HARRY_READ_ME: New bombshell document on global warming leaked!

Here's an intersting summary of the code, and in particular the efforts to hide the decline, on WUWT.
Climategate: hide the decline - codified

And it looks like it's not just CRU who have some answering to do.
Uh, oh – raw data in New Zealand tells a different story than the “official” one. (thanks to Shirakawa for the link)

Don't know how NIWA's going to explain that one, but they are apparantly going to release a statement later this afternoon to explain their dramatic massaging of the raw data to show a warming trend.

Here's a quote from the article which sums it up

We have discovered that the warming in New Zealand over the past 156 years was indeed man-made, but it had nothing to do with emissions of CO2—it was created by man-made adjustments of the temperature. It’s a disgrace.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


You don't know what oil spills do to the environment and climate change? Is this ecology 101, or High school environmentalism??? Did you really just ask me that??? REALLY???

Whew...I forgot that there are really dumb people on the earth. I thought there was such as thing as 1+1.

DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH!!! Then come back to me and ask me that question again. But I'll go ahead and give you the dumbed down layman's version. Obviously that is what is needed here. When there is not enough OXYGEN (dying phytoplankton due to OIL SPILLS. You do know that PHYTOPLANKTON provides most of the earth's oxygen...RIGHT???) to counterbalance the excessive CARBON MONOXIDE content due to EMISSIONS, then there is an inherent PROBLEM to how the earth's heating, or cooling system will respond.

So, everytime we have an OIL SPILL, it kills off ocean life that provides the very balance that is needed for the earth's NATURAL defenses to mankind's stupidity. However, I don't think that there's a balance for the ignorance of your last question. DUH...What does oil spills have to do with global warming????

JESUS WEPT.

Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry
I'm surprised your still able to breathe. Don't ask me to do your research for you because that B.S. gets old.

Wrong... YOU have to provide this "evidence" that mankind is causing Climate Change....

BTW.... WSJ IS NOT a source to provide data on "AGM"......

We have been providing DOZENS, upon DOZENS, of peer reviewed data from ALL OVER THE GLOBE that refutes your religion of AGW...

You just claim, "oh check yourself the evidence on google about the WSJ, blah, blah blah"....

Then we have the fact that this information was released, and still people like you just want to believe the liars.

BTW, making the same stupid comments that "more scientists are beliving that mankind is responsible for CLimate Change" is not only a lie, but shows that you ahve NOTHING concrete to back your claims...

Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry
................
If you cannot come to the conclusion that mankind has played a role in Global Warming, then you're simply delusional.

Wow...THAT'S IT...phew, yep that is the evidence that mankind is responsible for Climate Change.....

Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry
Oh, give up the idea of destroying someone else's credibility by equating them to conspiracy nut jobs. The only conspiracy here is your personal intention to stay ill-informed. That just shows the level of intellect that I'm working with.

Wow...yeah...another source of "reliable proof" that mankind is responsible for Climate Change....

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

NO...you're wrong, because you're not smart enough to do the research YOURSELF!!!

Just try it sometime. I know its difficult because books are large and scary, and if they don't have pop-up pictures, they even seem more threatening. But, if you want to find your way out of ignorance, a youtube video is not going to suffice.

Well, as indicated by the CRU "climategate" emails, there does seem to be a stalling of global warming trends, which are just not explainable by the current models. This obviously means that the models are not correct, and as usual, shows that man doesn't understand as much as he thinks he does... or at least certain segments of the "science" community don't.

Interesting Article

What is especially troubling is the way that certain people think that this matter is completely settled scientifically and are using that attitude as a hammer to ram through very troubling political agendas, such as world-wide governance, loss of national sovereignty, etc. Once those things happen, we will likely never return to a world of relative freedom, so we should never close the debate on this subject. Besides, the TRUE scientific method always allows for new theories to be put forth, tested, and proven true/false. The worst enemy to scientific progress is political agenda.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


And, let me post this response to you one more time, so that the repetition of it may have at least a tiny effect on the limited functioning of your brain...


You don't know what oil spills do to the environment and climate change? Is this ecology 101, or High school environmentalism??? Did you really just ask me that??? REALLY???

Whew...I forgot that there are really dumb people on the earth. I thought there was such as thing as 1+1.

DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH!!! Then come back to me and ask me that question again. But I'll go ahead and give you the dumbed down layman's version. Obviously that is what is needed here. When there is not enough OXYGEN (dying phytoplankton due to OIL SPILLS. You do know that PHYTOPLANKTON provides most of the earth's oxygen...RIGHT???) to counterbalance the excessive CARBON MONOXIDE content due to EMISSIONS, then there is an inherent PROBLEM to how the earth's heating, or cooling system will respond.

So, everytime we have an OIL SPILL, it kills off ocean life that provides the very balance that is needed for the earth's NATURAL defenses to mankind's stupidity. However, I don't think that there's a balance for the ignorance of your last question. DUH...What does oil spills have to do with global warming????

JESUS WEPT.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Oh my, look at this. This was published by the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) Oh, but I guess that you have better info than this. Imagine that, even in 1997 the world was coming up with TREATIES to get Global Warming under control.
bert.lib.indiana.edu:2119...

ooopsy...Look at this, and to think scientists and PHD's came up with this. But, I'm sure you have something soooooo much better as a contradiction. As a matter of fact, I might post the entire article...

Acceleration of global warming
due to carbon-cycle feedbacks
in a coupled climate model
Peter M. Cox*, Richard A. Betts*, Chris D. Jones*, Steven A. Spall* & Ian J. Totterdell2
* Hadley Centre, The Met Of®ce, Bracknell, Berkshire RG12 2SY, UK 2 Southampton Oceanography Centre, European Way, Southampton SO14 3ZH, UK
.............................................................................................................................................. The continued increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide due to anthropogenic emissions is predicted to lead to signi®cant changes in climate1. About half of the current emissions are being absorbed by the ocean and by land ecosystems2, but this absorption is sensitive to climate3,4 as well as to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations5, creating a feedback loop. General circulation models have generally excluded the feedback between climate and the biosphere, using static vegetation distributions and CO2 concentrations from simple carbon-cycle models that do not include climate change6. Here we present results from a fully coupled, three-dimensional carbon±climate model, indicating that carbon-cycle feedbacks could signi®cantly accelerate climate change over the twenty-®rst century. We ®nd that under a `business as usual' scenario, the terrestrial biosphere acts as an overall carbon sink until about 2050, but turns into a source thereafter. By 2100, the ocean uptake rate of 5 Gt C yr-1 is balanced by the terrestrial carbon source, and atmospheric CO2 concentrations are 250 p.p.m.v. higher in our fully coupled simulation than in uncoupled carbon models2, resulting in a global-mean warming of 5.5 K, as compared to 4 K without the carbon-cycle feedback.
The general circulation model (GCM) that we used is based on the third Hadley Centre coupled ocean ± atmosphere model, HadCM37, which we have coupled to an ocean carbon-cycle model (HadOCC) and a dynamic global vegetation model (TRIF- FID). The atmospheric physics and dynamics of our GCM are identical to those used in HadCM3, but the additional computa- tional expense of including an interactive carbon cycle made it necessary to reduce the ocean resolution to 2.5V ́ 3.75V, necessitat- ing the use of ̄ux adjustments in the ocean component to counter- act climate drift. HadOCC accounts for the atmosphere ± ocean exchange of CO2, and the transfer of CO2 to depth through both the solubility pump and the biological pump8. TRIFFID models the state of the biosphere in terms of the soil carbon, and the structure and coverage of ®ve functional types of plant within each model gridbox (broadleaf tree, needleleaf tree, C3 grass, C4 grass and shrub). Further details on HadOCC and TRIFFID are given in Methods.
The coupled climate/carbon-cycle model was brought to equi- librium with a `pre-industrial' atmospheric CO2 concentration of 290p.p.m.v., starting from an observed landcover data set9. The resulting state was stable, with negligible net land±atmosphere and
(www.nature.com...) or as paper copy from the London editorial of®ce of Nature. 184 © 2000 Macmillan Magazines Ltd NATURE | VOL 408 | 9 NOVEMBER 2000 | www.nature.com
letters to nature
ocean±atmosphere carbon ̄uxes in the long-term mean, and no discernible drift in atmospheric CO2 concentration. This simulation produces the locations of the main land biomes, and estimates of ocean carbon (38,100 Gt C), vegetation carbon (493 Gt C), soil carbon (1,180 Gt C) and terrestrial net primary productivity (60 Gt C yr-1) that are within the range of other estimates2,10±12. Ocean primary productivity is also compatible with results derived from remote sensing13,14, producing a global-mean total of 53 Gt C yr-1, and realistic seasonal and latitudinal variations15.
The simulated carbon cycle displays signi®cant interannual variability, which is driven by the model-generated El NinÄo/South- ern Oscillation (ENSO). A realistic response to internal climate variability is an important prerequisite for any carbon-cycle model to be used in climate change predictions. Fluctuations in annual- mean atmospheric CO2 are correlated with the phase of ENSO, as indicated by the Nino3 index (Fig. 1). During El NinÄo conditions (positive Nino3), the model simulates an increase in atmospheric CO2; this increase results from the terrestrial biosphere acting as a large source (especially in Amazonia16), which is only partially offset by a reduced outgassing from the tropical Paci®c Ocean. The opposite is true during the La NinÄa phase. The overall sensitivity of the modelled carbon cycle to ENSO variability is consistent with the observational record17, demonstrating that the coupled system responds realistically to climate anomalies.

reply to post by EvolvedMinistry


Hey EvolvedMinistry,
How do you define nature and mankind? Are they 2 separate entities? It seems they are because of the difference of their affect on the planet.

Didn't you guys get your fingers burned enough from the last great leak? To quote the line that summed up your brutal own-goal, "You got nothing."

Move on. Nothing to see here.

I did some research on this subject (anthropogenic global warming) for a class last year and I found mounds of good stuff on the subject. Dishearteningly, I found that any mention of global warming not being man made was mocked or at the very least considered silly by the MSM.

The main thing I discovered is that the rise of global temperatures, sea levels, and diminishing ice caps have basically been on a relatively steady pace for the past 200-250 years. Basically, this means that the temperature has been rising since the LIA (not a big surprise there). On the other side of things, this also means that the steady rise of temperatures had started before the industrial revolution; before oil, coal, and other fossil fuels had a widespread use.

Between ~1940 and ~1972 fossil fuel use increased by over 300%. During this time, however, temperatures basically stayed the same, the sea level increase stayed the same, and arctic temperatures actually decreased. Furthermore, there's a very solid correlation between solar activity and global temperatures.

Most of my info came from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. To check it out for yourselves there's a very interesting research paper here: www.oism.org...

this # it absolutely amazing. i hope the MSM decides to pick this up..tomorrow? but we all know they wont because it is so catastrophic for everyone involved. KEEP EXPOSING THIS BASTARDS

Originally posted by The Baby Seal Club
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry

 

Hey EvolvedMinistry,
How do you define nature and mankind? Are they 2 separate entities? It seems they are because of the difference of their affect on the planet.

don't bother. he's started quoting CFR documents.. he's past the point of reasoning

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


WOW Electric Universe...

I just keep coming up with this amazing information (The stuff that you said I couldn't substantiate) the effects of Global Warming. By the way, in the last article, it specifically talks about Carbon Monoxide etc...

Now, I know that this isn't a pop-up book, but, I'd like to go ahead and share...you know, since I was arguing out of my ass and all.

bert.lib.indiana.edu:2119...

Here's some more...

The Arctic and Antarctic Oscillations and their Projected Changes Under Global Warming
J.C. Fyfe, G.J. Boer and G.M. Flato
Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis, Atmospheric Environment Service, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada
Abstract. The Arctic Oscillation (AO) and the Antarctic Oscillation (AAO) are the leading modes of high-latitude variability in each hemisphere as characterized by the first EOF of mean sea-level pressure. Observations suggest a recent positive trend in the AO and it is speculated that this may be related to global warming. The CCCma cou- pled general circulation model control simulation exhibits a robust and realistic AO and AAO. Climate change simula- tions for the period 1900-2100, with forcing due to green- house gases and aerosols, exhibit positive trends in both the AO and the AAO. The model simulates essentially un- changed AO/AAO variations superimposed on a forced cli- mate change pattern. The results do not suggest that a sim- ulated trend in the AO/AAO necessarily depends on strato- spheric involvement nor that forced climate change will be expressed as a change in the occurence of one phase of the AO/AAO over another. This pattern of climate change projects exclusively on the AAO pattern in the southern hemisphere but not in the northern hemisphere where other EOFs are involved. The extent to which this forced climate change pattern and the unforced modes of variation are de- termined by the same mechanisms and feedbacks remains an open question.
1. Introduction
The leading modes of variability in the northern and southern hemispheres have been shown to have similar, roughly zonally symmetric, structures [Thompson and Wal- lace, 1998; Thompson and Wallace, Annular Modes in the Extratropical Circulation Part I: Month-to-month Variabil- ity (and references contained therein), submitted to the Journal of Climate, 1999; hereafter referred to as TWa and TWb respectively]. These modes, termed the Arctic Os- cillation (AO) and Antarctic Oscillation (AAO), emerge as the leading empirical orthogonal function (EOF) of north- ern and southern hemisphere mean sea-level pressure with associated regression patterns of temperature, zonal wind, and geopotential height from the surface to the stratosphere. Observations suggest that the AO, and the more spatially confined North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), have exhibited a positive trend since the early 1980s (TWa; Hurrell, 1995), which Shindell et al. [1999] attribute to greenhouse gas in- duced climate warming based on model simulations.
Results from the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis (CCCma) coupled climate model are examined to demonstrate its ability to simulate the AO and AAO and
Copyright 1999 by the American Geophysical Union.
Paper number 1999GL900317. 0094-8276/99/1999GL900317$05.00
to investigate their evolution in forced climate change sim- ulations. The coupled model is described in Flato et al. [The Canadian Centre for Climate Modeling and Analysis Global Coupled Model and its Climate, submitted to Cli- mate Dynamics, 1998] and the forced climate change simu- lations in Boer et al. [A transient climate change simulation with greenhouse gas and aerosol forcing: projected climate change in the 21st century, submitted to Climate Dynamics, 1998] hereafter referred to as BFR.
The atmospheric component of the coupled model is a global primitive equation spectral model with T32 triangu- lar truncation and 10 unequally-spaced vertical levels with the top level at 12 hPa (McFarlane et al., 1992). The ocean component is a global primitive equation grid-point model at with 1.875◦resolution and 29 vertical levels, based on the GFDL MOM1.1 code (Pacanowski et al., 1993). A 200-year control simulation and an ensemble of three independent cli- mate change simulations forced with changing greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations and aerosol loadings (following the forcing specification of Mitchell et al., 1995), are avail- able for the period 1900 to 2100.
2. Results
The analysis of the model results parallels the observa- tional analyses of TWa and TWb to facilitate comparison. Plate 1 displays the first three simulated EOF patterns for the northern hemisphere (north of 20◦N), wintertime (us- ing November-April monthly means), mean sea-level pres- sure (SLP) calculated from the 200-year control simulation. These first three EOFs account for 24, 11, and 9 percent of the variance respectively. The first EOF is identified as the AO, the second apparently includes variability that is partly identified with the more localized NAO, and the third is dominated by the variability of the Aleutian low. Plate 1 also displays the first three EOF patterns calculated from observations for the period 1900-1992 (updated from Trenberth and Paolino, 1980), with EOF2 and EOF3 in- terchanged to make the correspondence with the simulated patterns clearer. These first three observed EOFs account for 18, 12, and 11 percent of the variance. The observed and simulated patterns are remarkably similar and account for similar percentages of the variance, although the midlat- itude centers of action in the simulated AO are somewhat weaker than observed. All the EOFs displayed in Plate 1 are separated according to the criterion of North et al. [1982]. In the southern hemisphere the first EOF dominates the variability in the simulations (observations are not readily available) and accounts for 28 percent of the variance.
Plate 2 displays both the AO and AAO and the associ- ated regression maps of surface air temperature (SAT) and mean zonal wind ([U]) for the control simulation. The simu-
1601
1602 FYFE ET AL.: SIMULATED TRENDS IN THE ARCTIC AND ANTARCTIC OSCILLATIONS EOF1 EOF2 EOF3 SLP SAT [U]
EOF1 EOF3 EOF2
Plate 1. Leading EOF patterns of the November-April monthly mean SLP anomaly fields as calculated from the 200-year control simulation and 1900-1992 observations (scaled by the standard deviation of their associated prin- cipal component (PC) time series). Contour intervals are 1 hPa (...-1.5,-0.5,0.5...) with blue and red (or pink) contours indicating negative and positive values, respectively. Ob- servational grids points with less that 25 percent temporal coverage are excluded from the calculation.
lation results are remarkably similar to those based on obser- vations in TWb (their Plates 4 and 9) including, perhaps for- tuitously, the asymmetry in the temperature pattern across Antarctica. The coupled model produces a robust and real- istic AO and AAO.
Plate 3 displays the same results as Plate 2 for one of the GHG+aerosol forced simulations (all of which give similar results). Plate 4 gives the principal component (PC) time series (i.e. the amplitude) of the AO and AAO from the observations, the control simulation, and each of the three
SLP SAT [U]
Plate 2. The AO and AAO and associated regression patterns of November-April SAT and zonal-mean zonal wind. Contours for SLP, SAT and [U] are 1 hPa (...-1.5,- 0.5,0.5...), 0.5◦K (...-0.75,-0.25,0.25...) and 0.5 m/s (...- 0.75,-0.25,0.25...), respectively
Plate 3. As in Plate 2, but for a climate change simulation from 1900-2100 with greenhouse gas and aerosol forcing.
forced GHG+aerosol warming simulations. The forced cli- mate change simulations all show a trend to increasingly positive values (the positive phase of the AO/AAO has lower pressures over the polar regions) which is absent in the unforced control simulation. Whereas lower tropospheric anomalies appear coupled to month-to-month fluctuations of the winter stratospheric polar vortex (Baldwin et al., 1994; Perlwitz and Graf, 1995; Cheng and Dunkerton, 1995; Kitoh et al., 1996; Kodera et al., 1996; TWa, b) the connection of the AO and AAO to the stratosphere does not appear to play a controlling role in the forced change we see here since the model does not resolve the stratosphere in any detail. This is in constrast to Shindell et al. [1999], who conclude that a detailed stratosphere is required to capture an AO trend in their mo del.
The AO and AAO represent dynamical and linked ther- modynamical behaviour of the system and account for an important part of the variance. A change in the behaviour of the AO and AAO under forced climate change could take a number of forms. The AO/AAO could exhibit no change, although this is not the case for the CCCma coupled model (while it is the case for some models according to Shindell et al., 1999). The AO/AAO could express the forced cli- mate change as a change in the frequency of the modes as suggested by Palmer [1993]. This would seem to imply that the PC time series of Plate 4 would preferentially exhibit positive values but also that the (less frequent) negative val- ues would still span the same range of values. This is not the case in Plate 4 where both positive excursions increase and negative excursions decrease in tandem. The AO/AAO could exhibit important changes in structure and there is some suggestion for this in Plate 3.

The scary thing is not the shoddy tools at the service of these scientists. It's the fact that this guy openly says he will "gloss over" the info. that doesn't jive with the conclusion needed.

That forces us to assume that there is a foregone conclusion.

I wonder who told Harry what that foregone conclusion needed to be?

reply to post by EvolvedMinistry


The link you provided requires a login/password, so it's pretty useless, and the quoted text you provided is so technical it is hard to actually see what is being said. Certainly, if I wanted to, I could write very technical sounding, hard-to-understand analysis of complex software processes, but if I was writing for non-developers, I would at least annotate the information so it could easily be understood. It would be nice if you could provide something useful in this post, if indeed you want to have meaningful debate.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

Hey Electric Universe...Take a look at this. They are actually designing a Tax because of Global Warming. Isn't that amazing...they're designing a tax for a hoax!!! RIGHT???

books.google.com...=onep age&q=Global%20warming%20is%20real&f=false

Look at this Mr. Genius!!! Mr. Electric Universe... You're so much smarter than me huh??? By the way, these are all scholarly sources. Not that crap that you find just searching Google. I tried to let you off the hook, but, you're such a glutton for punishment that I finally had to shut your trap.

bert.lib.indiana.edu:2161...

Now, I could do this all day, but, I don't think your ego could handle too much more. From now on, do your own research. I'm not into charity for those who seek to remain ignorant.

reply to post by downisreallyup


Uh...did you look up the authors of the text???

And, I'm sorry that you couldn't get access to those sources. Like I said, they're scholarly sources. You have to be Alumni, or a student to attain them. Much of them are printed on PDF files, so, you can't copy and paste them.

Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry

You don't know what oil spills do to the environment and climate change? Is this ecology 101, or High school environmentalism??? Did you really just ask me that??? REALLY???

Well, that's the thing....you obviously don't understand the difference between "environmental impact" and "Global Warming".....

I do know what an oil spill can do to the E.N.V.I.R.O.N.M.E.N.T.......

But I also know that an environmental impact such as an oil spill does not cause "Global Warming".....

BTW, yes YOUR people CALLED IT GLOBAL WARMING FOR YEARS SO DON'T PLAY THE FLIP FLOPING GAME, AND CALL IT WHAT THE AGW ZOMBIES WERE CALLING IT, GLOBAL WARMING, but actually ANTHROPOGNIC (manmade) GLOBAL WARMING.....

Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry
DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH!!! Then come back to me and ask me that question again.

Actually I have, and that can be shown in the fact that I have posted more information, peer reviewed papers, and other data in the forums than you EVER have...

Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry
But I'll go ahead and give you the dumbed down layman's version. Obviously that is what is needed here. When there is not enough OXYGEN (dying phytoplankton due to OIL SPILLS. You do know that PHYTOPLANKTON provides most of the earth's oxygen...RIGHT???) to counterbalance the excessive CARBON MONOXIDE content due to EMISSIONS, then there is an inherent PROBLEM to how the earth's heating, or cooling system will respond.

Oh boy... Show us PROOF that the amount of phytoplankton that can die from an oil spill causes "Global Warming".... Just ONE PEER REVIEWED RESEARCH PAPER...not an article from the Wall street Journal .... but PEER REVIEWED RESEARCH.....

BTW, it is OBVIOUS you have no idea that the green biomass of the oceans has been INCREASING..... yes there have been some environmental problems, but this is NOT causing "Global Warming"....

Let me give you a taste of real knowledge, perhaps such knowledge can penetrate the thickness in the brains of AGW zombies, but probably not unfortunately...

First, a simple fact that you obviously seem unaware of....

Of the more than 5,000 known species of marine phytoplankton, approximately 40 species worldwide have been linked with production of toxins. These marine biotoxins can have subtle to lethal effects on various forms of marine life. Human consumers of certain seafood items (especially clams, oysters, and mussels) are also at risk. It remains difficult to avoid the harmful effects associated with blooms of these toxic species because phytoplankton ecology is not fully understood.

Wow...so there are phytoplankton species that can kill other marine species and cause dead zones, and toxic blooms?.... Obviously you dind't know that, but the main FACT I want to emphasize and shows you are nothing more than a drama queen....

Blooms, Red Tides, and Toxicity

Phytoplankton blooms in general, and toxic blooms in particular, have been increasing infrequency and distribution worldwide since the 1980s.

pubs.usgs.gov...

Wow...so doesn't that put a BIG DENT on your drama?.... PHYTOPLANKTON BLOOMS IN GENERAL HAVE BEEN INCREASING IN FREQUENCY AND DISTRIBUTION SINCE THE 1980s.......

Hummm.......

Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry
So, everytime we have an OIL SPILL, it kills off ocean life that provides the very balance that is needed for the earth's NATURAL defenses to mankind's stupidity. However, I don't think that there's a balance for the ignorance of your last question. DUH...What does oil spills have to do with global warming????

JESUS WEPT.

Thank you for keep calling me stupid, it does show your mental incapacity to provide an intelligent concise response, meanwhile not providing ANY REAL EVIDENCE OF YOUR CLAIMS...

First of all, yes oil spills does cause ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS, but they have NOTHING TO DO WITH GLOBAL WARMING....

Show me ONE PEER REVIEWED PAPER that shows that oil spills causes Global Warming.... JUST ONE, and stop being a drama queen....


[edit on 25-11-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

reply to post by Ionut


Mankind is a byproduct of nature. Mankind is part of nature, therefore, mankind is nature. At least, that is my perception.

reply to post by EvolvedMinistry


This information you provided EvolvedMinistry reminds me of that old phrase "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with $^&*^$"... if you could, please provide some kind of substantiated information from a reputable university, such as the following:

Easy to understand research