Comments for Paths To Knowledge (dot NET)

Comment on Democratic Majority Vote Justifies Nothing by The case for the free market as the best protector of the environment « Paths To Knowledge (dot NET)

Sun, 13 May 2012 23:04:49 +0000

[...] Democratic Majority Vote Justifies Nothing [...]

Comment on Why belief in CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) is not currently justified by the standards of the scientific method by strategesis

strategesis — Sat, 12 May 2012 19:15:24 +0000

Thanks.

I’ll be posting more articles on CAGW soon.

Comment on Why belief in CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) is not currently justified by the standards of the scientific method by pdtillman

pdtillman — Sat, 12 May 2012 18:23:12 +0000

Thanks!

There’s an interesting thread at Bishop Hill, pointing out the remarkably weak arguments commonly made by climate scientists for the “reality” of CAGW:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2012/5/12/stocker-in-oxford.html

“I think it’s reasonable to assume that Prof Stocker brought along the very best evidence he had, not leaving the really good arguments back at home. So it’s all the odder that what he had to say was so weak….

“[Thomas Stocker] told us that the IPCC’s unequivocal view was that the climate had got warmer. He seemed to think that sceptics would disagree with this….”

Cheers — Pete Tillman
Consulting Geologist, Arizona and New Mexico (USA)

Comment on Why belief in CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) is not currently justified by the standards of the scientific method by strategesis

strategesis — Sat, 12 May 2012 15:36:20 +0000

It was accepted by the Economic Society of Australia for its 2011 annual conference in Canberra: http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/05/25/new-paper-econometrics-and-the-science-of-climate-change-by-tim-curtin/

Their publication index can be found here: http://www.ecosoc.org.au/cc/publications

Their latest conference proceeding appear to be for 2010.

Comment on Why belief in CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) is not currently justified by the standards of the scientific method by pdtillman

pdtillman — Sat, 12 May 2012 15:14:38 +0000

Has the paper “Econometrics and the Science of Climate Change” been published? If so, where?

Comment on Why belief in CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) is not currently justified by the standards of the scientific method by Hockey Schtick: Why belief in CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) is not currently justified by the standards of the scientific method | JunkScience.com

Thu, 10 May 2012 09:58:24 +0000

[...] A post today at the Paths to Knowledge blog notes that belief in CAGW is not justified under the scientific method because no peer-reviewed study as ever falsified the null hypothesis that global warming is substantially natural. But, the reverse is not true. A recent peer-reviewed study has shown that the null hypothesis [warming is substantially natural] has a statistically significant higher probability of being true than the CAGW hypothesis. Therefore, belief in CAGW is not currently justified by the standards of the scientific method. The IPCC attempts and fails to falsify the null hypothesis using circular reasoning, as noted by Dr. Tim Ball: Computer models are key to the IPCC circular argument. They’re programmed to the assumptions of the [CAGW] hypothesis, and therefore produce results that confirm the hypothesis. The problem is, nature hasn’t cooperated. [...]

Comment on Think by pwl

pwl — Mon, 09 Apr 2012 10:36:14 +0000

Sigh, subjectivists abound.

No, the universe exists independent of whether or not we think or exist. There are benefits to thinking but our thinking does not create the objective universe except in a limited subjective sense that we can create new opportunities if we think – but that is a far cry from thinking actually causing the existence of the objective reality of Nature.

Comment on What is “Climate Change” anyhow? by Biofreeze & Gatorade

Biofreeze & Gatorade — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 21:49:50 +0000

Biofreeze & Gatorade…

[...]What is “Climate Change” anyhow? « Paths To Knowledge (dot NET)[...]…

Comment on How Much Energy Is Required To Melt All The Ice In Greenland? by Rosco

Rosco — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 23:26:47 +0000

How can these modellers – reviewers get it so wrong?

Easy ! They can’t even get a correct interpretation out of their own model energy balance.

They say at the top of atmosphere there is a “balance” of energy such that incoming solar energy = outgoing longwave IR.

Then they present an equation like solar radiation (w/sqm) x ( 1 – albedo) x area of disk illuminated (pi x r^2)

Effective temperature ( sigma x T^4) X area of sphere ( 4 x pi x R^2).

What this really says in a nutshell is that for balance when the energy is illuminating a disk shape the whole sphere only needs to radiate a quarter of the incoming energy to achieve balance – see the 4 x factor is on the outgoing side.

Then they confuse themselves, the poor dears, by assuming the solar energy is one quarter of the solar constant.

But this is backwards – the outgoing longwave IR is numerically one quarter of the incoming solar radiation not the way they claim.

They seem to be too dumb to see their original formulation of an energy balance DEMANDS the solar radiation is 4 times the outgoing longwave IR.

Yet in every “calculation” these people make the first thing they do is reduce the solar radiation by 4 then tell us how clever they are.

I see no justification for using one quarter of the solar radiation in any calculations other than to demonstrate that because of geometry a sphere radiates one quarter of the numerical strength of the illuminating radiation – there is no way anyone who thinks about can justify the one quarter insolation theory.

And don’t tell me it is an average without explaining how the solar radiation knows how to spread all around the globe and sneak in under the cover of darkness.

Comment on You and me baby ain’t nothing but mammals so lets do it like they do on the discovery channel by Pretty Baby!

Pretty Baby! — Sat, 17 Mar 2012 07:01:31 +0000

Pretty Baby!…

[...]You and me baby ain’t nothing but mammals so lets do it like they do on the discovery channel « Paths To Knowledge (dot NET)[...]…

Comment on Inglorious Bastards redux unlike your parents Inglorious Bastards by electronic cigarettes

electronic cigarettes — Fri, 16 Mar 2012 17:46:53 +0000

electronic cigarettes…

[...]Inglorious Bastards redux unlike your parents Inglorious Bastards « Paths To Knowledge (dot NET)[...]…

Comment on How Much Energy Is Required To Melt All The Ice In Greenland? by pwl

pwl — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 08:37:05 +0000

Excellent questions that need to be answered.

Comment on How Much Energy Is Required To Melt All The Ice In Greenland? by pwl

pwl — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 08:36:28 +0000

[;)]

Comment on How Much Energy Is Required To Melt All The Ice In Greenland? by Pete of Perth

Pete of Perth — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 07:18:25 +0000

How can these modellers – reviewers get it so wrong? Surely someone amongst the we’re all going to die camp have studied chemistry / physics / etc were the latent heat of fusion of ice is taught at high school and up. Maybe the curriculum has changed since I was in highschool in the 70s.

Comment on How Much Energy Is Required To Melt All The Ice In Greenland? by Truthseeker

Truthseeker — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 03:56:21 +0000

How dare you introduce logic and mathematics into this debate.

You are a bad person … but I like you.

Comment on How could we melt enough ice for a 20ft rise in sea levels? by The Wicked Greenland Soothsayers of the West say “I’m Melting” « Paths To Knowledge (dot NET)

Mon, 12 Mar 2012 21:50:32 +0000

[...] “Nukes of course! They are the practical answer to every mega engineering problem. Wikipedia informs us that approximately 2,100,000 TJ (2.1 * 10^6 terajoules) of energy has been released by all the nukes ever tested by humans. Converting terajoules to kilojoules is done by multiplying by 10^9, that’s then ~2.1 x 10^15 kJ of energy from all nukes detonated on, above or in the Earth/Ocean.” How could we melt enough ice for a 20ft rise in sea levels. [...]

Comment on The Mean Median, A Mode of Confusion by fayetteville north carolina

fayetteville north carolina — Sat, 10 Mar 2012 03:41:38 +0000

fayetteville north carolina…

[...]The Mean Median, A Mode of Confusion « Paths To Knowledge (dot NET)[...]…

Comment on Contact between the Norse and the Aboriginal occupants of the Eastern Arctic by Heike iPad Jessika

Heike iPad Jessika — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 21:47:44 +0000

Heike iPad Jessika…

[...]Contact between the Norse and the Aboriginal occupants of the Eastern Arctic « Paths To Knowledge (dot NET)[...]…

Comment on CLIMATE CHANGE IS NATURAL: 100 REASONS WHY by plancha

plancha — Fri, 24 Feb 2012 19:34:44 +0000

plancha…

[...]CLIMATE CHANGE IS NATURAL: 100 REASONS WHY « Paths To Knowledge (dot NET)[...]…

Comment on The Climate Science Criminal Aniled Minds by pwl

pwl — Fri, 24 Feb 2012 01:25:22 +0000

Excellent points Selti1. Thanks.

What I’ve wondered about is how to conduct actual experiments to test the claims using the real atmosphere. Any ideas?

Comment on The Climate Science Criminal Aniled Minds by selti1

selti1 — Fri, 24 Feb 2012 00:58:48 +0000

German scientists have found a significant piece of evidence linking cosmic rays to climate change.

They have detected charged particle clusters in the lower atmosphere that were probably caused by the space radiation.

They say the clusters can lead to the condensed nuclei which form into dense clouds.

Clouds play a major, but as yet not fully understood, role in the dynamics of the climate, with some types acting to cool the planet and others warming it up.

The amount of cosmic rays reaching Earth is largely controlled by the Sun, and many solar scientists believe the star’s indirect influence on Earth’s global climate has been underestimated.

Some think a significant part of the global warming recorded in 20th Century may in fact have its origin in changes in solar activity – not just in the increase in fossil-fuel-produced greenhouse gases.

http://bbc.in/A8R5rn

Comment on What is “Climate Change” anyhow? by pwl

pwl — Fri, 24 Feb 2012 00:03:44 +0000

The precautionary principle which you are invoking is based upon false premises that are not supported by the actual temperature and co2 observations from Nature. Co2 does not drive Temperature in the Real Actual Atmosphere.

As for fossil fuels running out, that is also a myth. The USA alone has enough coal to last 1,000 years at the current rate of consumption. Coal can be converted to gasoline and diesel fuels, so even if we run out of crude oil we have an abundant supply of coal.

Personally I prefer Modern Advanced Recycling Nuclear as the best base load power as with this newer technology we can recycle the so called waste which is actually non-spent fuel up to ten times. This means we have about 30,000 years supply of fuel. More when considering other radioactive useful elements. Furthermore by recycling the existing fuel stores (aka waste) at existing plants we can by the process of fission reduce the time period that they are toxic from ~100,000 years down to ~300 years; now that is the wise move for global environmental stewardship as it much easier to store that stuff safely for a mere 300 years than the longer term.

Unfortunately the new so called “green” technologies have not yet become viable even with the massive subsidies they receive. Solar, Wind, Hydrothermal, Bio-Fuels will remain a tiny single digit component of the energy sector for some time to come. The technology is just not ready yet. I’ve been liking solar since the 1970′s and it’s just not there yet, maybe soon but not yet. I’d put in it a home if I’m out of a major city but the climate in British Columbia isn’t the best place for solar. Too many clouds.

Hydro is a huge win but that requires smaller projects now and a positive government energy policy (which BC doesn’t have unfortunately) so that smaller energy producers can make a viable business out of it. BC is building another massive hydro project so has blocked the smaller ones which is too bad.

It’s much more complex thank you realize.

Comment on The Climate Science Criminal Aniled Minds by selti1

selti1 — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 21:53:25 +0000

Global warming is cyclic with an overall warming trend of only 0.06 deg C per decade => http://bit.ly/Aei4Nd

The overall warming since 1850 is due to the uniform decrease in the length of solar cycle => http://bit.ly/ww4hWd

The oscillation in global mean temperature is due to ocean cycles => http://bit.ly/xsDETW and http://bit.ly/nfQr92

Man made global warming is not supported by the data.

AGW is not science. It is pseudo science.

Comment on The Climate Science Criminal Aniled Minds by selti1

selti1 — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 21:12:59 +0000

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING (AGW)

Here is the global mean temperature (GMT) data => http://bit.ly/Aei4Nd

The most important observation in the above data is that the upper GMT boundary line passes through most of the GMT peaks, the lower GMT boundary line passes through most of the GMT valleys, and these lines are parallel. Also, the line that bisects the vertical space between the two GMT boundary lines is nearly identical to the long-term global warming trend line of 0.06 deg C per decade for the data from 1880 to 2010. This result indicates, since the GMT record begun, the GMT behaved like a stable pendulum with the two GMT boundary lines that are 0.5 deg C apart as the end points of the pendulum’s swings, and the long-term global warming trend line of 0.06 deg C per decade as the pendulum’s neutral position.

From the above graph, the GMT has a single pattern that consists of a warming rate of 0.06 deg C per decade with an oscillation of 0.5 deg C every 30 years.

In the above graph, a shift in climate to an accelerated global warming would have been indicated if the upper GMT boundary had been a curve with increasing positive slope with increasing years. As this has not been the case, there is no evidence of human emission of CO2 affecting the GMT.

As a result, there is no evidence of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) so far.

Future evidence of AGW would be if the GMT lies in the red region in the following graph.

http://bit.ly/oembwR

Actually, the globe is cooling as shown in the following graph:

http://bit.ly/nz6PFx

A denier is the one who says the globe is warming when the observed data says it is cooling.

Comment on What is “Climate Change” anyhow? by Sherryn Groch

Sherryn Groch — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 05:52:20 +0000

I like that you believe in questioning things. That’s great. But in this situation it seems far wiser to err on the side of caution. From a practical point of view we know that fossil fuels are running out. So, unless we transition our economy to renewable energy very very soon, we’re going to go to war over resources. I don’t think anyone would want that.
It’s a pretty simple idea here. We exploit resources at such a rate that they now cannot replenish themselves in time. We have mass produced the very things we depend on for survival and in so doing we have over exploited them and now they are running out. We will die without them. You can’t eat money. And you can’t just plant a few more trees in the eleventh hour and hope for the best. We need to change our lifestyles now. We need to embrace a sustainable way of life.

Comment on What is “Climate Change” anyhow? by Sherryn Groch

Sherryn Groch — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 05:33:34 +0000

I’m not an expert on climate change so I can’t give you a definite answer but you’re asking all the wrong questions. Getting hung up over one degree differences in temperature is hardly the point. Andrew Bolt loves to say how our weather is only getting colder each Summer but he entirely misses the point.
Climate change is not necessarily a consistent warming of the earth’s atmosphere. When used in our modern context, it refers to a dangerous breakdown in the earth’s ecology and atmospheric conditions thanks to human activity such as over exploitation of resources, the forced extinction of species by the millions, as well as pollution, deforestation, overfishing etc. Really, what else could be expected to happen? How could anyone believe we can just take and take and take from this planet, destroy delicate ecosystems that evolution took billions of years to create, and NOT face any negative consequences?
Animal extinction alone is predicted to force our own one day soon. Did you know we are now thought to be entering a sixth mass extinction – the fifth mass extinction of the world carried off the dinosaurs by the way. This is entirely thanks to human activities such as deforestation. This is now having disastrous consequences on thousands of ecosystems across the planet.
Not only this, but the Amazon is almost entirely gone already. It is called the “lungs of the planet” for no small reason – it produces over 20% of our planet’s oxygen.
No wonder the atmosphere is experiencing such dangerous shifts in oxygen and carbon dioxide.
While, I’m sorry I don’t have the time to read all of this blog and I should, but I will ask you open your mind. You appear to be dangerously closed off by skepticism. You’re missing the point.
Preserving the planet isn’t even the priority here. It will outlast us. But what we are doing to it is actually forcing our own extinction by draining life giving resources, poisoning the very air we breathe, killing animals we depend on for a balanced ecosystem. How can you honestly think that’s nothing to worry about?

Comment on You and me baby ain’t nothing but mammals so lets do it like they do on the discovery channel by JustBeenPaid

JustBeenPaid — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 19:40:23 +0000

JustBeenPaid…

[...]You and me baby ain’t nothing but mammals so lets do it like they do on the discovery channel « Paths To Knowledge (dot NET)[...]…

Comment on You and me baby ain’t nothing but mammals so lets do it like they do on the discovery channel by iphone games

iphone games — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 22:39:15 +0000

iphone games…

[...]You and me baby ain’t nothing but mammals so lets do it like they do on the discovery channel « Paths To Knowledge (dot NET)[...]…

Comment on You and me baby ain’t nothing but mammals so lets do it like they do on the discovery channel by работа в уфе

работа в уфе — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 21:28:50 +0000

работа в уфе…

[...]You and me baby ain’t nothing but mammals so lets do it like they do on the discovery channel « Paths To Knowledge (dot NET)[...]…

Comment on Hitchens Thinking Clearly Yet Again by интим знакомства

интим знакомства — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 22:43:12 +0000

интим знакомства…

[...]Hitchens Thinking Clearly Yet Again « Paths To Knowledge (dot NET)[...]…

Comment on Science Obliterates Religion, Angels & Demons, but most of all Science Obliterates All Gods by new application

new application — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 02:03:01 +0000

new application…

[...]Science Obliterates Religion, Angels & Demons, but most of all Science Obliterates All Gods « Paths To Knowledge (dot NET)[...]…

Comment on Rational Trigonometry and a new Foundation For Math by Word Press backlinks

Word Press backlinks — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 01:15:27 +0000

Word Press backlinks…

[...]Rational Trigonometry and a new Foundation For Math « Paths To Knowledge (dot NET)[...]…

Comment on Prosecuting Those Making Wild Claims in Support of The Alleged Anthropomorphic Global Warming Climate Change Hypothesis As They Have NOT Shown Causation Conclusively In Four Decades of Trying by Acoustics

Acoustics — Sun, 29 Jan 2012 08:30:40 +0000

Acoustics…

[...]Prosecuting Those Making Wild Claims in Support of The Alleged Anthropomorphic Global Warming Climate Change Hypothesis As They Have NOT Shown Causation Conclusively In Four Decades of Trying « Paths To Knowledge (dot NET)[...]…

Comment on The Astounding Depth of Human Arrogance As Revealed In Belief Stricken Delusional Mythologies by riaan visser

riaan visser — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 00:52:37 +0000

Your reasoning and your conclusions are bland at best. If you wish to make an argument for evolution please feel free to do so. But at least hold to some scientific proven measurable evidence. Your bland reasoning is belief, belief is a religion, and your belief is a lot younger than mine. Time needs space for matter to be placed inside of. This is science, without the one the other has no function. There is no space if time cannot govern the space. There is no matter if there is no space to place it inside. Genesis 1:1 “in the beginning” TIME “God created the heavens” SPACE “and the earth. The hebrew for heaven and earth actually translates to everything. A book written thousands of years ago get a scientific principle correct, that we have only come to realize scientifically in the last 100 years or so. I prefer a religion based in truth rather than your religion based on pure theory, no measurable tangible scientific proof

Comment on Ferenc Miskolczi’s Saturated Greenhouse Effect Theory: C02 Cannot Cause Any More “Global Warming” by Hay que creer en el “efecto invernadero”? « PlazaMoyua.com

Hay que creer en el “efecto invernadero”? « PlazaMoyua.com — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 19:52:13 +0000

[...] http://pathstoknowledge.net/2010/01/13/ferenc-miskolczi%E2%80%99s-saturated-greenhouse-effect-theory… [...]

Comment on Blood and Gore – Maximize Green Profits at All Costs Including Goring Science Integrity and Extracting Blood and Taxes from the Developed and Developing World by finance Bankruptcy

finance Bankruptcy — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 03:48:58 +0000

finance Bankruptcy…

[...]Blood and Gore – Maximize Green Profits at All Costs Including Goring Science Integrity and Extracting Blood and Taxes from the Developed and Developing World « Paths To Knowledge (dot NET)[...]…

Comment on Police State Deepens in British Columbia with Anti-Cell Phone Laws by warez site

warez site — Sun, 01 Jan 2012 03:19:01 +0000

warez site…

[...]Police State Deepens in British Columbia with Anti-Cell Phone Laws « Paths To Knowledge (dot NET)[...]…

Comment on Star Trek Reborn by online alisveris

online alisveris — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 09:24:49 +0000

veryy good

Comment on Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) 2009 Report by Watch all episodes of Man Up! free on the dare wall

Watch all episodes of Man Up! free on the dare wall — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 18:44:25 +0000

Watch all episodes of Man Up! free on the dare wall…

[...]Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) 2009 Report « Paths To Knowledge (dot NET)[...]…

Comment on Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things, that takes religion. by izrada sajtova | izrada sajta | sajtova izrada |

izrada sajtova | izrada sajta | sajtova izrada | — Mon, 26 Dec 2011 12:48:44 +0000

izrada sajtova | izrada sajta | sajtova izrada |... [...]Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things, that takes religion. « Paths To Knowledge (dot NET)[...]...

Comment on Ferenc Miskolczi’s Saturated Greenhouse Effect Theory: C02 Cannot Cause Any More “Global Warming” by izrada sajtova | izrada sajta | sajtova izrada |

izrada sajtova | izrada sajta | sajtova izrada | — Mon, 26 Dec 2011 12:09:57 +0000

izrada sajtova | izrada sajta | sajtova izrada |... [...]Ferenc Miskolczi’s Saturated Greenhouse Effect Theory: C02 Cannot Cause Any More “Global Warming” « Paths To Knowledge (dot NET)[...]...

Comment on A Long Argument With The Specter Of Death by Dr. Motley

Dr. Motley — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 23:25:07 +0000

Sadly it’s highly likely that “advanced medical science” (chemo and radiation) may have killed him.

Comment on Canada Hit By NASA Satellite? NASA To Be Hit By Littering Bill From Canada? by Interesting gift card giveaway

Interesting gift card giveaway — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 23:59:53 +0000

Interesting gift card giveaway…

[...]Canada Hit By NASA Satellite? NASA To Be Hit By Littering Bill From Canada? « Paths To Knowledge (dot NET)[...]…

Comment on A Sea Level Calculator by Red Letter Days Experiences

Red Letter Days Experiences — Tue, 20 Dec 2011 08:34:08 +0000

Red Letter Days Experiences…

[...]A Sea Level Calculator « Paths To Knowledge (dot NET)[...]…

Comment on Boiling Water Contributes to Greenhouse Effect – H2O vapor is ten times worse than CO2! by fall asleep

fall asleep — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 22:01:41 +0000

fall asleep…

[...]Boiling Water Contributes to Greenhouse Effect – H2O vapor is ten times worse than CO2! « Paths To Knowledge (dot NET)[...]…

Comment on You and me baby ain’t nothing but mammals so lets do it like they do on the discovery channel by filme online,filme gratis,filme subtitrate,filme 2012,filme online gratis

filme online,filme gratis,filme subtitrate,filme 2012,filme online gratis — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 09:12:46 +0000

filme online,filme gratis,filme subtitrate,filme 2012,filme online gratis…

[...]You and me baby ain’t nothing but mammals so lets do it like they do on the discovery channel « Paths To Knowledge (dot NET)[...]…

Comment on Global Warming Conspiracy Theory Exposed by Jesse Ventura by Persian Tarot Information from <asoumeh Velayati

Persian Tarot Information from <asoumeh Velayati — Sat, 17 Dec 2011 11:23:35 +0000

Persian Tarot Information from…

[...]Global Warming Conspiracy Theory Exposed by Jesse Ventura « Paths To Knowledge (dot NET)[...]…

Comment on What happens after you die? by lawn scarifiers

lawn scarifiers — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 23:36:59 +0000

lawn scarifiers…

[...]What happens after you die? « Paths To Knowledge (dot NET)[...]…

Comment on Global Warming Conspiracy Theory Exposed by Jesse Ventura by Kevin Nulling

Kevin Nulling — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 19:36:51 +0000

Kevin Nulling…

[...]Global Warming Conspiracy Theory Exposed by Jesse Ventura « Paths To Knowledge (dot NET)[...]…

Comment on Climate Change: Statement of Dr. William Happer before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee by mebel jati jepara

mebel jati jepara — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 08:27:20 +0000

mebel jati jepara…

[...]Climate Change: Statement of Dr. William Happer before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee « Paths To Knowledge (dot NET)[...]…