Relatable Warming Impact Articles & Studies

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Relatable Warming Impact Articles & Studies

Relatable Warming Impact Articles & Studies10-11-2019 02:08
mvelicer ☆☆☆☆☆ (1)	Hello - I am interested in collecting examples of climate change articles and studies that people can "relate to," for sharing with students and others who want to make a difference. In my experience, one of the things that makes global warming so difficult to address, is that it seems so, well, global. Almost like it's hopeless that any one person can make a difference. Which is not true, but it can seem that way to some people. An example of what I'm talking about is this study published by Penn state, as it is "relatable" to anglers because it translates complex climate science and projections in to an understandable impact - drive time to cooler streams that will hold brook trout. Are you aware of other examples? Thanks https://flyfishingfieldguides.com/conservation-alert-how-much-could-warming-affect-brook-trout-habitat/
10-11-2019 05:34
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	It looks like the brook trout are going to have the opposite problem this week... The problem with Climate Change, is that they jumped right in, and made an assumption, before having all the facts. The over-marketed, cranked up the hype, and urgency, made a lot of astounding predictions. But, none of those predictions came to pass, the assumptions they made, weren't quite as dire as predicted, and most folks are willing to just let it pass, as a bad observation, poor science. Unfortunately, a lot of people bought the hype, invested a lot of time and money, resources into it, expecting to get rich. They stand to lose a great deal, if not everything, or continue to promote the need. Most people don't feel the same urgency, as when the who climate craze began, not as trendy, since it starting to hit their own bank accounts, as taxes rise to fight the phantom foe. It's sort of resting on which political candidates are pandering, and which have a financial interest to protect. The ones that get in office, and plan to protect their investments, will use our tax dollars, and always want more out of our paychecks. The planet is doing fine, and it's going to keeping doing great, for a long time. It's a political and financial problem. CO2 levels of 700-1000 ppm will be great for plants, and food production, and great for all living things. Weather patterns change every year. We never know what to expect, more than a day or two in advance, which isn't actual true either. The weather event is already happening, just moving in our direction.
12-11-2019 02:30
Harry C★★☆☆☆ (157)	mvelicer wrote: Hello - I am interested in collecting examples of climate change articles and studies that people can "relate to," for sharing with students and others who want to make a difference. In my experience, one of the things that makes global warming so difficult to address, is that it seems so, well, global. Almost like it's hopeless that any one person can make a difference. Which is not true, but it can seem that way to some people. An example of what I'm talking about is this study published by Penn state, as it is "relatable" to anglers because it translates complex climate science and projections in to an understandable impact - drive time to cooler streams that will hold brook trout. Are you aware of other examples? Thanks https://flyfishingfieldguides.com/conservation-alert-how-much-could-warming-affect-brook-trout-habitat/ You've got a tall mountain to climb to establish cause and effect of AGW/CC on flyfishing habitats or anything else. It is not relatable. You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
12-11-2019 17:39
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	I think you'll find that the IPCC avoids water vapor, and tries to keep the focus on GHGs, CO2 specifically. Water vapor is much more common, than actually all other GHGs combined. Yeah, they claim water vapor is a greenhouse gas, which isn't accurate either, it's a vapor, and it has some other interesting properties, which negate the 'greenhouse effect'. Warmer temperatures, more water vapor, the faster thermal energy can move, denser atmosphere. Water vapor cools, condenses, false back to the surface. The rapid 1 degree rise in global temperature, is really a computational error, from faulty data. Pretty much the entire population is energy dependent, and fossil fuels is the cheapest, most common, and most efficient. Cutting off fossil fuels, rapidly, is like putting humanities testicles in a vise, and in a very bad way. Water vapor will always increase in relation to surface temperature, and provide the appropriate cooling. No controlling it, surface water is quite plentiful...
14-11-2019 23:23
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	mvelicer wrote: ...studies that people can "relate to," ... This is an excellent goal! I think that understanding is key and not unrealistic at all for the broader population (of which we are members) as we hear news from real experts. I would say there are two categories to address: 1- Understanding the basics of physics and thermodynamics as it relates to Global Warming. I tried to do that here: net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference venus-is-hotter-than-mercury Connecting that with the theory of global warming: do-i-have-the-co2-calamity-math-right 2- An HONEST and realistic assessment of what we know about how that theory may, or may not be playing out. I think that lying and exaggerating is just too tempting much of the time. tangier-island-should-it-be-used-as-an-example "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them

15-11-2019 02:00
Into the Night★★★★★ (21596)	tmiddles wrote: mvelicer wrote: ...studies that people can "relate to," ... This is an excellent goal! I think that understanding is key and not unrealistic at all for the broader population (of which we are members) as we hear news from real experts. I would say there are two categories to address: 1- Understanding the basics of physics and thermodynamics as it relates to Global Warming. I tried to do that here: No, you didn't. You simply decided to preach the Church of Global Warming and not learn anything. tmiddles wrote: Connecting that with the theory of global warming: There is no theory of global warming. You have to define 'global warming' to have a theory about it. tmiddles wrote: 2- An HONEST and realistic assessment of what we know about how that theory may, or may not be playing out. It isn't. There is no theory, not even a nonscientific theory. tmiddles wrote: I think that lying and exaggerating is just too tempting much of the time. Is that why you do it? 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 nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
15-11-2019 02:13
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote:... You simply decided to preach...There is no theory... As always you pretend something cannot be discussed at all. Global warming is the well defined, though unproven theory that the ground level temperature of a planet is higher due to the gases in the atmosphere absorbing and re-radiating radiation from both the sun and the surface. I created a whole thread asking for help in understanding it. You and IBD of course only have the explanation for Venus of "what Venus? We know nothing about Venus". So you're just here to try to kill debate. When you don't have a real rebuttal or concept to counter with you can always resort to attacking the motives of the messenger. But that's simply giving up on actually having a real argument of your own. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
15-11-2019 04:53
Into the Night★★★★★ (21596)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote:... You simply decided to preach...There is no theory... As always you pretend something cannot be discussed at all. You are not discussing anything. tmiddles wrote: Global warming is the well defined, though unproven theory that the ground level temperature of a planet is higher due to the gases in the atmosphere absorbing and re-radiating radiation from both the sun and the surface. I created a whole thread asking for help in understanding it. So Global Warming is defined as Global Warming??? Circular definition, dude. Try again. * You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. * You cannot create energy out of nothing. tmiddles wrote: You and IBD of course only have the explanation for Venus of "what Venus? We know nothing about Venus". So you're just here to try to kill debate. What does Venus have to do with anything? What debate? You are not debating anything. tmiddles wrote: When you don't have a real rebuttal or concept to counter with you can always resort to attacking the motives of the messenger. Rebuttal to what? What message do you have other than the usual preaching of scripture from the Church of Global Warming? tmiddles wrote: But that's simply giving up on actually having a real argument of your own. All of my arguments are real ones. 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 nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
15-11-2019 05:15
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2932)	tmiddles wrote: ......atmosphere absorbing and re-radiating radiation from both the sun and the surface. I created a whole thread asking for help in understanding it. Bullshit. You lied then and you're lying now. You created the thread pretending to be stupid. You were only trying to convince everyone that heat flows backwards and energy is actually created. You have no credibility, Liar. By the way, can we talk about your avatar pic? Also a fabricated lie. I just did a rough observation in my office at home. I have closed the door, the cold air return, and blocked the floor vent. At shoulder height plus 4 inches, the air temp is 67.2F, roughly 2 feet away from my body. Directly above my shoulder 4 inches, the temp is 70.1F. 4 inches above my head is 74.3F. This is showing conductive heat, which is too clearly NOT shown in your picture. Care to explain? Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan Edited on 15-11-2019 05:53
15-11-2019 17:36
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	GasGuzzler wrote: tmiddles wrote: ......atmosphere absorbing and re-radiating radiation from both the sun and the surface. I created a whole thread asking for help in understanding it. Bullshit. You lied then and you're lying now. You created the thread pretending to be stupid. You were only trying to convince everyone that heat flows backwards and energy is actually created. You have no credibility, Liar. By the way, can we talk about your avatar pic? Also a fabricated lie. I just did a rough observation in my office at home. I have closed the door, the cold air return, and blocked the floor vent. At shoulder height plus 4 inches, the air temp is 67.2F, roughly 2 feet away from my body. Directly above my shoulder 4 inches, the temp is 70.1F. 4 inches above my head is 74.3F. This is showing conductive heat, which is too clearly NOT shown in your picture. Care to explain? PhotoShop filters? A simulated heat scan...
15-11-2019 18:03
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2932)	HarveyH55 wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: tmiddles wrote: ......atmosphere absorbing and re-radiating radiation from both the sun and the surface. I created a whole thread asking for help in understanding it. Bullshit. You lied then and you're lying now. You created the thread pretending to be stupid. You were only trying to convince everyone that heat flows backwards and energy is actually created. You have no credibility, Liar. By the way, can we talk about your avatar pic? Also a fabricated lie. I just did a rough observation in my office at home. I have closed the door, the cold air return, and blocked the floor vent. At shoulder height plus 4 inches, the air temp is 67.2F, roughly 2 feet away from my body. Directly above my shoulder 4 inches, the temp is 70.1F. 4 inches above my head is 74.3F. This is showing conductive heat, which is too clearly NOT shown in your picture. Care to explain? PhotoShop filters? A simulated heat scan... I don't know this for a fact....that pic just doesn't look right. The image is too sharp and clear on the edges of the body. I guess if there was a lot of air movement in the room, then plausible. Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan Edited on 15-11-2019 18:58
15-11-2019 20:03
Into the Night★★★★★ (21596)	GasGuzzler wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: tmiddles wrote: ......atmosphere absorbing and re-radiating radiation from both the sun and the surface. I created a whole thread asking for help in understanding it. Bullshit. You lied then and you're lying now. You created the thread pretending to be stupid. You were only trying to convince everyone that heat flows backwards and energy is actually created. You have no credibility, Liar. By the way, can we talk about your avatar pic? Also a fabricated lie. I just did a rough observation in my office at home. I have closed the door, the cold air return, and blocked the floor vent. At shoulder height plus 4 inches, the air temp is 67.2F, roughly 2 feet away from my body. Directly above my shoulder 4 inches, the temp is 70.1F. 4 inches above my head is 74.3F. This is showing conductive heat, which is too clearly NOT shown in your picture. Care to explain? PhotoShop filters? A simulated heat scan... I don't know this for a fact....that pic just doesn't look right. The image is too sharp and clear on the edges of the body. I guess if there was a lot of air movement in the room, then plausible. You would see it no matter how much air is moving in the room. Of course, at some point you would also see the subject's hair get mussed up! 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 nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
17-11-2019 09:12
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote:So Global Warming is defined as Global Warming??? Temperature is defined. Everythings got one including the atmosphere of Earth: "Dictionary: global warming noun a gradual increase in the overall temperature of the earth's atmosphere..." Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: You and IBD..."what Venus? We know nothing about Venus"... What does Venus have to do with anything? Venus is conclusive proof that an atmosphere is causing the ground level temperature of a planet to be dramatically higher than it would be otherwise: venus-is-hotter-than-mercury GasGuzzler wrote: tmiddles wrote:...I created a whole thread ... Bullshit. You lied ... Prove it! That's the point of debate. Good luck you're not doing well so far. Your rebuttal consists of "no it's not". Pretty weak science there bub. GasGuzzler wrote:At shoulder height ...67.2F, ...above my shoulder 4 inches, the temp is 70.1F. ... 4 inches above my head is 74.3F. This is showing conductive heat, which is too clearly NOT shown in your picture. Care to explain? It's not really my picture but the textbook example I like so much: net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference You're right it TOTAL IGNORES CONDUCTION, EVAPORATION (you might sweat a little) AND CONVECTION. OMG!!! Riddle me this Batman: Do you believe any one of those three could help you stay warm? Do you think they are resulting in you recouping any of the 700 watts of radiance gushing out of your body? Nope. Remember Heat, the NET FLOW of thermal energy, only flows in one direction so you cannot offset a radiant loss with a conductive gain in a cooler room. Why is only radiance used in that textbook's example? Because at room temperature, when you're not sweating or shivering, conduction doesn't matter much. But again, to whatever degree conduction plays a role, it only makes your case that we don't absorb any energy from a cooler room even harder to believe. You will always have a NET loss of thermal energy interacting with a cooler environment by either radiance or conduction. Just be glad that it is a give and take and a NET FLOW and that ITN/IBD are wrong or you'd be dead. Check this out: Ways the Body Loses Heat "The body loses 65% of its heat through radiation." (note this is real world, people in clothes outside, the text book example is nude in a warm room so way more that 65%). GasGuzzler wrote:..that pic just doesn't look right. HarveyH55 wrote: PhotoShop filters? A simulated heat scan... It's just an infrared image! You guys don't believe in infrared cameras now??? Go watch some infra red video. it's pretty cool actually: Military Spec Thermal Camera showing a guy remove his coat in the snow That image isn't from the text book, I just found it online. It's simply a graphic illustration of radiance from a person in a room. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them Edited on 17-11-2019 09:25
18-11-2019 00:03
Into the Night★★★★★ (21596)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote:So Global Warming is defined as Global Warming??? Temperature is defined. Everythings got one including the atmosphere of Earth: "Dictionary: global warming noun a gradual increase in the overall temperature of the earth's atmosphere..." You can't define 'global warming' as 'global warming'. Circular definition. Try again. tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: You and IBD..."what Venus? We know nothing about Venus"... What does Venus have to do with anything? Venus is conclusive proof that an atmosphere is causing the ground level temperature of a planet to be dramatically higher than it would be otherwise: You don't know what the temperature would 'be otherwise'. The temperature of Venus is unknown. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm a planet. You can't create energy out of nothing. You have also said that Venus is not hotter because of 'greenhouse effect'. You are still being irrational. You MUST clear this paradox. tmiddles wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: tmiddles wrote:...I created a whole thread ... Bullshit. You lied ... Prove it! That's the point of debate. Good luck you're not doing well so far. Your rebuttal consists of "no it's not". Pretty weak science there bub. * You can't create energy out of nothing (1st law of thermodynamics) * You can't heat a warmer object with a colder one (2nd law of thermodynamics) * You can't trap or slow heat. * You can't trap light. * You can't reduce the radiance and increase the temperature at the same time (Stefan-Boltzmann law). It is YOU that is denying science. It is YOU that is denying mathematics. Inversion fallacy. tmiddles wrote: GasGuzzler wrote:At shoulder height ...67.2F, ...above my shoulder 4 inches, the temp is 70.1F. ... 4 inches above my head is 74.3F. This is showing conductive heat, which is too clearly NOT shown in your picture. Care to explain? It's not really my picture but the textbook example I like so much: So you got this image out of a textbook? I will call this argument 1. tmiddles wrote: You're right it TOTAL IGNORES CONDUCTION, EVAPORATION (you might sweat a little) AND CONVECTION. OMG!!! Is also ignores radiance. tmiddles wrote: Riddle me this Batman: Do you believe any one of those three could help you stay warm? RQAA. tmiddles wrote: Do you think they are resulting in you recouping any of the 700 watts of radiance gushing out of your body? Nope. Remember Heat, the NET FLOW of thermal energy, There is no such thing as 'net flow' of heat. Thermal energy is not heat. You have also stated that heat doesn't flow at all if both bodies radiate the same. You are still being irrational. You MUST clear this paradox too. tmiddles wrote: only flows in one direction so you cannot offset a radiant loss with a conductive gain in a cooler room. You are irrational. You MUST clear your paradox. It only flows in one direction...period. tmiddles wrote: Why is only radiance used in that textbook's example? Irrelevant. tmiddles wrote: Because at room temperature, when you're not sweating or shivering, conduction doesn't matter much. WRONG. Conduction is significant! So is convection! You cannot just ignore them! tmiddles wrote: But again, to whatever degree conduction plays a role, it only makes your case that we don't absorb any energy from a cooler room even harder to believe. It is not a belief. It is what the laws of thermodynamics state. It is what the Stefan-Boltzmann states. These are theories of science. You cannot just discard them. tmiddles wrote: You will always have a NET loss of thermal energy interacting with a cooler environment by either radiance or conduction. Irrational. You MUST clear your paradox. There is no such thing as 'net flow' of heat. tmiddles wrote: Just be glad that it is a give and take and a NET FLOW and that ITN/IBD are wrong or you'd be dead. Irrational. You MUST clear your paradox. RDCF. RQAA. tmiddles wrote: GasGuzzler wrote:..that pic just doesn't look right. HarveyH55 wrote: PhotoShop filters? [quote]tmiddles wrote: A simulated heat scan... It's just an infrared image! The point is...it isn't. tmiddles wrote: You guys don't believe in infrared cameras now??? An IR camera would not produce such an image. tmiddles wrote: That image isn't from the text book, I just found it online. So the image is NOT from a textbook? I will call this argument 2. You are now another paradox. Which is it dude? Where did you get this image?? tmiddles wrote: It's simply a graphic illustration of radiance from a person in a room. Paradox. Which is it dude? Is the image from a camera or is it an illustration? I say you are lying even about the image you are using in your icon. You just said it's from a textbook, and then not from a textbook. That it's a camera image, and then it's not a camera image. You continue to be irrational. You continue to argue both sides of your many paradoxes. You must clear your paradoxes. You are now locked in ten of them that I have recorded: 1) Venus is hotter because of greenhouse effect. 2) Venus is not hotter because of greenhouse effect. 1) Offensive statues should be torn down. 2) I don't believe in censorship. 1) You can judge a message by its messenger. 2) You cannot judge a message by its messenger. 1) Heat flows in both directions because radiance is in both direction. 2) Heat doesn't flow at all if both bodies radiate the same. 1) There is no motive to falsify evidence used in science. 2) Piltdown man is false evidence used in science. 1) Adding CO2 increase temperature. 2) Adding CO2 does not increase temperature. 1) Radiance is only from the top of the atmosphere. 2) Radiance is from walls inside a closed room. 1) Science confirms theories. 2) Nothing is completely certain in science. 1) The 'infrared image' used in my icon is from a textbook. 2) The 'infrared image' used in my icon is not from a textbook. 1) The 'infrared image' used in my icon is an image taken by a camera. 2) The 'infrared image' used in my icon is a graphic illustration, not from a camera. You had better start clearing these instead of adding more to them. 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 nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
20-11-2019 09:15
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	If anyone sane is curious it's from a FLIR 640x512 Resolution Thermal Video Camera. FLIR camera model Boson resolution 640x512 http://www.mundorcx.com/dji-mavic-pro/9027-dji-mavic-pro-flir-640x512-resolution-thermal-video-upgrade-kit-no-drone.html https://www.flir.com/products/boson/ Sensor Technology Uncooled VOx microbolometer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microbolometer " Infrared radiation with wavelengths between 7.5–14 μm strikes the detector material, heating it, and thus changing its electrical resistance." Science sure is useful and neato! So glad it's being used by those who actually want to accomplish something for us all. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them[/quote]

20-11-2019 20:46
Into the Night★★★★★ (21596)	tmiddles wrote: If anyone sane is curious it's from a FLIR 640x512 Resolution Thermal Video Camera. So now you are saying you: 1) Got the image out of a textbook. 2) Got the image on the web somewhere. 3) Obtained one of these cameras and took the image yourself. Which is it, dude? 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 nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
20-11-2019 21:05
spot ★★★★☆ (1323)	Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: If anyone sane is curious it's from a FLIR 640x512 Resolution Thermal Video Camera. So now you are saying you: 1) Got the image out of a textbook. 2) Got the image on the web somewhere. 3) Obtained one of these cameras and took the image yourself. Which is it, dude? 2) and he linked it sherlock You don't believe in IR cameras now? IBdaMann wrote: "Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody. Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T. Edited on 20-11-2019 21:08
20-11-2019 23:03
Into the Night★★★★★ (21596)	spot wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: If anyone sane is curious it's from a FLIR 640x512 Resolution Thermal Video Camera. So now you are saying you: 1) Got the image out of a textbook. 2) Got the image on the web somewhere. 3) Obtained one of these cameras and took the image yourself. Which is it, dude? 2) and he linked it sherlock You don't believe in IR cameras now? Irrelevant. The link was to the image. He is claiming all three conflicting cases. He is being irrational. 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 nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 20-11-2019 23:03
22-11-2019 06:03
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote:He is claiming all three conflicting cases. ITN listen to yourself? WTF? Why do you care where the image came from? It has nothing to do with anything. It's getting more pathetic man, I didn't think that was possible but your'e doing it.
22-11-2019 12:08
Into the Night★★★★★ (21596)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote:He is claiming all three conflicting cases. ITN listen to yourself? WTF? Why do you care where the image came from? It has nothing to do with anything. But it does. In my opinion it's a fake image. tmiddles wrote: It's getting more pathetic man, I didn't think that was possible but your'e doing it. No, it is YOU that is making the paradox. It is YOU that is being irrational. 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 nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
22-11-2019 16:38
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: But it does. In my opinion it's a fake image. ok believe that

Join the debate Relatable Warming Impact Articles & Studies:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Climate change - effects, impact and solutions	34	17-08-2023 08:19
The Technology Team & Some Entities Was, Are Preventing The Messiah To Save The World	17	02-08-2023 06:23
Afghanistan & Climate Change	4	30-03-2023 21:59
CDC Data Reveals. Majority of COVID-19 Deaths in America Occur Among the Vaccinated & Boosted	0	30-11-2022 20:38
My New Digital Currency System Will Destroy The USD, Euro & Make World Peace	0	14-08-2022 11:29