60
   

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

 
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 9 Oct, 2019 10:58 pm
@neptuneblue,
I don't agree. I don't think the climate is impacted by the composition of the earth's crust.
0 Replies
 
livinglava
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Oct, 2019 05:45 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

It's certainly futile if you don't have reliable data to back your claims. And you don't. No reliable data on the matter has ever been collected.

Before you talk about the reliability of data, you need to understand the fundamental chemistry. Fossil fuels are made up of carbon and hydrogen condensed into chains, which makes them a denser fuel than the cellulose, sugars, and fats that living plants and animals produce on the surface.

Those living forms of biomass absorb energy from the sun and from each other, using CO2 from the atmosphere and water from the water cycle. As their sediments settle in waterways and seep underground, they gradually condense/compress into denser forms of (fossil) fuel.

Now just use common sense for a moment to think about refined/condensed fuels being extracted and consumed at a rate faster than the Earth can reproduce/replenish them. It is the same as if you inherited a large amount of money saved up by your ancestors and spent it at a rate faster than you were making income to replenish the spent savings.

The Earth has saved up energy in the form of carboniferous fossil fuels and we are spending it faster than it's getting reabsorbed. We know this because CO2 levels are rising. If the Earth was absorbing as much as we were burning, CO2 levels would remain the same or be decreasing.

This is clearly unsustainable and, what's more, we can predict the effects of rising CO2 levels because we understand the absorption/emission spectrum of CO2 gas and how it reflects infrared light/heat. Google "infrared photography" and look at dry ice smoke, which is CO2 gas and see how it reflects infrared light.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 10 Oct, 2019 06:04 am
@livinglava,
livinglava wrote:
Before you talk about the reliability of data, you need to understand the fundamental chemistry.

I disagree. I think I am OK talking about the unreliability of cherry picked data regardless of my knowledge of chemistry.

Besides, my chemistry may be a bit rusty these days, but I still know a thing or two about it.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  3  
Reply Thu 10 Oct, 2019 06:12 am
Quote:
The big polluters’ masterstroke was to blame the climate crisis on you and me
George Monbiot, Wed 9 Oct 2019 for the Guardian

Let’s stop calling this the Sixth Great Extinction. Let’s start calling it what it is: the “first great extermination”. A recent essay by the environmental historian Justin McBrien argues that describing the current eradication of living systems (including human societies) as an extinction event makes this catastrophe sound like a passive accident.

While we are all participants in the first great extermination, our responsibility is not evenly shared. The impacts of most of the world’s people are minimal. Even middle-class people in the rich world, whose effects are significant, are guided by a system of thought and action that is shaped in large part by corporations.

We are guided by an ideology so familiar and pervasive that we do not even recognise it as an ideology. It is called consumerism.

The Guardian’s polluters series reports that just 20 fossil fuel companies, some owned by states, some by shareholders, have produced 35% of the carbon dioxide and methane released by human activities since 1965. This was the year in which the president of the American Petroleum Institute told his members that the carbon dioxide they produced could cause “marked changes in climate” by the year 2000. They knew what they were doing.

Even as their own scientists warned that the continued extraction of fossil fuels could cause “catastrophic” consequences, the oil companies pumped billions of dollars into thwarting government action. They funded thinktanks and paid retired scientists and fake grassroots organisations to pour doubt and scorn on climate science. They sponsored politicians, particularly in the US Congress, to block international attempts to curtail greenhouse gas emissions. They invested heavily in greenwashing their public image.

These efforts continue today, with advertisements by Shell and Exxon that create the misleading impression that they’re switching from fossil fuels to renewable energy. In reality, Shell’s annual report reveals that it invested $25bn in oil and gas last year. But it provides no figure for its much-trumpeted investments in low-carbon technologies. Nor was the company able to do so when I challenged it.

A paper published in Nature shows that we have little chance of preventing more than 1.5C of global heating unless existing fossil fuel infrastructure is retired. Instead the industry intends to accelerate production, spending nearly $5tn in the next 10 years on developing new reserves. It is committed to ecocide.

But the biggest and most successful lie it tells is this: that the first great extermination is a matter of consumer choice. In response to the Guardian’s questions, some of the oil companies argued that they are not responsible for our decisions to use their products. But we are embedded in a system of their creation – a political, economic and physical infrastructure that creates an illusion of choice while, in reality, closing it down.

We are guided by an ideology so familiar and pervasive that we do not even recognise it as an ideology. It is called consumerism. It has been crafted with the help of skilful advertisers and marketers, by corporate celebrity culture, and by a media that casts us as the recipients of goods and services rather than the creators of political reality. It is locked in by transport, town planning and energy systems that make good choices all but impossible. It spreads like a stain through political systems, which have been systematically captured by lobbying and campaign finance, until political leaders cease to represent us, and work instead for the pollutocrats who fund them.

In such a system, individual choices are lost in the noise. Attempts to organise boycotts are notoriously difficult, and tend to work only when there is a narrow and immediate aim. The ideology of consumerism is highly effective at shifting blame: witness the current ranting in the billionaire press about the alleged hypocrisy of environmental activists. Everywhere I see rich westerners blaming planetary destruction on the birth rates of much poorer people, or on “the Chinese”. This individuation of responsibility, intrinsic to consumerism, blinds us to the real drivers of destruction.

The power of consumerism is that it renders us powerless. It traps us within a narrow circle of decision-making, in which we mistake insignificant choices between different varieties of destruction for effective change. It is, we must admit, a brilliant con.

It’s the system we need to change, rather than the products of the system. It is as citizens that we must act, rather than as consumers. But how? Part of the answer is provided in a short book published by one of the founders of Extinction Rebellion, Roger Hallam, called Common Sense for the 21st Century. I don’t agree with everything it says, but the rigour and sweep of its analysis will, I think, ensure that it becomes a classic of political theory.

It begins with the premise that gradualist campaigns making small demands cannot prevent the gathering catastrophes of climate and ecological breakdown. Only mass political disruption, out of which can be built new and more responsive democratic structures, can deliver the necessary transformation.

By studying successful mobilisations, such as the Children’s March in Birmingham, Alabama in 1963 (which played a critical role in ending racial segregation in the US), the Monday Demonstrations in Leipzig in 1989 (which snowballed until they helped bring down the East German regime), and the Jana Andolan movement in Nepal in 2006 (which brought down the absolute power of the monarchy and helped end the armed insurgency), Hallam has developed a formula for effective “dilemma actions”. A dilemma action is one that puts the authorities in an awkward position. Either the police allow civil disobedience to continue, thereby encouraging more people to join, or they attack the protesters, creating a powerful “symbolism of fearless sacrifice”, thereby encouraging more people to join. If you get it right, the authorities can’t win.

Among the crucial common elements, he found, are assembling thousands of people in the centre of the capital city, maintaining a strictly nonviolent discipline, focusing on the government and continuing for days or weeks at a time. Radical change, his research reveals, “is primarily a numbers game. Ten thousand people breaking the law has historically had more impact than small-scale, high-risk activism.” The key challenge is to organise actions that encourage as many people as possible to join. This means they should be openly planned, inclusive, entertaining, peaceful and actively respectful. You can join such an action today, convened by Extinction Rebellion in central London.

Hallam’s research suggests that this approach offers at least a possibility of breaking the infrastructure of lies the fossil fuel companies have created, and developing a politics matched to the scale of the challenges we face. It is difficult and uncertain of success. But, he points out, the chances that politics as usual will meet our massive predicament with effective action are zero. Mass dilemma actions could be our last, best chance of preventing the great extermination.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/09/polluters-climate-crisis-fossil-fuel
Olivier5
 
  3  
Reply Thu 10 Oct, 2019 06:17 am
@Olivier5,
Hallam's thesis, mentioned in this article, is available here:

COMMON SENSE FOR THE 21st CENTURY
ONLY NONVIOLENT REBELLION CAN NOW STOP CLIMATE BREAKDOWN AND SOCIAL COLLAPSE
by Roger Hallam
https://www.rogerhallam.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Common-Sense-for-the-21st-Century_by-Roger-Hallam-Download-version.pdf

I'm not sure that blocking London or Paris would have any effect, but I guess it's worth trying...
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  4  
Reply Thu 10 Oct, 2019 06:29 am
From the Guardian again:

Quote:
Half a century of dither and denial – a climate crisis timeline
Fossil fuel companies have been aware of their impact on the planet since at least the 1950s
Jonathan Watts, Garry Blight and Pablo Gutiérrez, Wed 9 Oct 2019

For more than 50 years, the petroleum industry and politicians have been warned about the climate risks of burning fossil fuels. Yet the top 20 fossil fuel firms have continued to expand and have been behind a third of all carbon emissions since 1965. This timeline shows who knew what and when, and how they communicated or obscured the threat to the public.

1959 - The physicist Edward Teller tells the American Petroleum Institute (API) a 10% increase in CO2 will be sufficient to melt the icecap and submerge New York. “I think that this chemical contamination is more serious than most people tend to believe.”

1965 - Lyndon Johnson’s President’s Science Advisory Committee states that “pollutants have altered on a global scale the carbon dioxide content of the air”, with effects that “could be deleterious from the point of view of human beings”. Summarising the findings, the head of the API warned the industry: “Time is running out.”

1970 - Shell and BP begin funding scientific research in Britain this decade to examine climate impacts from greenhouse gases.

1977 - A recently filed lawsuit claims Exxon scientists told management in 1977 there was an “overwhelming” consensus that fossil fuels were responsible for atmospheric carbon dioxide increases.

1981 - An internal Exxon memo warns “it is distinctly possible” that CO2 emissions from the company’s 50-year plan “will later produce effects which will indeed be catastrophic (at least for a substantial fraction of the Earth’s population)”.

1988 - The Nasa scientist James Hansen testifies to the US Senate that “the greenhouse effect has been detected, and it is changing our climate now”. In the US presidential campaign, George Bush Sr says: “Those who think we are powerless to do anything about the greenhouse effect forget about the White House effect … As president, I intend to do something about it.”

1988 - A confidential report prepared for Shell’s environmental conservation committee finds CO2 could raise temperatures by 1C to 2C over the next 40 years with changes that may be “the greatest in recorded history”. It urges rapid action by the energy industry. “By the time the global warming becomes detectable it could be too late to take effective countermeasures to reduce the effects or even stabilise the situation,” it states.

1989 - US industry groups establish the Global Climate Coalition (GCC), a lobbying group that challenges the science on global warming and delays action to reduce emissions. Exxon, Shell and BP join between 1993-94.

1990 - Exxon funds two researchers, Dr Fred Seitz and Dr Fred Singer, who dispute the mainstream consensus on climate science. Seitz and Singer were previously paid by the tobacco industry and questioned the hazards of smoking. Singer, who has denied being on the payroll of the tobacco or energy industry, has said his financial relationships do not influence his research.

1991 - Shell’s public information film Climate of Concern acknowledges there is a “possibility of change faster than at any time since the end of the ice age, change too fast, perhaps, for life to adapt without severe dislocation”.

1992 - At the Rio Earth summit, countries sign up to the world’s first international agreement to stabilise greenhouse gases and prevent dangerous manmade interference with the climate system. This establishes the UN framework convention on climate change. Bush Sr says: “The US fully intends to be the pre-eminent world leader in protecting the global environment.”

1997 - Two month’s before the Kyoto climate conference, Mobil (later merged with Exxon) takes out an ad in The New York Times titled Reset the Alarm, which says: “Let’s face it: the science of climate change is too uncertain to mandate a plan of action that could plunge economies into turmoil.”

1998 - The US refuses to ratify the Kyoto protocol after intense opposition from oil companies and the GCC.

2009 - The US senator Jim Inhofe, whose main donors are in the oil and gas industry, leads the “Climategate” misinformation attack on scientists on the opening day of the crucial UN climate conference in Copenhagen, which ends in disarray.

2013 - A study by Richard Heede, published in the journal Climatic Change, reveals 90 companies are responsible for producing two-thirds of the carbon that has entered the atmosphere since the start of the industrial age in the mid-18th century.

2016 - The API removes a claim on its website that the human contribution to climate change is “uncertain”, after an outcry.

2017 - Exxon, Chevron and BP each donate at least $500,000 for the inauguration of Donald Trump as president.

2019 - Mohammed Barkindo, secretary general of Opec, which represents Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Algeria, Iran and several other oil states, says climate campaigners are the biggest threat to the industry and claims they are misleading the public with unscientific warnings about global warming.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2019/oct/09/half-century-dither-denial-climate-crisis-timeline
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Oct, 2019 11:11 am
If you buy into the Climate Change Doom Prophecies you can't (reasonably) give China a free pass.

Yeah, I get the idea that all your caterwauling won't change China's policies, but it's not going to change America's either, and even if it did, it wouldn't be enough, however since you are all such sterling eco-warriors who care so much and bleat so loudly I would expect some of that bleating to be turned towards China.

Not to mention what they are doing in Hong Kong

And yet we see the woke NBA and ESPN grovel before them and woke cities like Boston and Philadelphia raise their flag to commemorate their murderous rise to power.

Most of you are insipid fools who only want to virtue signal.

farmerman
 
  7  
Reply Thu 10 Oct, 2019 11:58 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
somebody piss on your cornflakes this morning?
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Thu 10 Oct, 2019 02:42 pm
@farmerman,
Says the guy who proudly claims to be feisty.

0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  3  
Reply Thu 10 Oct, 2019 06:02 pm
@farmerman,
I didn't notice any change from his normal attitude.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  3  
Reply Fri 11 Oct, 2019 04:21 am
Fatboy Slim ft. Greta Thunberg -- Right Here, Right Now

snood
 
  3  
Reply Fri 11 Oct, 2019 04:41 am
@Olivier5,
Man! That is some powerful stuff. Whether they hear her and change or not, she threw the gauntlet down once and for all.
Olivier5
 
  3  
Reply Fri 11 Oct, 2019 04:56 am
@snood,
Yep, that babe really means it, and she packs a solid punch.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Oct, 2019 05:05 am
@Olivier5,
Original version of Right Here Right Now by Fatboy Slim below. I'm not a big fan of the music but the video is kinda nice (about evolution).


0 Replies
 
neptuneblue
 
  2  
Reply Fri 11 Oct, 2019 08:12 am
Fired EPA scientists to release air pollution report they say agency unqualified to issue

“In the history of the agency this has never happened. The new panel is unqualified and the new panel has said they were unqualified,” said a former EPA official.

Oct. 11, 2019, 6:09 AM EDT
By Phil McCausland

Nearly one year ago, the Trump administration fired a panel of more than two dozen scientific experts who assisted the Environmental Protection Agency in its review of air quality standards for particulate matter.

Now, as the EPA prepares its report on those standards later this month, 20 of those scientists are meeting independently to release their own assessment of current air pollution levels, with a focus on the particles from fossil fuels that can make people sick.

These scientists and researchers, former members of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) on particulate matter, said the EPA has stripped the panel down to its core seven members, who are ill-equipped to set air quality standards and don’t have the time to do it.

“They fired the particulate matter review panel and they said the chartered CASAC would do the review,” Chris Zarba, who served as the staff director of the Scientific Advisory Board at the EPA until 2018, said. “In the history of the agency this has never happened. The new panel is unqualified and the new panel has said they were unqualified.”

In response, the group of former panel members reconvened at a meeting in Washington on Thursday and Friday that is open to the public — exactly one year after they were told that their expertise was no longer needed. This group of scientists, engineers and researchers have formed a nongovernmental committee called the Independent Particulate Matter Review Panel.

Gutting of USDA research agencies is a warning to all, ex-employees say
The new panel feels their work is necessary for the very reasons that particle pollution is regulated by the EPA: because extended exposure can cause premature death, nonfatal heart attacks, irregular heartbeat, aggravated asthma, decreased lung function and respiratory issues, according to the agency.

EPA said it is confident in its own panel and experts and said it “is committed to scientific integrity and transparency.”

“EPA has the utmost confidence in its career scientist and the members on its science advisory boards and panels,” an agency spokesperson said. “EPA routinely takes comments from the public and outside organizations, including those not employed or associated with EPA, and will continue to take into consideration those comments that meet our scientific standards.”

Under previous administrations, because of health risks from particle pollution and the science's complexity, the EPA has enlisted the aid of outside experts to help them come to the strongest scientific consensus on air quality standards, said John Bachmann, the former associate director for science and policy in the EPA's Air Office. That work with outside help remained consistent for almost 40 years.

Those experts were helpful because the Clean Air Act requires that the standards of particle matter be re-examined every five years with the latest scientific evidence, which is challenging, explained Bachman. Oftentimes, the five-year deadline is not met to ensure the latest science is thoroughly reviewed and related to the new standard.

"Being only seven people, CASAC doesn’t have enough people to cover the scientific issues that come up with the reviews,” said Bachman, who explained that the panels would typically be filled with experts on epidemiology, toxicology, medicine and more.

https://www.nbcnews.com/da412158-5285-4d8c-835c-d1aeea5c899e

How the EPA’s rollback of Obama-era environmental restrictions will impact climate
AUG. 29, 201905:05

The fear is that the EPA under the Trump administration is not willing or able to approach these new standards earnestly, which could lead to major health issues, but the other goal, these scientists say, is to broadcast that they believe this administration isn't taking science seriously — or even trying to block it.

"It’s pretty clear in the context of this EPA there’s a strong agenda to roll back regulations, and the science does not always lead to a conclusion that a rollback is the right thing to do," said Christopher Frey, the chair of this new panel and the former CASAC chair. "Rather than listen to the science and make an appropriate decision, science is being sidelined."

This new panel hopes to counter that by providing the scientific expertise they believe is lacking in the EPA's own consideration of these new standards.

“It’s really heartening to see the comments that are already coming in to the (questions) we wrote and how people are taking them seriously," Bachman said. "They’re providing advice like we did in the past. Not all of these folks are going to agree with each other or the EPA, but this is something the EPA should really want to continue.”

EPA criminal action against polluters hits 30-year low under Trump
While many said it is inspiring that this group of scientists came together to release this report, it also highlights a troubling development in which the federal government is not participating in scientific dialogue, Gretchen Goldman, the research director for the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Center for Science and Democracy, said.

The Union of Concerned Scientists is underwriting the meeting of scientists.

“There are other efforts like this where people outside of the government are picking up the slack,” Goldman said. “There are opportunities to do that. But it’s ultimately not our job, and we can’t expect outside actors to pick up the slack. This is important work, but it’s not a sustainable model.”

That’s not the only concern that some have in this arena.

Current and former EPA officials point out that enforcement and inspection of pollution standards have fallen under the current administration.

Nicole Cantello, an EPA attorney and president of American Federation of Government Employees Local 704, which represents hundreds of Midwest EPA employees, said that enforcement under the Trump administration has deteriorated because of a declining workforce and a recent agency reorganization.

An EPA spokesperson said enforcement numbers have fallen because they have pursued partnerships with some states, are “leveraging the efforts of the private sector by encouraging self-audits and self-disclosure” and has “focused its resources on areas important to the protection of public health and the environment.”

The Obama administration averaged more than 18,000 EPA inspections related to the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and a handful of other environmental regulations, according to the agency’s own numbers.

That inspection figure has fallen to about 10,500 over three years under the Trump administration. Enforcement of administrative compliance, penalties and civil judicial reviews fell by nearly 1,000 cases from the almost 2,850 under the Obama administration from 2009 to 2016.

“Even if you get a new administration, (the level of enforcement) is going to kill anything that administration is able to do because there’s no cases that you would have from the previous three or four years,” Cantello said.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Fri 11 Oct, 2019 08:44 am
@Olivier5,
NCSE is hosting a climate discussion nd point /counter point featuring climate scientists (Included in the panel will be Michael Mann, father of the paper that sparked the "Hockey stick" pseudo arguments posed by climate denialists. Mann is open for questions from any realm nd if the denialists feel so full of themselves, perhaps they should try to attend and let Dr Mann see how brilliant you may be.

He will be at the Interdisciplinary Science Research Tower of the University of Delaware on Oct 21 at 5PM. He will also be at several other U's in the coming months (I assume he will be t Penn State at ome tim since he nd Dick Alley are both faculty members there.


Glennn
 
  2  
Reply Fri 11 Oct, 2019 09:30 am
@farmerman,
Gee, I kind of addressed Mann's fraudulent Hockey Shtick just a page ago. You must have missed it.

Stephen McIntyre, who began their study, was a financial consultant and statistical analyst specializing in the minerals industry, and was later joined by Ross McKitrick, a professor of economics at Guelph University. Neither made any pretensions to being a climate scientist, but where they did have considerable expertise was in knowing how computers could be used to play around with statistics. They were also wearily familiar with people using hockey sticklike curves, showing an exaggerated upward rise at the end, to sell a business prospect or to ‘prove’ some tendentious point.

Intrigued by the shape of the IPCC’s now famous ‘hockey stick’ graph, in the spring of 2003 McIntyre approached Mann and his colleagues to ask for a look at their original data set. ‘After some delay’, Mann ‘arranged provision of a file which was represented as the one used’ for his paper. But it turned out not to include ‘most of the computer code used to produce their results’.

This suggested to McIntyre, who was joined later that summer by McKitrick, that no one else had previously asked to examine it, as should have been required both by peer-reviewers for the paper published in Nature and, above all, by the IPCC itself. (This account of the ‘hockey stick’ saga is based on several sources, in particular Ross McKitrick’s paper already cited , ‘What is the “hockey stick” debate about?’ (2005), and his evidence to the House of Lords Committee on Economic Affairs, ‘The Economics of Climate Change’, Vol. II, Evidence, 2005. See also David Holland, ‘Bias and concealment in the IPCC Process: the “Hockey Stick” affair and its implications’ (2007), op. cit.)

When McIntyre fed the data into his own computer, he found that it did not produce the claimed results. At the heart of the problem was what is known as ‘principal component analysis’, a technique used by computer analysts to handle a large mass of data by averaging out its components, weighting them by their relative significance.

One of the first things McIntyre had discovered was that the ‘principal component analysis’ used by Mann could not be replicated. ‘In the process of looking up all the data sources and rebuilding Mann’s data set from scratch’, he discovered ‘quite a few errors concerning location labels, use of obsolete editions, unexplained truncations of various series etc.’ (for instance, data reported to be from Boston, Mass., turned out to be from Paris, France, Central England temperature data had been truncated to leave out its coldest period, and so forth).

More here: https://naturalnews.com/2017-06-04-global-warming-hockey-stick-data-founded-fraud-computer-models-hacked-to-produce-warming-trend-from-any-data-set.html
______________________________________________________________

This is old news. You really should keep up with this ****.
____________________________________________________

79-year-old Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball is the defendant in the libel trial and told his attorneys to “trigger mandatory punitive court sanctions, including a ruling that Mann did act with criminal intent when using public funds to commit climate data fraud”.

. . . Mann’s imminent defeat is set to send shock waves worldwide within the climate science community as the outcome will be both a legal and scientific vindication of U.S. President Donald Trump’s claims that climate scare stories are a “hoax.” (snip)

Michael Mann, who chose to file what many consider to be a cynical SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) libel suit in the British Columbia Supreme Court, Vancouver six long years ago, has astonished legal experts by refusing to comply with the court direction to hand over all his disputed graph’s data. Mann’s iconic hockey stick has been relied upon by the UN’s IPCC and western governments as crucial evidence for the science of ‘man-made global warming.’

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/08/hockey-stick-broken-scientist-michael-mann-loses-in-court-forced-to-pay-court-costs-global-warming-hoax-hit-the-hardest/
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Oct, 2019 10:20 am
@farmerman,
Michael Mann is a hero - he was bullied and defamed to no end for his work, but he keeps it together.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Fri 11 Oct, 2019 10:27 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

Michael Mann is a hero - he was bullied and defamed to no end for his work, but he keeps it together.


That you consider him a hero speaks volumes.
Baldimo
 
  0  
Reply Fri 11 Oct, 2019 10:28 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Is this the same guy who refuses to release the original data-sets he used as well as deleted a good portion of it to prevent people from repeating his results? Climate Gate?
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 10/22/2019 at 05:06:13