WHITHER THE CLIMATE? In a poll conducted by Yale University, four out of five Americans reported personally experiencing one or more types of extreme weather in 2011, whereas more than a third said they were personally harmed by one or more of these events. A large majority of Americans believe that global warming made several high-profile extreme weather events worse
Image: iStockPhoto/Thinkstock
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Dear EarthTalk: What is the scientific consensus on all the extreme weather we’ve been having—from monster tornadoes to massive floods and wildfires? Is there a clear connection to climate change? And if so, what are we doing to be prepared?—Jason Devine, Summit, Pa.
Extreme weather does not prove the existence of global warming, but climate change is likely to exaggerate it—by messing with ocean currents, providing extra heat to forming tornadoes, bolstering heat waves, lengthening droughts and causing more precipitation and flooding.
“A changing climate leads to changes in the frequency, intensity, spatial extent, duration and timing of extreme weather and climate events, and can result in unprecedented extreme weather and climate events,” reports the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an independent group of leading climate scientists convened by the United Nations to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts.
While most scientists don’t dispute the link between global warming and extreme weather, the once skeptical public is now starting to come around—especially following 2011, when floods, droughts, heat waves and tornadoes took a heavy toll on the U.S. According to a poll conducted by researchers at Yale University’s Project on Climate Change Communication, four out of five Americans reported personally experiencing one or more types of extreme weather or a natural disaster in 2011, while more than a third were personally harmed either a great deal or a moderate amount by one or more of these events. And a large majority of Americans believe that global warming made several high profile extreme weather events worse, including record high summer temperatures nationwide, droughts in Texas and Oklahoma, catastrophic Mississippi River flooding, Hurricane Irene and an unusually warm winter.
The IPCC wants world leaders to err on the side of caution in preparing their citizens for extreme weather events that will likely become more frequent; earlier this year they released a report entitled “Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation” to help policymakers do just that. The report is considered a must read in coastal, arid and other especially vulnerable areas.
As for the U.S. government, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) tracks weather and storms, while the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) deals with the impacts of extreme weather and other disasters. But critics would like to see Congress and the White House do more to increase Americans’ preparedness. “The U.S. [in 2011] experienced a record fourteen weather-related disasters each in excess of a billion dollars—and many more disasters of lesser magnitudes,” reports the non-profit Climate Science Watch (CSW). “Yet the U.S. has no national climate change preparedness strategy; and Federal efforts to address the rising risks have been undermined through budget cuts and other means.” CSW and others are calling for the creation of a new cabinet-level agency called the National Climate Service to oversee both climate change mitigation as well as preparedness for increasingly extreme weather events.
CONTACTS: IPCC report, www.ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/images/uploads/SREX-SPMbrochure_FINAL.pdf; Yale Project, http://environment.yale.edu/climate/files/Extreme-Weather-Climate-Preparedness.pdf; FEMA, www.fema.gov; NOAA, www.noaa.gov; Climate Science Watch, www.climatesciencewatch.org.
EarthTalk® is written and edited by Roddy Scheer and Doug Moss and is a registered trademark of E - The Environmental Magazine (www.emagazine.com). Send questions to: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe. Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.
See what we're tweeting about
45 Comments
Add CommentNo need to believe science until a tornado picks up your house and drops it on your Hummer or massive drought turns your corn fields into dust. (although in the case of the farmers, many of whom vote for global warming doubter and anti-government aid candidates, they'll get goverment funds to help cover their loss, so maybe they can still deny safely).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't dispute global warming - in fact there seems to be as strong a historical correlation between human population growth and average global temperature as any other contributing factor - I see it as the root cause.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisErring on the side of caution, I agree. However, while government agencies have put a great deal of effort into portraying the current average U.S. temperature as the warmest on record, conditions in the U.S. have nowhere approached the devastation produced by the Dust Bowl of the early 1930s. Certainly there have been hotter periods, drier periods, worst years for rainfall, flooding, tornadoes and hurricanes. As I understand, those who cry wolf without compelling evidence risk losing trust...
Let's not get too carried away. Is global warming affecting conditions only in the U.S.? How about earthquakes and tsunamis - correlated with warming oceans, perhaps?
BTW, global population and co2 levels have been significantly increasing for a couple of hundred years. Why would extreme weather in the U.S. suddenly be caused by resulting global climate conditions? Have climate conditions suddenly reached a tipping point, or is it merely that governments, news agencies and journalists have now reached the tipping point? Scientifically, that is.
Don't worry about all that - just build a multi-million dollar coastal beach house, watch it slide, collect insurance, rebuild, repeat... We'll pay the premiums to support you!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Have climate conditions suddenly reached a tipping point, or is it merely that governments, news agencies and journalists have now reached the tipping point? Scientifically, that is."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's a good point; /awareness/ of extreme weather has certainly in increased a fair bit.
As far as I understand, extreme events are the likely outcome of a nonlinear system introduced with change and shifting regimes. Are we getting these in the models? did we measure an increase in these events that is not biased by sampling? the title promises data, not more blah blah.... give a paragraph with examples people can relate to or an explanation so that we don't get propaganda comments. Don't cite scientists, cite their hard earned publications!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRealize that this article is (at face value) a response to the inquiry posted as the first paragraph:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Dear EarthTalk: What is the scientific consensus on all the extreme weather we've been having - from monster tornadoes to massive floods and wildfires? Is there a clear connection to climate change? And if so, what are we doing to be prepared?"
The intended audience is not conversant in climate modeling methods & technical issues.
Also, don't judge any SA articles by their titles, as you will be sorely disappointed. Think 'Scientific Inquirer'...
Try as they might, IPCC is hardly an "independent" group. It can't be since it is funded by an organization that seeks to exert more control over people's lives and redistribute wealth. All one has to do is look at the language they've used over the years. In the 1960's and 1970's it was "global cooling." In the 1980's and 1990's and 2000's it was "global warming." Now it is "climate change." What is left out of the language is that, in reality, these things are not describing warming, cooling or change. What is left unsaid is the assumption that humans are responsible for it and that it is bad.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo far, nothing that these so-called experts have predicted has come to pass. About all they've done is smarted up and push all their "predictions" down the road to when no one who is alive now will be there to see if the predictions are right or not. And, of course, the lib media refuses to follow up on their predictions to see how accurate they've been.
Oh, and no one who preaches about the evils of humans actually lives like they believe what they are preaching. This is the biggest clue that it is all a farce.
Oh yes witchrunner it is all a horrible conspiracy whipped up to deprive you of your god given right to deplete resources and despoil the environment howumever you might wish. Keep your head in the sand or even better stay tuned to Uncle Rupert's "all the news we want you to hear" channel.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for successful predictions try looking at this year's polar ice data which would seem to be a pretty much perfect fit with climate change predictions, but hey never let the facts get in the way. You have every right to remain ignorant!
Roddy Scheer and Doug Moss are writers who either intentionally or unintentionally publish propaganda and lies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe article states: “most scientists don’t dispute the link between global warming and extreme weather”.
I ask a very simple question- what is the data source for this definitive conclusion?
A 2012 survey was performed on a group of concerned climate scientists. One of the questions was: “Since 1851, the U.S. has experienced an average of six major hurricane landfalls (> 111 mph) per decade. The total number of major hurricane landfalls in the U.S. from 2011-2020 will be seven to eight. The total number of major hurricane landfalls in the U.S. from 2041 to 2050 will be seven to eight.” The response—“(About 35 percent agreed, but those respondents estimated that less than 30 percent held that view.)”
So the actual survey of concerned climate scientists shows that Sceer and Moss lie to promote and spread their propaganda. Is anyone surprised?
When did "extreme weather" come to mean "hurricanes and only hurricanes"?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA. CO2 levels have not been increasing for "a couple hundred years". The Industrial Revolution was about 140 years ago, but the rate of growth really took off post WWII.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisB. Aerosol pollution associated with coal burning has a cooling effect, which conveniently masked the warming effect of the CO2 from coal burning. But aerosols are short lived in the atmosphere, whereas CO2 continually builds, plus increasing pollution controls since the 80s have drastically reduced aerosols, since they cause health problems.
C. There is a well-known lag time between the build-up of CO2 and warming temperatures. If we were to stop emitting all GHGs right now, the Earth would still continue to warm for decades.
BW-- Does it concern you at all the the writers of the article are simply making up facts without any supporting survey data? I'd guess that it does not bother you and that you don't let facts and data get in the way of your fears
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I'd guess that it does not bother you and that you don't let facts and data get in the way of your fears" Wow it is almost amusing to see a pathological liar such as yourself talk about other people ignoring the facts. The data and facts are overwhelming. The only people that don't understand this are people such as yourself that refuse to understand it. The deliberate misinformation campaign by fox news and the national post as well as the Koch Bros. has been exposed but to fanatics such as yourself, it is the peer reviewed science that is at fault. You really need to ask yourself, is being a shill the best thing you can do with your life? I guess for sociopaths, the ends justify the means.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExtreme weather events are just events outside of the norm. Norms are regional; a drought in the Amazon might still represent enough rain to produce flooding in New Mexico.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWeather events and climate in general is a function of how much energy is in the system, and how it is distributed. Changing the composition of the atmosphere has changed its thermodynamic properties, and both distribution and balance of the energy in the system.
Why would anyone doubt that this has changed, and will continue to change, the frequency of extreme weather events?
The question isn't 'if', the question is 'how much'.
"Why would extreme weather in the U.S. suddenly be caused by resulting global climate conditions? "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt hasn't been all of a sudden.
Looking at extreme heat events, there is a clear progression from 3-sigma events covering less than 1% of the globe in an average year, several decades ago, to covering over 10% of the globe in a typical year, in recent years.
What has been sudden is the _recognition_ of the trend; the trend itself has been progressing for some time.
Up until the past couple of years, the U.S. has been lucky and these events have taken place elsewhere.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst.. It's good that more of the public is thinking
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisfor itself.
Second…
When any system acquires more energy, it does not adapt
to it in a neat, monotonic way. (1) Take a large complex
organic molecule in a state of equilibrium. Zap it with
some photons of energy. It will achieve a new state of
equilibrium, but not instantly or smoothly. Its many
sub-molecular systems and will feel both extremely rapid
upshifts and downshifts in energy, as the new energy travels throughout the molecule. Every region of the molecule will
quickly go through quantum changes, both + and -, in the
energy distributions of its orbitals. This is analogous
to local excursions away from local means.
These excursions will be above and below the local mean,
though only on the brief time scale expected for the molecule
itself. So the entire molecule adapts over a very short, but non-zero, time and attains a new higher energy state. The
adjustment time scale, from beginning to end, is a tiny
fraction of a second.
(2) Now take an astronomically more complex system, the entire
biosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere of the planet Earth.
The same stochastic fluctuations are going to occur, with an
increased input of (mostly infrared) photons (from greenhouse
gases). Once again, local sub-regions will experience excursions
both above and below the local mean. And as with the molecule,
much of the adjustment process will involve uncertainty, though
now it has no quantum source. The sources lie in the enormous
super-complexity of the global landscape, land and sea alike.
But with the Earth, the adjustment time interval is on the scale
on years, decades and centuries, well described by Complexity and Systems Theory.
Example:
a few years ago, tea party pols were laughing and congratulating
one another about the massive record breaking snow storms
hitting the eastern half of the United States. "Does this look
like global warming to you?" they yelled gleefully to the press.
Answer:
YES. See above!
… all this as more systems are forced into play, including
inevitable releases of methane clathrates from continental
shelves, tundra CO2 and methane. In other words, much of
the climate change is going to come at us sideways, in ways
we wouldn't normally anticipate. And increasingly so, with
emphasis on sudden discontinuities.
Just ask our big molecule.
Mr or Ms Schmidt- It is interesting that you have called me a liar but you have not identified a single inaccuracy in anything that I have written. Please stick to the science and let this perodical spread the propaganda
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis climate change journey is only at the start of a multi-century event. So what is happening this summer is not representative of what will most likely occur.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNor have you identified any inaccuracies in what Sciam has said. You've only shown your own ignorance. As an earlier poster mentioned your reference to hurricanes is only one aspect of extreme weather yet you represented it as the only aspect and that sciam's statement should be judged only in that context. That is a wrong. So you are either deliberately misrepresenting the facts or you are so ignorant of the facts that you have no clue what you are talking about. Either way, it goes towards credibility and you have none. You are nothing more than a right wing fanatic that uses Sciam as his soap box. You have no concept of how science works. You are a shill.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSchmidt—Actually I correctly pointed out that the article was inaccurate when it stated-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“While most scientists don’t dispute the link between global warming and extreme weather,”
There is not the stated agreement among scientists and the same Yale survey that the article referenced demonstrated that there was no such consensus. The stated link is a theory and not supported by observations. The observations show that occurrences of extreme weather have been within the bounds of natural variability.
What was the source of the claim that “most scientists don’t dispute the link”? Did they somehow survey all scientists in some fashion that we were not aware of or did they simply spread a story unsupported by facts and then cut the 1st comment I made that point the fact out? Seriously, can’t you see that it is another attempt to “appeal to authority” and spread propaganda?
Sisko, well NASA's chief scientist stated recently that recent extreme weather events were a direct result of climate change and I seem to remember a fairly sophisticated statistical analysis being presented at the same time but being experts in planetary science, what would they know?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would recommend, that anyone considering the assertion of increasing intensity, check Dr. Ryan N. Maue site for more empirically based statements.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://policlimate.com/tropical/
Pay particular attention to the charts and graphs such as:
policlimate.com/tropical/global_major_freq.png
"The Accumulated Cyclone Energy dissipated by tropical cyclones worldwide this year (2012) is near-normal across the board from the Northern Hemisphere, and was below normal for the Southern Hemisphere during the last season (Fall 2011-Spring 2012). Globally, ACE is below normal for this year."
As to attribution and modelling results the Trenberth and Fasullo (2012) concluded with:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/TF_RHW_JGR_2012JD018020.pdf
Their closing paragraph reads:
“It remains a challenge for climate models to correctly
simulate mean rainfall distributions, and as a result it is even more of a challenge to reproduce anomalies and associated teleconnections [Yang and DelSole, 2012], such as those observed in 2010. However, unless the diabatic heating, mainly from latent heating in precipitation linked to SST anomalies, is properly simulated in both its spatial and temporal character, it will likely not be possible to simulate, predict, or fully attribute blocking events and climate anomalies such as observed” GK
I have been a certified storm spotter for 16 years and have taken training from the National Weather Service and FEMA. "Science" cannot tell anyone anywhere whether or not a tornado is going to pick up their house and drop it anywhere. Weather prediction, like climate prediction, is simply not sophisticated enough to account for all of the possible variables it would need to take into consideration for anything even approaching that level of prediction. AGW is not science, it is mysticism and theology.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Why would extreme weather in the U.S. suddenly be caused by resulting global climate conditions?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's a rhetorical question - this article is all about the events of 2011.
@Laird, the fact that you are incapable of telling the difference between weather and climate clearly demonstrates you have no clue what you are talking about. Weather spotter, like that means anything. What unbelievable arrogance. Please look up dunning-kruger.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh, no! The annoying denialist troll is on to another article to make baseless claims and pathetic insults. We all hate you, so please go away.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The total number of major hurricane landfalls in the U.S. from 2011-2020 will be seven to eight. The total number of major hurricane landfalls in the U.S. from 2041 to 2050 will be seven to eight."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEh? Is that a statement to agree or disagree with? It certainly isn't anything to do with reality, unless someone has access to a time machine. And what does hurricanes making landfall in the US have to do with anything; is the only measure of the reality of climate change damage to property on the US mainland?
Extreme weather and climate events haven't suddenly got worse, they've been getting worse or more frequent over the years. It has nothing to do with reporting, either (as an earlier commenter suggested, I think), since we've had pretty much global instant coverage for a couple of decades.
It's sad that in the country where Scientific American publishes facts and commentary about human induced climate change, the two people aspiring to lead that nation don't seem to want to address the issue at all. As someone said, "politics makes you stupid".
Well, neither of them stand to lose significant voting blocks by talking aobut fixing global warming--but Romney doesn't care because he's an elitist snob and Obama's campaign advisers have him keeping a low profile on the matter in non-environmentalist circles to court every last possible vote (given that Obama starts out down by 5% merely because he's black and this country is full of racist morons).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBird/tree/dinosaur/etc. geek hoots:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI know you have reading and comprehension problems but do try to stay on the subject of the thread. It is scientific NOT political.
Is There a Strong Link between Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change?
Try to keep your hoots and tweets on subject or find a political thread to do it on. GK
"The stated link is a theory and not supported by observations."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDuuuuuuude. Major misconception. The term "theory" means that the link has been tested repeatedly by different research teams and has been found to be present every time. A theory MUST be upheld by observations--no idea can both be a theory and not be supported by the evidence. Also, I'd like to see some hard data from a trustworthy, nonpartisan source (i.e. not from any TV news organization) that doesn't support the link between AGW and extreme weather.
Much better... I knew you could do it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm sure Sisco was using the term "theory" in the common vernacular sense of the word, when the term "conjecture" or possibly stretched to "hypothesis" would have been more correct. GK
@ G. Karst:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI know that you are a reactionary troll who's just trying to get attention, but please do not be an AGW denialist on SciAm. This is a respectable site.
And, in answer to your question, the answer is yes. ?
BWT - CO2 heating isn't even proven:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=8073&linkbox=true&position=10
Bird- At one time SA was a 'respectable site', but they drank the kool-aid and are now extremely biased and very political.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisunScientific American is a respectable site? That was possibly a joke.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is that you consider a denier?
I accept that additional CO2 will warm the atmosphere slightly. I do not believe there is any agreement on the rate of warming that is associated with CO2. At least not with a reasonably tight margin of error. I also do not believe there is any agreement that there will be net harms to humanity over the long term. There was a great deal of speculation of potential harms based on the outputs of GCMs and other models that have been proven to not be able to accurately forecast future conditions. If a paper was written based on the output of a flawed model, isn't the paper also flawed? Imo, the potential harms of a warmer world can be most easily adapted to via the construction of proper infrastructure.
Do you have any meaningful information to exchange?
@ Postman1:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou're one to talk, mailman. SciAm is liberal, sure (because all rational people are liberal these days), but they don't give money to or accept money from political groups. As to your link--you believe stuff that Nahle writes? That's like taking everything that Alan Fedducia says at face value. It's like thinking that Fox "News" is actually fact-based instead of a pawn of big polluters.
@ G. Karst: Thank you for the insult, you tiny-minded buffoon. Yes, I realize that the second part of that sentence was an insult.
The vernacular usage of "theory" is one of my pet peeves. Others include AGW denialists, BANDits, creationists, geocentrists, and Flat/Hollow Earthers, as well as the fact that we've only got the front half of *Longisquama* (the back half is probably even stranger).
"I also do not believe there is any agreement that there will be net harms to humanity over the long term."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre. You. Kidding. Me? Have you ever heard of the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (most likely caused by a sudden release of methane from methane hydrates in the Arctic).
Are you through with the tiresome "hooting" thing? Also, if you're not clear about your question, I can't answer it. If you need attention, go set something on fire. You'll probably get on the evening news in your region if you hurry.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisОбычныйDear EarthTalk: What is the scientific consensus on all the extreme weather we've been having-from monster tornadoes to massive floods and wildfires? Is there a clear connection to climate change? And if so, what are we doing to be prepared?-Jason Devine, Summit, Pa.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd if so, what are we doing to be prepared? - here you are... on this question gives the answer Dynamic model of the globe a site.. ww.mammoths.narod.ru
Your fear of this is not regarded as anything realistic by those who have studied the issue. Do you also fear space aliens taking away your children? Do society spend trillions because of your unwarrented fears?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@ Sisko: Are you hiding under your bed witha tinfoil hat on because you're afraid that the government's going to take away your right to pollute (that isn't an actual right)?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDear Sisko,
Why don’t you prove your point - it would be so simple. Cite or post one study actually DISPUTING the link between global warming and extreme weather. I’m waiting.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMajor tipping point.
Arctic thaw with Azolla Deposit methane release from under thawing shallow ocean floors. This was foreseen in the last systematic study in the Abrupt Climate Change workshop and report in 2007. It was considered a major threat but “catastrophic release of methane to the atmosphere in the next century appears very unlikely”, as only permafrost (land) release was widely known at the time, not the seafloor clathrate destabilization, which has caught haughty science entirely by surprise: http://downloads.climatescience.gov/sap/sap3-4/sap3-4-brochure.pdf
It so happens that the detection of methane ‘fountains’ in the Arctic started being noticed in 2003 off river deltas in the shallow East Siberian Arctic Shelf in northern Russia (by Shakhova and Semiletov), subsequently followed up by further studies indicating an escalating situation. These findings were followed by similar ones in 2009 at the Svalbard archipelago north of Norway by the UK National Oceanography Centre, and in April 2010 by NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, north of the Beaufort in Canada and Chukchi in Alaska seas.
Current methane output, as estimated by Katey Walter Anthony (University of Alaska), in Alaska alone reaches 250,000 metric tons of methane a year. Now, if Northern Canada is 2.3 times the size of Alaska, Baffin Island one third, Greenland 1.3, Scandinavia half, and Siberia 5.8 times the size, this means ten more Alaskas or 2,800,000 yearly tons of methane being released, if 20 to 25 times stronger than CO2 meaning 56 Gt to 70 Gt equivalent tons of CO2.
This has therefore already doubled, possibly almost tripled, current GHG emission levels, which are estimated at 30 Gt (IEA) to 50 Gt (IPCC) in CO2 equivalent tons. Note that this is at current thaw rates - but now, thawing has nowhere to go but up. Eric Kort (Jet Propulsion Laboratory), who confirmed methane outgassing in North America, remarked, “As Arctic sea ice cover continues to decline in a warming climate, this source of methane may well increase.” Natalia Shakhova and Igor Semiletov (University of Alaska), who first discovered the clathrate outgassing in Siberia, estimate that a “release of up to 50 Gt of predicted amount of hydrate storage [is] highly possible for abrupt release at any time”, flatulating atmospheric methane by a factor of twelve, an equivalent 1250 Gt of CO2.
So the largest official studies and resulting policies on Abrupt Climate Change must be updated.
The total number of major hurricane landfalls in the U.S. from 2041 to 2050 will be seven to eight.” The response—“(About 35 percent agreed, but those respondents estimated that less than 30 percent held that view.)”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo the actual survey of concerned climate scientists shows that Sceer and Moss lie to promote and spread their propaganda. Is anyone surprised? <a rel="follow" href="http://www.lubietopale.pl">e-papierosy</a>