think you have answer.


Yeah they got nothing
24-01-2020 02:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13273)
tmiddles wrote:
keepit wrote:
I don't think you have answer.


Yeah they got nothing

Void argument fallacy.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
24-01-2020 02:17
keepit
★★★★☆
(1682)
You're just dodging. That wasn't an answer.
24-01-2020 02:18
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
Into the Night wrote:
One is the inversion of the other. There is no frequency term in emissivity (or albedo).


Got any explanation of snow ITN?
24-01-2020 02:21
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13273)
keepit wrote:
You're just dodging. That wasn't an answer.

To what? Void argument fallacy.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
24-01-2020 02:22
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
Into the Night wrote:
keepit wrote:
You're just dodging. That wasn't an answer.

To what? Void argument fallacy.


Got any explanation of snow ITN?

It has a high emissivity to infrared but it's clearly bright wight to visible light.
24-01-2020 02:23
keepit
★★★★☆
(1682)
IBDM -"and the radiativity of substances that varies by substance and wavelength". Your words.
24-01-2020 02:23
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13273)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
One is the inversion of the other. There is no frequency term in emissivity (or albedo).


Got any explanation of snow ITN?


A form of precipitation consisting of frozen water forming flakes of ice at or near subdroplet accretion, or the flakes themselves after they have fallen.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
24-01-2020 02:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13273)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
keepit wrote:
You're just dodging. That wasn't an answer.

To what? Void argument fallacy.

re:snow
It has a high emissivity to infrared but it's clearly bright wight to visible light.


Emissivity has no frequency term.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
24-01-2020 02:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13273)
keepit wrote:
IBDM -"and the radiativity of substances that varies by substance and wavelength". Your words.

So? Are you attempting a contextomy fallacy?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
24-01-2020 02:28
keepit
★★★★☆
(1682)
I don't even know what a contextotomy fallacy is. It sounds like you're dodging (strawmanning"".

There was a really good physicist that once said,"My formula is smarter than i am".
I think it was Paul Dirac. Don't feel bad ITN. You're in good company. It might have been Richard Feynman.
Edited on 24-01-2020 02:35
24-01-2020 02:31
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
keepit wrote:
I don't even know what a contextotomy fallacy is. It sounds like you're dodging (strawmanning"".


Yeah ITN, I'd like to look up that fallacy. Where would you recommend I look it up.

Can the emissivity of snow be measured ITN? Has it ever been successfully measured?
24-01-2020 02:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13273)
keepit wrote:
I don't even know what a contextotomy fallacy is.

It is removing or changing the context of an argument, as if the argument originally belonged to the new context.
keepit wrote:
It sounds like you're dodging (strawmanning"".
Nope. Not a strawman fallacy at all. I just answered your question. Fallacy fallacy.
keepit wrote:
There was a really good physicist that once said,"My formula is smarter than i am".
Formulas don't think.
keepit wrote:
I think it was Paul Dirac. Don't feel bad ITN. You're in good company. It might have been Richard Feynman.

Irrelevance fallacy.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
24-01-2020 02:39
keepit
★★★★☆
(1682)
You didn't answer anything, you just made false claims, that's all.
24-01-2020 02:39
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13273)
tmiddles wrote:
keepit wrote:
I don't even know what a contextotomy fallacy is. It sounds like you're dodging (strawmanning"".


Yeah ITN, I'd like to look up that fallacy. Where would you recommend I look it up.

RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
Can the emissivity of snow be measured ITN?

Tricky, since snow is constantly changing during the measurement.
tmiddles wrote:
Has it ever been successfully measured?

I can't recall that it has.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
24-01-2020 02:39
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13273)
keepit wrote:
You didn't answer anything, you just made false claims, that's all.

You didn't ask anything.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
24-01-2020 02:41
keepit
★★★★☆
(1682)
You said, "RQAA'.
24-01-2020 03:13
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7455)
tmiddles wrote:If they actually wanted to engage to topic they could explain the emissivity of snow as they understand it.

If you were honest you would engage in a discussion.

Logic 101: You will not engage in a discussion -> You are not honest

There is no point in trying to explain anything to anyone not willing to engage in an honest discussion.

Snow is a substance. The term "emissivity" applies to blackbodies and is a constant between 0.0 and 1.0; it has no frequency term.

You and keepit are intentionally conflating blackbody emissivity with substance radiativity which depends on the substance, the wavelength and the angle of incidence of the EM.

It is stupid to ask about snow (a substance) within the context of blackbody radiation. A substance is not a body.

I know, I know, you consider Wikipedia to be inerrant, and the scientifically illiterate leftists who fill Wikipedia with errors make the same conflation you and keepit make so it must be right. I get it. You probably underlined those passages in your Wikipedia.

So go on being confused. It's not like you are seeking any clarity in the first place.


So what is the emissivity of snow, according to Wikipedia?


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
Edited on 24-01-2020 03:14
24-01-2020 03:23
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
IBdaMann wrote:
Snow is a substance. The term "emissivity" applies to blackbodies and is a constant between 0.0 and 1.0;


Wait a minute I thought a black body had an emissivity of 1.0 only.

We are asking, sincerely, about snow. It's bright white to visible light, so clearly has a high albedo for that wavelength, and it's measured albedo for infrared is very low.

Give it a shot IBD. ITN is stumped.
24-01-2020 07:11
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7455)
tmiddles wrote:Wait a minute I thought a black body had an emissivity of 1.0 only.

No you didn't. You and I discussed this very point. You know very well that an IDEAL blackbody is one that has an emissivity of 1.0. You know very well that a non-ideal regular blackbody, what we find in reality, has an emissivity strictly less than 1.0 and strictly greater than 0.0.

tmiddles wrote: We are asking, sincerely, about snow.

Your point has nothing to do with snow. Your point has everything to do with conflating blackbody emissivity with substance radiativity, i.e. two totally different concepts.

Emissivity, being just a constant, can't possibly have any "frequency term." But then again, here we are while keepit and yourself insist that it does. Tell me, what does one say to you two?

tmiddles wrote: It's bright white to visible light, so clearly has a high albedo for that wavelength, and it's measured albedo for infrared is very low.

This statement makes you appear scientifically illiterate ... or should I write "reveals you as"?

Snow is a substance. It is not a body. I don't know what else to tell you.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
24-01-2020 07:18
keepit
★★★★☆
(1682)
IBDN,
What do you mean when you use term "radiativity"? And where can i look up that term. I can't find it in wiki.

In my astronomy encyclopedia the term "radiative transfer" is described as a process that only occurs inside the sun as photons move from the core to the surface. The word radiativity isn't used in that definition.

I don't think emissivity is a constant. I think it is a parameter, a constant variable, an independent variable.
Edited on 24-01-2020 07:31
24-01-2020 07:57
James___
★★★★★
(3161)
keepit wrote:
IBDN,
What do you mean when you use term "radiativity"? And where can i look up that term. I can't find it in wiki.

In my astronomy encyclopedia the term "radiative transfer" is described as a process that only occurs inside the sun as photons move from the core to the surface. The word radiativity isn't used in that definition.

I don't think emissivity is a constant. I think it is a parameter, a constant variable, an independent variable.


You're discussing astrophysics while nemo wants to discuss nuclear physics. With astrophysics, the Sun's gravitational field allows for its corona.
The surface of the Sun is cooler. The "light" that warms our planet comes from the corona of the Sun and not the Sun itself.
Basic astrophysics. Just thought I'd mention the obvious, the Sun doesn't warm our planet.
24-01-2020 08:00
James___
★★★★★
(3161)
For anyone who wishes to disagree, the Sun's HALO warms our planet. It's corona isn't the Sun. It's of the Sun. 2 completely different things. You guys make this too easy.
24-01-2020 10:32
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
IBdaMann wrote:...we find in reality, has an emissivity strictly less than 1.0 and strictly greater than 0.0.
Oh right I remember some people like to still call it a black body, others say grey body. Relax.

"Grey body" or just "body" is a lot easier to communicate that "non-ideal regular black body" but, tomAito Tomahto, as long as we're clear.

IBdaMann wrote:... conflating blackbody emissivity with substance radiativity, i.e. two totally different concepts....

Because only one exists as an identifiable concept?:
Google search for ""substance radiativity" yield zero results

IBdaMann wrote:
Snow is a substance. It is not a body.
How is it possible that something, anything, not be a body? If it has matter, molecules, then it's a body isn't it?

Earth is a "body" but the snow on Earth isn't?
Edited on 24-01-2020 10:33
24-01-2020 18:02
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7455)
tmiddles wrote: "Grey body" or just "body" is a lot easier to communicate that "non-ideal regular black body"

Agreed. That's why I use the term "body." I presume you noticed.

tmiddles wrote: Google search for ""substance radiativity" yield zero results

... and ? Is your belief that since you could not find something in Google that you must therefore not be confused? Is that what you tell yourself to make yourself feel better? You should have spoken up earlier; I can help out there. Watch:

tmiddles, you are not confused. You are totally correct, and wise.

There! Are we all good?



tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote: Snow is a substance. It is not a body.

How is it possible that something, anything, not be a body?

We have been over this. It's one of the things you have ignored multiple times. Are you wishing you had been paying attention?


tmiddles wrote: If it has matter, molecules, then it's a body isn't it?

Nope. Everything you listed is required, but alone is insufficient.

Are you familiar with the word "discrete"? "Non-discrete"? Your answer lies there.

tmiddles wrote:Earth is a "body" but the snow on Earth isn't?

Correct! We have a winner.

Given your track record, I can't promise that you are going to somehow grasp the concepts needed to reel this fish into the boat, but there's always a first time. I'm pulling for you.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
24-01-2020 18:58
keepit
★★★★☆
(1682)
So IBDM, what do you mean when you use the term "radiativity"?
Edited on 24-01-2020 18:58
24-01-2020 19:14
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13273)
keepit wrote:
IBDN,
What do you mean when you use term "radiativity"? And where can i look up that term. I can't find it in wiki.

In my astronomy encyclopedia the term "radiative transfer" is described as a process that only occurs inside the sun as photons move from the core to the surface. The word radiativity isn't used in that definition.

I don't think emissivity is a constant. I think it is a parameter, a constant variable, an independent variable.


Emissivity is a measured constant. That constant is used until you measure it again.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
24-01-2020 19:34
keepit
★★★★☆
(1682)
ITN,
You definition sounds like the definition of a parameter. But what do you mean when you use the word radiativity?
24-01-2020 19:51
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7455)
keepit wrote: So IBDM, what do you mean when you use the term "radiativity"?


Radiativity is the efficiency with thich a material radiates a particular wavelength at a particular angle. It's counterpart, absorptivity is the efficiency with which a material absorbs a particular wavelength at a particular angle.

Kirchoff's law says that radiativity = absorptivity.

These are not the same things as the emissivity of a body, which has neither frequency nor angle terms. Emissivity covers all frequencies (and all angles) combined, and is for the entire body as a whole.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
24-01-2020 22:28
keepit
★★★★☆
(1682)
IBDM,
I looked up Kirchoffs laws in Wiki. It pertained to electrical circuits and didn't use the word radiativity or absorbtivity.
Anywhere else you know of that explains the word radiativity?
Edited on 24-01-2020 22:28
24-01-2020 23:11
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Google search for ""substance radiativity" yield zero results

... and ? ...
You used a made up word, fine, it wasn't used or defined elsewhere, ok, the confusion this causes has been pointed out to you several times now, as expected, your response is to offer no clarification...

So you goal is to cause confusion. You are lame.

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote: Snow is a substance. It is not a body.

How is it possible that something, anything, not be a body?

We have been over this.
And again. Being lame.

IBdaMann wrote:
Kirchoff's law says that radiativity = absorptivity. These are not the same things as the emissivity of a body...

Why the dispute here IBD?

Kirchhoff's Law of thermal radiation: emissivity ε = absorptivity α

Care to explain why you invented a word to disagree with the rest of the world?

nuclear-power.net and the rest of internet uses emissivity.

keepit wrote:
IBDM,
I looked up Kirchoffs laws in Wiki. It pertained to electrical circuits...
He was a real badass and has several laws named after him. See above the one IBD is trying to rewrite.
Edited on 24-01-2020 23:11
25-01-2020 00:08
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13273)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Google search for ""substance radiativity" yield zero results

... and ? ...
You used a made up word, fine, it wasn't used or defined elsewhere, ok, the confusion this causes has been pointed out to you several times now, as expected, your response is to offer no clarification...

I guess your reading comprehension is quite low.
tmiddles wrote:
So you goal is to cause confusion. You are lame.

Inversion fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote: Snow is a substance. It is not a body.

How is it possible that something, anything, not be a body?

We have been over this.
And again. Being lame.

No, just another example of your repetitious questions that have already been answered (RQAA).
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Kirchoff's law says that radiativity = absorptivity. These are not the same things as the emissivity of a body...

Why the dispute here IBD?

Emissivity is not radiativity.
tmiddles wrote:
...deleted unrelated Holy Link...
Care to explain why you invented a word to disagree with the rest of the world?

He didn't invent the word.
tmiddles wrote:
nuclear-power.net and the rest of internet uses emissivity.

Emissivity is not radiativity.
tmiddles wrote:
keepit wrote:
IBDM,
I looked up Kirchoffs laws in Wiki. It pertained to electrical circuits...

It applies to ALL energy nodes. It doesn't apply just to electrical circuits.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Page 4 of 6<<<23456>





Join the debate 22 Reasons to be Skeptical of Man-Made Global Warming:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Empirical Evidence for Man-made Global Warming16103-06-2020 20:20
Made a graph of low equilibrium climate sensitivity estimates to show that the IPCC's best estimate o203-03-2020 02:17
man made or natural31527-01-2020 21:32
The Only Way To End The Economic Trade War Is Avoid The "Currency Middle Man"120-01-2020 06:06
Best place to live in Europe( could also recommend some other place) for health reasons?1901-01-2020 10:33
▲ 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 © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact