Lion of the Blogosphere

Trump and global warming: good news

with 54 comments

Reported at the NY Times:

Beyond Mr. Trump’s remarks challenging the science of climate change, he has taken steps to translate those views into policy. The head of environmental policy on his transition team is Myron Ebell, who directs energy and environment policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, and has gained national prominence for his polarizing skepticism of climate science. Also informing Mr. Trump’s transition team is Michael McKenna, an influential Republican energy lobbyist who has urged Republican lawmakers to deny climate science.

I’m glad that President-elect Trump will do something about this hoax pseudoscience.

As Scott Adams explained, Trump, who is a master persuader, knows a hoax when he sees one.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

November 10, 2016 at 10:06 am

Posted in Politics

54 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Climate change isn’t a hoax. It’s just as real as, say, evolution, but like evolution, it’s something that’s easily misunderstood and misinterpreted by proles.

    Klambake

    November 10, 2016 at 10:12 am

    • “Climate change” is a hoax just as it’s a hoax that there are no biologically-caused behavior and IQ differences between races.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      November 10, 2016 at 10:16 am

      • Nah, it’s more like evolution. The “debate” only exists on a popular/prole level.

        Climate change happens to lend itself to liberal rhetoric…that’s just a fact of life. It doesn’t automatically mean it’s a hoax.

        Klambake

        November 10, 2016 at 10:20 am

      • Doesn’t automatically mean it’s a hoax. But nevertheless, it is a hoax.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        November 10, 2016 at 10:23 am

      • Do you have an existing post that covers why you feel this way? Rather than asking you to rehash anything…

        Klambake

        November 10, 2016 at 10:29 am

      • “The “who gets paid” question can be applied to either side of the issue.”

        Pure progressive mythology. The climate realist side gets a few pennies here and there from industry sources, usually energy companies. The climate alarmist side gets billions and billions of dollars every year, mostly in the form of tax dollars, though some from enviro groups. And this is from governments world wide. To say nothing of the difference in media coverage.

        The money ratio is easily many hundreds of times more for the alarmist side than for the sensible side. Here is one older data point: “In total, over the last 20 years, by the end of fiscal year 2009, the US government will have poured in $32 billion for climate research—and another $36 billion for development of climate-related technologies.” Seven years ago. The funding has grown every year since.

        Yet some months back The Guardian made a big stink about how “the biggest US coal company” was funding “climate denial” !! Taking a closer look what was revealed? Total “denial” contribution: $10,000.

        peterike

        November 10, 2016 at 1:50 pm

      • @Klambake: The hysterical Al Gore/elite/media level of climate change discourse isn’t any better informed than the prole level. Every time there is a natural disaster or weather anomaly, it is blamed on climate change. The IPCC predictions are actually much more modest and guarded than what activists, wonks and journalists make of them.

        The elite claims to believe in evolution, but they don’t really understand it much either und totally deny its relevance to humans. To them it ist just evolution, not God, that created humans in the distant past. It doesn’t go any further than that.

        Contrarian

        November 10, 2016 at 2:42 pm

    • I think this need clarifying.

      Climate change isn’t a hoax in the sense that, yes, the climate is changing. It’s always changing. The earth goes through very long term cycles (like ice ages) that are still not entirely understood, though there are many theories around it (solar cycles, the orbit and tilt of the planets in relation to the sun and each other, etc.).

      However, in a political context when people say “climate change” they are almost always referring to the idea of man-made climate change caused by CO2 emissions. THIS is the hoax. The entire anthropogenic CO2 hypothesis is a lot of bunk derived from nothing more than tweaked computer models (e.g. the model used to create the original alarmist “hockey stick” graph popularized by Al Gore was leaked, and it was PROVEN to be fraudulent: no matter what inputs you used, a hockey stick came out the other end!)

      There is no effective scientific proof that shows that the trace gas of CO2 (making up only 0.04% of the atmosphere) can cause profound swings in global temperature. Much of the fallacy comes from the fact that CO2 changes FOLLOW temperature changes. The earth temperature changes for some reason, and if temps go up there’s more CO2, if temps go down there is less (as the ocean’s release less when it’s cold: that’s why you put carbonated drinks in the fridge — they stay fizzy longer when cold). Many studies purporting to derive causality from CO2 changes are, in fact, improperly reversing the causality.

      Anyway, I agree with Lion — and Trump apparently — that “climate change” in this sense is a hoax, and very specifically a hoax designed to grift money. The ur-question that must always be asked about any political movement is: who gets paid?

      The great thing about Trump is that while I’m sure he couldn’t speak at all to the science of climate change, as Lion says he’s know a hoax when he sees one. The man’s instincts are simply incredible.

      peterike

      November 10, 2016 at 10:42 am

      • The “who gets paid” question can be applied to either side of the issue.

        Klambake

        November 10, 2016 at 11:53 am

      • True, and I don’t know if it’s a hoax or not, but America shouldn’t be paying for it and under Trump it won’t. I’m just a little creature and I don’t want to pay money for this.

        Yakov

        November 10, 2016 at 1:46 pm

    • I didn’t expect to see Klambake here after the election. Welcome to the alt-right, Klambake. How many other paid Hillary supporters has Lion converted?

      And sorry if I’m wrong about you previously being a paid Hillary supporter.

      Horace Pinker

      November 10, 2016 at 11:17 am

      • No paid shill here, just an independent thinker. Honestly, I’m kinda shocked that any of you even remember my name. I’ve only posted a few comments here.

        I only wish someone would pay me to do something so easy as post comments on blogs.

        Klambake

        November 10, 2016 at 11:38 am

    • The climate is always changing — no amount of taxation or windmills or solar panels will change that fact one bit. Carbon dioxide is a trace gas in the atmosphere and there’s no evidence that a miniscule increase in CO2 has any effect on climate or weather.

      Molecules-to-man evolution is atheist creation myth, never observed. Speciation has never been observed.

      Proles instinctively recognize the vacuity and absurdity of both manmade globalclimatewarmingchange and evolution even if they can’t articulate their disbelief.

      hard9bf

      November 10, 2016 at 12:28 pm

      • “Proles instinctively recognize the vacuity and absurdity of both manmade globalclimatewarmingchange and evolution even if they can’t articulate their disbelief.”

        A commenter on an HBD site doesn’t believe in evolution. Unreal.

        Two in the Bush

        November 10, 2016 at 4:45 pm

      • This is what I’m talking about…evolution is very much a scientific fact, so to speak, but because it’s complicated and requires some interpretation, people still feel comfortable denying it. I don’t pretend to know the ultimate truth re: climate change, but I get the strong impression that it is real and that it isn’t unrelated to our predilection toward junking our envinronment. I certainly wouldn’t be surprised if we soon found ourselves in a similar position where the data and “truth” is such that an intelligent, thoughtful person would have a hard time denying it, and those who do sound just as embarrassingly silly as those who now deny evolution.

        Klambake

        November 10, 2016 at 6:29 pm

      • There’s no truth to climate change. There is no truth to the liberal belief that “science has proved there is no intelligence difference between races.” There isn’t even any truth to “eating cholesterol causes heart attacks.”

        Science, supposed to be about objective search for the truth using the scientific method, has become corrupted political correctness.

        (Evolution, however, is true. In fact, HBD is a logical consequence of evolution.)

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        November 10, 2016 at 6:34 pm

      • “There’s no truth to climate change. There is no truth to the liberal belief that “science has proved there is no intelligence difference between races.”

        Ironic that a former mining engineer was the one that overturned “the Hockey Stick” by showing that climate “scientists” were not only hopeless when it came to the dark art of statistics, but had needed to cheat to “prove” their theory. So much for the great Michael Mann – exposed as a fraud.

        If you understand statistics you will accept that HBD is a fact. The most recent example is the incontrovertible analysis in Heather MacDonald’s latest book – The War on Cops..

        Is it coincidence that a firm understanding of statistics explodes (mostly) liberal myths about climate change and race?

        gda

        November 11, 2016 at 11:18 am

      • There is simply not enough data to prove anything about global warming statistically.

        But there is ample data to prove the truth of HBD many times over.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        November 11, 2016 at 11:22 am

      • It looks like I can’t reply to a third level comment, so I’m replying to the comment above it.

        There’s no truth to climate change. There is no truth to the liberal belief that “science has proved there is no intelligence difference between races.” There isn’t even any truth to “eating cholesterol causes heart attacks.”

        (Evolution, however, is true. In fact, HBD is a logical consequence of evolution.)

        From my perspective it appears that climate change is conservatives denying science because of the implications, HBD is liberals refusing to do or think about science because of the implications, nutrition is not well understood and difficult to study so results are going to be all over the place, and evolution is Christians denying science for religious reasons.

        “Science, supposed to be about objective search for the truth using the scientific method, has become corrupted political correctness.”

        I think you would find actual science and scientists to be a lot less corrupted than you think, but science reporting and public policy are of course very political. There is variation within each field of science too.

        Aric

        November 11, 2016 at 11:08 pm

  2. “has gained national prominence for his polarizing skepticism of climate science”

    Lol! Totally neutral language from the Times there! “Polarizing skepticism” indeed!

    peterike

    November 10, 2016 at 10:31 am

  3. I can’t remember where I heard this joke about Trump and climate change but it was brilliant. It went something like: “I can’t wait to have a President who, instead of attending himself or sending his VP to global climate conferences, will instead send the White House intern.”

    Andrew E.

    November 10, 2016 at 11:08 am

  4. Absolutely ridiculous not to believe in AGW. There is a lot – really a lot – of evidence that it is true and almost no evidence that it isn’t.

    Two in the Bush

    November 10, 2016 at 11:13 am

    • Actually there is a lot – really a lot – of bogus speculative computer models that predict doom-n-gloom because government grants and doe-eyed female interns genuflecting before renowned climatology professors. If said climatology profs said, hey, climate’s always changing and there’s no evidence that a miniscule increase in CO2 (a trace atmospheric gas) affects weather at all, then they’d lose their grants.

      Want to understand human motivation? See: money, power, poontang. That’s all you need to know.

      hard9bf

      November 10, 2016 at 12:33 pm

    • Well, if it’s “absolutely ridiculous not to believe” then that changes things.

      destructure

      November 10, 2016 at 12:54 pm

  5. Trump’s instincts are FANTASTIC.

    He didn’t pull off this miracle because he’s some anal-retentive mastermind who planned every move in advance. As long as he stays honest and follows his instincts, it’s all good.

    fakeemail

    November 10, 2016 at 11:18 am

  6. “hoax pseudoscience”

    Band name!

    Rock the vote, libtard style

    November 10, 2016 at 11:32 am

    • But isn’t “hoax pseudoscience” a double-negative.

      Anyway, what’s worse, hoax science or hoax hate crimes?

      E. Rekshun

      November 10, 2016 at 1:18 pm

  7. “As Scott Adams explained, Trump, who is a master persuader, knows a hoax when he sees one.”

    Look, if even Greg Cochran can’t call it on global warming there is no way in hell Donald Trump can. Stop fooling yourself.

    JayMan

    November 10, 2016 at 12:22 pm

    • Leon didn’t say Trump was a climatologist. He said Trump had great instincts for sniffing out a hoax.

      destructure

      November 10, 2016 at 7:14 pm

    • Not a big fan of Cochran but I agree with him 100% there. It’s a very complex problem but whenever I google some factual right wing anti climate change thing it almost always turns out to be a willful distortion, including things as bad as cutting quotes off when the next clause contradicts what appears before it.

      Magnavox

      November 10, 2016 at 8:34 pm

    • Greg Cochran is an expert on climate change too? Who knew.

      “I know that almost every right-wing thing said about it that I have checked out turned out to be false”

      Perhaps Greg needs to go to the original source of wisdom – Steve McIntyre of Climateaudit was the (liberal Canadian) who first pointed out that the emperor wore no clothes. No right wing denier here. Indeed, he is what might be considered a luke-warmer.

      And he’s not so hard to find, so I must give Greg a failing grade here.

      The left has promoted catastrophic climate change. Based on the evidence to date (models are not evidence) that most assuredly is a hoax.

      gda

      November 11, 2016 at 11:34 am

      • You think maybe Cochran looked into his stuff and found he was full of shit?

        Not being able to say whether climate change is real or not doesn’t mean not being able to call whether certain things said about it are obviously bullshit.

        JayMan

        November 11, 2016 at 11:50 am

      • “You think maybe Cochran looked into his stuff and found he was full of shit?” – Jayman

        No, because if he had done that, and then thought that, it would prove conclusively that HE was full of shit.

        And I tend to think that’s not true. Don’t you?

        gda

        November 11, 2016 at 1:49 pm

  8. In order to understand why the AGW scare is a hoax, it helps to have been around during the ’60s-early ’70s, I.e. the hippie era. The key attitude or pose of the hippie movement, and also a major plank of the Port Huron Statement which kicked off the whole counterculture movement, was that work/jobs as then constituted were stifling to the soul. What was needed was a new sort of work, in which one could do well while also feeling good about oneself. That obviously wasn’t true about working at, say, IBM or Xerox, or in a textile factory like Norma Rae. So, what if a whole bunch of us feely types decided to recognize each other as experts on a new crisis whose solution would come about through government funding? Aye, that’s the ticket. Al Gore, who felt guilty about being a rich kid, was the perfect guy to head up the scam, becoming a hero to every alienated ’70s nerd who wanted to be important but couldn’t learn enough chemistry to get into med school.

    Cole Haight

    November 10, 2016 at 12:35 pm

    • Finnegan’s Wake is the lamest bar in town

      driveallnight

      November 10, 2016 at 6:20 pm

  9. Climate change is an area ive no expertise in. I suppose statistically you could say something ifthe data is there in terms of causality. But climate science is a complex model.

    Is there anyone with a credible science related background?

    It seems ocenaographers, geologists, meteorologists, physicists, ecologist associations have come to endorse climate change based in evidence in their disciplines. Not to mention the rest of the human race, including high iq israel.

    Beyond deduction then, we shouldnt say anything unless we have credible scientific opinion which it seems the republican party does not. But im open to reading more on this topic as it seems many scientists deny hbd, which obviously is true.

    The Philosopher

    November 10, 2016 at 12:55 pm

  10. Funny, I haven’t heard anything about all the (hoax) sexual harassment claims against President-Elect Trump from two weeks ago.

    E. Rekshun

    November 10, 2016 at 1:22 pm

  11. One of the very few positions I agree with republicans is stopping this climate change nonsense. Liberals and left wing crazies have hijacked our democratic party and have caused us to lose a lot of support among midle America.

    I personally believe climate change is real. BUT I also am not willing to make those insane choices put forth by left wingers. It’s not worth it.

    Another position I disagree with liberals is this anti-fracking nonsense. It should be a local decision. If we Californians don’t want it, pass a proposition against it. But I don’t want to prevent people from the Dakotas or Louisiana if it helps their employment situation. We can’t survive without energy independence.

    Wt

    November 10, 2016 at 4:29 pm

    • Assuming there is a material human contribution, there seem to be less costly/disruptive ways of countering it according to Superfreakanomics.

      Julian

      November 10, 2016 at 6:02 pm

  12. this is trump at his worst, and his worst policy; but it kinda might not matter because whatever environmental damage trump can do with his climate change policy, will possibly be counteracted by his anti-immigration policies (and then some).

    james n.s.w

    November 10, 2016 at 4:56 pm

  13. “Climate change” is a hoax that serves at least three functions in the leftist agenda:

    1. Increased regulations and taxes (CAFE and a carbon tax, for openers)
    2. Allow the government to channel subsidies to the politically connected (try Tesla)
    3. Virtue signalling and moral preening.

    The flagrant hypocrisy (burning up thousands of gallons of jet fuel to fly to a climate conference in Bali, or Al Gore’s private jet and heated swimming pool, or Jill Stein’s holdings of energy stocks, etc.), is, of course, ignored by the corrupt MSM. Come on, these are the good guys!

    Black Death

    November 10, 2016 at 5:35 pm

    • The “virtue signaling” is entirely from the right, who are perfectly willing to deny the evidence in front of their faces in order to show that they aren’t some kind of liberal pussies. Denying global warming is exactly comparable to the left denying that race exists, and is just a tribal badge rather than a considered position.

      Peter Akuleyev

      November 11, 2016 at 9:14 am

      • Exactly right.

        Two in the Bush

        November 11, 2016 at 10:51 am

      • Actually, no.

        Statistics, and fully understanding statistics is the key, just as with HBD. Climate scientists never understood statistics, and they never had qualified statisticians examine their findings. Thus a statistical expert (a mere mining engineer) embarrassed the great Michael Mann, and exploded his “Hockey Stick” graph.

        Only the uninformed deny global warming. But the activist left are pushing Catastrophic Global Warming (CGW), and there they have over-reached. Their models have failed them and they ignore the actual observations.

        Statistics, properly interpreted, are the friend of both HBD and those who doubt CGW.

        gda

        November 11, 2016 at 11:48 am

  14. When we last left NY AG Eric Schneiderman, he was calling ExxonMobil on the carpet for “fraud” by not toeing the line of environmental orthodoxy on climate change, and looking for some criminal charges to bring against the company.

    Unfortunately for him, he too got a subpoena from the House Science and Technology Committee, which is looking into legislation protecting the 1st Amendment rights of corporations in this regard. Schneiderman told the committee where they could go, so now that GOP control of the House has been maintained, it will be quite interesting to see how this shakes out

    sestamibi

    November 10, 2016 at 9:30 pm

  15. The physics of global warming are pretty simple. The earth is warmed by light from the Sun. About 30% of that energy is reflected back into space. The rest is absorbed by the air, oceans and land warming them. They then emit infrared energy back into space. The warmer the earth is, the more infrared energy is emitted. Over the long term the Earth heats up to the temperature that it emits the same about of energy in infrared as it gets from the sun.

    So called green house gasses, such as water vapor and CO2, trap infrared energy in the atmosphere, reducing the infrared energy radiated back in space. This means that to reach energy balance, the earth must get warmer to emit the same amount of energy it receives from the Sun.

    It is estimated that in 1800 the Earth was around 60 F warmer than it would have been without the green house gasses. In 1800 probably 2/3 of that was caused by water vapor and only 20% was caused by CO2. In 1800 CO2 was at 280 ppm. By 1959 it was 316 ppm. Today it is around 400 ppm. If nothing is changed by 2050 it will be 500 ppm.

    The time scales for the Earth to adjust to the higher greenhouse gas levels is long. It does not happen immediately. Even if we stabilize CO2 levels, the earth will continue to warm for some time.

    Of course there are effects that could balance the increased CO2 level. If increased CO2 also increased cloud cover, more energy would be reflected. If increased CO2 reduced the water vapor (the opposite of increases cloud cover) in the atmosphere then that might balance the effect of the CO2. Of course, these feedback mechanisms could also amplify the effect. Many scientist fear that they will.

    The evidence from land and ocean temperatures is that the Earth is warming. The evidence from polar ice caps and glaciers is that the Earth is warming. It certainly looks like temperatures are rising, but global warming is a long term process. You have to look at the data over 10, 20, 50 years and not look at year to year fluctuations.

    The physics of global warming is simple. Serious people might argue there is some effect that will balance the effect of CO2, but so far there is no evidence to support that. The uncertainties are largely in how quickly the effects of increases CO2 levels will be felt.

    Global warming is not a hoax. The hoax is simply denying it exists because you don’t want to do anything about it.

    mikeca

    November 11, 2016 at 1:36 am

    • If it was “simple” then the answer is that more CO2 only adds a de minimus amount of temperature and cannot account for the warming. Additional CO2 doesn’t absorb enough additional infrared radiation to make a difference.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      November 11, 2016 at 7:29 am

      • I’ve only recently started looking at this issue but it sounds like what you are suggesting is answered here. http://www.skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm There are basic, intermediate, and advanced tabs at the top that I almost missed. Basically additional CO2 does not absorb more radiation at the surface but it does at higher altitudes.

        Aric

        November 11, 2016 at 11:01 am

      • The higher altitude things reeks of BS that the global warmists invented. Why have real physicists not discovered this independent of climate “scientists”?

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        November 11, 2016 at 11:17 am

      • The earth’s atmosphere has a very weak greenhouse effect because the concentration of CO2 and other green house gasses is low. Increasing CO2 from 280 ppm to 400 ppm will significantly increase the green house effect from CO2, but CO2 is a small part of the earth’s weak green house effect.

        Venus is closer to the Sun, gets more energy from the sun, but reflects 70% instead of 30% like the earth (this is why Venus is so bright in the sky). Venus actually gets less energy from the sun to its surface than the earth does. The upper atmosphere of Venus is colder than the upper atmosphere of the Earth, but the surface temperature is 800+ F. Why? Because the atmosphere is 95% CO2. Venus has a very strong greenhouse effect.

        No one is suggesting that going to 500 ppm CO2 will turn the Earth into Venus. Only that it will makes Earth’s weak greenhouse effect a little less weak. People who have crunched the numbers say this size increase will increase the earth’s temperature by a few degrees C.

        Have you crunched the numbers?

        mikeca

        November 11, 2016 at 12:07 pm

      • “Increasing CO2 from 280 ppm to 400 ppm will significantly increase the green house effect from CO2”

        No it won’t, because for the spectra of infrared radiation that CO2 absorbs that isn’t also absorbed by water vapor, the existing CO2 is already absorbing nearly 100% of that.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        November 11, 2016 at 12:13 pm

      • “No it won’t, because for the spectra of infrared radiation that CO2 absorbs that isn’t also absorbed by water vapor, the existing CO2 is already absorbing nearly 100% of that.”

        This is one of those arguments that global warming deniers made up to fool the masses.

        Of course almost 100% of the infrared is already absorbed in the atmosphere. When it is absorbed it heats the molecules and they then re-radiated it with 50% going upward and 50% going back down towards the Earth. It is only the infrared radiated by the highest layers of the atmosphere that escapes into space.

        Increasing the CO2 content of the atmosphere increases the number of times the infrared energy is absorbed and re-radiated before some of it escapes into space. Each time it is absorbed, 50% of the energy is radiated back towards the earth. That is the way the greenhouse effect traps energy and heats the atmosphere. That is why increasing the CO2 content will cause heating of the atmosphere to heat.

        mikeca

        November 11, 2016 at 1:30 pm

      • “The higher altitude things reeks of BS that the global warmists invented. Why have real physicists not discovered this independent of climate “scientists”?”

        I have an MS in physics unrelated to climate science, though I haven’t used my degree much since graduating. My default response is to trust scientists but I do recognize they can be wrong. Like I said I never investigated this issue much before but I’ve decided it’s time for me to take a look for myself. After ~1 day it looks like all the physics is pretty basic. Not high school physics but certainly bachelors. Some of the results are not immediately intuitive and the interactions of the many components of the system is where the complexity comes in, hence the need for computer models.

        The idea that radiation is emitted, absorbed, and re-emitted in a random direction is absolutely true and is very basic (modern) physics. See for example how light escapes from the sun. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#Photons_and_neutrinos “High-energy gamma-ray photons initially released with fusion reactions in the core are almost immediately absorbed by the solar plasma of the radiative zone, usually after traveling only a few millimeters. Re-emission happens in a random direction and usually at a slightly lower energy. With this sequence of emissions and absorptions, it takes a long time for radiation to reach the Sun’s surface. Estimates of the photon travel time range between 10,000 and 170,000 years.” Sounds like the same process as heat escaping from earth.

        The article I linked earlier started with a quote that said “It’s like putting insulation in your attic. They give a recommended amount and after that you can stack the insulation up to the roof and it’s going to have no impact.” Even this isn’t quite right. Adding more insulation to the roof would not have (much of) an impact because the heat would escape in other ways. If you added insulation everywhere around your house it would increase the temperature (as long as you didn’t decrease the amount of heat going into the house by the same amount). But this is mostly dealing with heat conduction which is different from radiation so the analogy may not apply. I need to look more deeply into absorption and emission in the upper atmosphere. More CO2 certainly seems to keep Venus warmer though (could be due to something else I guess).

        Aric

        November 11, 2016 at 10:30 pm

    • “The terrible situation was debated in 1898 at the world’s first international urban planning conference in New York, but no solution could be found. It seemed urban civilisation was doomed.” – Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894

      Maybe the folk who don’t see the need to do anything about Catastrophic Global Warming (CGW) are on to something.
      http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolution-1.html

      “Global warming is not a hoax”

      Just which “global warming” do you speak of? I agree with the global warming that interprets statistics correctly and which relies on observation above models. My global warming is not the chicken little one I see out there.

      gda

      November 11, 2016 at 12:05 pm


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: