Global Cooling or Global Warming?

Castle-Yankee54

Celestial
The tabloids do love to use Easter as a false bellwether for unseasonal temperatures. The date of Easter is variable; this year it is exceptionally late. We have had a later Easter in only six years in the last seventy.

Our Easter in 2014 had high temps for us....but then it was on april 20.....so same thing.
 
Our Easter in 2014 had high temps for us....but then it was on april 20.....so same thing.
When energy is added into a quasistable system, delta (the rate of change) increases more rapidly than any average scalar value such as temperature: events such as freak blizzards and freak heat waves, record highs and record lows, record rainfalls and record draughts...it's the systemic instability that poses the greatest near-term risks.

If we continue to ignore all of these warning signs, then by the time the energy increase is significant enough to begin flooding our coastal cities, it's game over, and human stupidity will have irreversibly triumphed over human intelligence: the end of global civilization as we know it will be inescapable.

It probably already is.
 

CasualBystander

Celestial
When energy is added into a quasistable system, delta (the rate of change) increases more rapidly than any average scalar value such as temperature: events such as freak blizzards and freak heat waves, record highs and record lows, record rainfalls and record draughts...it's the systemic instability that poses the greatest near-term risks.

If we continue to ignore all of these warning signs, then by the time the energy increase is significant enough to begin flooding our coastal cities, it's game over, and human stupidity will have irreversibly triumphed over human intelligence: the end of global civilization as we know it will be inescapable.

It probably already is.

We are going to have to agree to disagree on this.

The accelerating meme doesn't bear out.

There is some CO2 warming - but it is a curiosity not a problem.

There are people who claim CO2 has no effect - that is simply wrong. Applying queuing analysis to shortening the mean absorption distance informs us that more CO2 will cause more energy to be "queued" in the atmosphere, but doesn't tell us how much.

The only attempt to measure CO2 forcing (actually all greenhouse forcing) was a UCB 11 year study released in 2015. 0.2 W/m2 = 22 PPM (270 to 292 PPM).

You can plug that into F = X ln (C/C0) to determine the forcing for CO2 doubling and it isn't much.

Further the runaway warming theory requires a 3-4 times water vapor multiplier. Atmospheric studies show that isn't happening. Further, tropospheric studies show the effect decreases by 50% above 100 meters, this throttling decouples the surface layer and makes it primarily a surface layer effect.

About 20% of the warming since 1900 is greenhouse related.

Also the 60% increase in CO2 emissions since 2000 hasn't produced a 60% increase in the rate CO2 is added to the atmosphere.

The flooding arguments are just daft. The LIA (Little Ice Age) dropped the sea level 30 cm, so the sex level has to rise 6 inches to be back to "normal".

4000 years ago the sea level was about 6 meters higher (there are docks in the Middle East a dozen miles inland). Will have to find the link for this - it might just be 6 feet. But whatever, it was significantly higher.

Finding non-petrified stumps under retreating glaciers indicates many of them are a recent development.

Further, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets gain mass during the interglacial because precipitation increases.

Greenland has had zero loss for about three years (it is within the error bounds).

Further "greenhouse gases" act like insulation, the sun acts as a heater. The effects are similar but not identical.

Is the sea level going to rise a little??? Sure, it is lower than normal.

Is CO2 emissions going to increase that an inch or two??? Probably.

Is it a problem worth throwing trillions of dollars at??? No.
 
Last edited:

CasualBystander

Celestial
Should add that Arctic winter temperatures have been about as cold as they have been this century.

Ocean and Ice Services | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut

The lack of sea ice extent is probably balanced by an increase in volume. Can't have a cold winter without the sea ice thickening. This means the Greenland glacier will be cold.

Surface Conditions: Polar Portal

Further, the Greenland precipitation has been picking up and it looks like it might be another above average (no ice loss) year.

It was too cold during the winter for a lot of precipitation.

Hansen was predicting (in 2013) 1000 GT to 2000 GT of annual loss. Zero is like a gazillion times less than that.
 

AD1184

Celestial
The tabloids do love to use Easter as a false bellwether for unseasonal temperatures. The date of Easter is variable; this year it is exceptionally late. We have had a later Easter in only six years in the last seventy.
Also, I was watching the weather last week. There was a stationary high pressure system over Scandanavia that was bringing warm air to Britain from the south. The previous week the same high pressure system had been over the North Sea and had been bringing cold air from the north east, so it was actually unseasonably cold at that time. When you have a favourably-positioned weather system, and an exceptionally late Easter, you have a perfect recipe for the hottest Easter in seventy years, with or without global warming.
 

CasualBystander

Celestial
Also, I was watching the weather last week. There was a stationary high pressure system over Scandanavia that was bringing warm air to Britain from the south. The previous week the same high pressure system had been over the North Sea and had been bringing cold air from the north east, so it was actually unseasonably cold at that time. When you have a favourably-positioned weather system, and an exceptionally late Easter, you have a perfect recipe for the hottest Easter in seventy years, with or without global warming.

People confuse weather with climate.

The high temperature records for much of the US date to the 1930s.

Oklahoma Climatological Survey

In 90 years all those records should have been erased.

They haven't.
 
I'll probably never understand the psychopathology behind climate crisis denial, but when you look at the actual empirical data (instead of clinging to frivolous and facile arguments which mean nothing in the real world) you find incontrovertible proof like this which shows exactly what's going on: global sea levels are rising at a dramatic and accelerating rate because the oceans are warming and the polar ice caps are melting, creating this precipitous rise of the oceans:

ScreenHunter_1201 May. 18 13.28.jpg
Source: Any oceanographic database. But I found this useful interactive chart here:
Current & Historical Sea Levels Graph

Obviously any arguments proclaiming that the global warming we're experiencing right now is some kind of "natural cycle" completely collapse when you see the sharp rise in ocean levels since the industrial era kicked into full gear in the late 19th century. And notice the nearly vertical trend in recent years: it's getting much worse, very quickly.

Some people won't be convinced of the magnitude of this crisis until all of the coastal cities around the globe are underwater. At this rate, some of us may live to see that. I do not envy them - by then the struggle for survival will make The Road Warrior look like an afterschool special.
 
Sadly, there are those that don’t want to believe we can destroy ourselves. They won’t acknowledge it until they can no longer deny it, and even then...

Same for aliens, people that want to believe it will believe, those that don’t will find everything wrong with the ETH.

Never underestimate the power of denial.
 

AD1184

Celestial
I'll probably never understand the psychopathology behind climate crisis denial, but when you look at the actual empirical data (instead of clinging to frivolous and facile arguments which mean nothing in the real world) you find incontrovertible proof like this which shows exactly what's going on: global sea levels are rising at a dramatic and accelerating rate because the oceans are warming and the polar ice caps are melting, creating this precipitous rise of the oceans:

Source: Any oceanographic database. But I found this useful interactive chart here:
Current & Historical Sea Levels Graph

Obviously any arguments proclaiming that the global warming we're experiencing right now is some kind of "natural cycle" completely collapse when you see the sharp rise in ocean levels since the industrial era kicked into full gear in the late 19th century. And notice the nearly vertical trend in recent years: it's getting much worse, very quickly.

Some people won't be convinced of the magnitude of this crisis until all of the coastal cities around the globe are underwater. At this rate, some of us may live to see that. I do not envy them - by then the struggle for survival will make The Road Warrior look like an afterschool special.
You over-egg this graph with terms like 'real world', 'empirical' and 'incontrovertible'. To any numerate person looking at it it is clear that this graph mixes chalk and cheese. It is obvious when an instrumental record begins by the onset of noise in the signal in 1890. It is also clear from the reduction in noise when a different data set is put on the end around the 1990s.

Why did they not include the raw data for what appears before, rather than applying a smoothing filter? Could it be because the noise level is enormous and they wish to mislead about its accuracy? If we take this at face value, oceanographers are apparently better able to tell what the sea level is when they do not take direct measurements. If so, why do they then corrupt their data by deferring to more direct measurements after 1890?

What is even more odd is that there is a pronounced upward trend as soon as the instrumental record begins--an enormous departure from the supposed behaviour of the sea level immediately preceding this and a very bizarre coincidence. If we suppose that what occurs in the graph beforehand does indeed bear some relationship to the truth and is not merely guesswork dressed up as science fact, one might ask what was so special about the year 1890 (coincidentally the year the instrumental record began)?

The simplistic answer is that it is due to global warming due to man-made greenhouse gas emissions but in 1890, according to this webpage (CO₂ and other Greenhouse Gas Emissions), global CO2 emissions were only 1.31 billion tonnes whereas in 2015 they were 36.18 billion tonnes--a factor of 27 difference. If 1.31 billion tonnes was already an unsustainable and dangerous level of CO2 production initiating catastrophic sea rise, why are we all still alive now? On the other hand, if current levels of CO2 production are dangerous and lead to catastrophic sea rise, then that does not seem like it could also have been the reason in 1890, when CO2 production was very much less.

The only obvious conclusion to draw from this graph is that it is inconclusive, as there is no obvious explanation for the behaviour it depicts. There is also likely an awful lot of massaging of data and interpretation gone into its preparation.
 
Last edited:
You over-egg this graph with terms like 'real world', 'empirical' and 'incontrovertible'. To any numerate person looking at it it is clear that this graph mixes chalk and cheese. It is obvious when an instrumental record begins by the onset of noise in the signal in 1890.
A numerate person would actually bother to take a closer look at the graph, and find that the “noise” that you think you’re seeing after 1889 is simply depicting the far greater *frequency* of empirical measurements in recent times. Before 1890 we only have estimates of sea level on a one-data-point-per-decade frequency. But since 1890 we have monthly measurements, and since 1993 we have weekly measurements. So that’s not noise at all – those are the actual measurements of sea level: the data isn’t noisy, the ocean is (for example on a daily basis the sea level dramatically rises and falls with the tides on the scale of feet – if we didn’t average that out, the graph would look a whole lot “noisier” than this).

It is also clear from the reduction in noise when a different data set is put on the end around the 1990s.
From 1993 onward we have weekly data points based on a greater number of sea level instruments placed around the globe instead of the monthly data points using fewer instruments around the globe that we have from 1890-1992. This is described in the source papers, but it also makes perfect logical sense: the total global sea level will vary less than any small number of instrument readings which are obviously subject to localized variations in the sea level due to winds, local temperature and rainfall fluctuations affecting mountain drainage, and all manner of other localized factors.

Why did they not include the raw data for what appears before, rather than applying a smoothing filter?
They didn’t “smooth” anything out – that’s the data resolution we have available. They provide all of their source material references here so you can actually learn about this rather than just dreaming up facile arguments based on false assumptions:
Current & Historical Sea Levels Graph

Could it be because the noise level is enormous and they wish to mislead about its accuracy? If we take this at face value, oceanographers are apparently better able to tell what the sea level is when they do not take direct measurements. If so, why do they then corrupt their data by deferring to more direct measurements after 1890?
Again, you’ve misinterpreted the greater data point density for “noise.” Those aren’t error bars, those are empirical data points.

What is even more odd is that there is a pronounced upward trend as soon as the instrumental record begins--an enormous departure from the supposed behaviour of the sea level immediately preceding this and a very bizarre coincidence.
No actually the 1890s were pretty flat, until the turn of the century. Look closer:

ScreenHunter_1203 May. 19 15.40.jpg

And you think it’s “a very bizarre coincidence” that we started making instruments that can precisely measure things like sea level…at the dawn of the industrial age? You realize that scientific instruments are a product of industrialization right?

If we suppose that what occurs in the graph beforehand does indeed bear some relationship to the truth and is not merely guesswork dressed up as science fact
You should try reading the relevant paper about how they determined sea levels from 1890 to 3000 years ago, before suggesting that it’s “guesswork” – here it is:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4801270/pdf/pnas.201517056.pdf

The simplistic answer is that it is due to global warming due to man-made greenhouse gas emissions but in 1890, according to this webpage (CO₂ and other Greenhouse Gas Emissions), global CO2 emissions were only 1.31 billion tonnes whereas in 2015 they were 36.18 billion tonnes--a factor of 27 difference. If 1.31 billion tonnes was already an unsustainable and dangerous level of CO2 production initiating catastrophic sea rise, why are we all still alive now?
So you don’t believe in the global climate crisis…because it hasn’t killed us yet?

Here’s an overlay of global temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration over the past century – perhaps you can notice a correlation:

ScreenHunter_1204 May. 19 15.47.jpg
Source: The CO2/Temperature correlation over the 20th Century

On the other hand, if current levels of CO2 production are dangerous and lead to catastrophic sea rise, then that does not seem like it could also have been the reason in 1890, when CO2 production was very much less.
The sea level rise in 1890 was small because CO2 production was small, and today the sea level rise is happening much faster because CO2 production is much larger. How this could seem mysterious to anyone blows my mind – it’s a very simple and direct correlation which you can literally see with your own eyes.

The only obvious conclusion to draw from this graph is that it is inconclusive
You should stop using the word “obvious” because your entire argument about “noise” was entirely false, and therefore all of your conclusions based on that false premise are also false. So it would be more accurate to replace the word “obvious” with the word “wrong” and say:

“The only wrong conclusion to draw from this graph is that it is inconclusive”

as there is no obvious explanation for the behaviour it depicts.
It’s a graph of sea level rise – it doesn’t need to provide an explanation. But when you look for the explanation, it’s all over the internet (if you bother to look): rising global temperatures are being driven by a variety of radiative forcing mechanisms of which atmospheric CO2 concentration is the dominant factor:

ScreenHunter_1206 May. 19 16.00.jpg
Source: The CO2/Temperature correlation over the 20th Century

There is also likely an awful lot of massaging of data and interpretation gone into its preparation.
“Likely” eh? So it’s you who are guessing here. These scientists aren’t doing that – they’re making the best measurements possible using the evidence available, which anyone can see by simply reading their papers. If you can do better, then write your own paper so we can have an even more accurate data set (but I’ll forewarn you: every time somebody has come up with better methods for measuring factors like sea level and global temperature and CO2 concentration in the pre-industrial era, they’ve found that the new data set only reinforces our certainty about the on-going global warming and sea level rise crisis).

Regardless of any nitpicking that we may engage in here, the simple fact is that the sharp upward rise in global sea levels that we see in that chart is an empirical fact, and well above any possible error bars that we might discover through future analyses.
 

CasualBystander

Celestial
I'll probably never understand the psychopathology behind climate crisis denial, but when you look at the actual empirical data (instead of clinging to frivolous and facile arguments which mean nothing in the real world) you find incontrovertible proof like this which shows exactly what's going on: global sea levels are rising at a dramatic and accelerating rate because the oceans are warming and the polar ice caps are melting, creating this precipitous rise of the oceans:

View attachment 7066
Source: Any oceanographic database. But I found this useful interactive chart here:
Current & Historical Sea Levels Graph

Obviously any arguments proclaiming that the global warming we're experiencing right now is some kind of "natural cycle" completely collapse when you see the sharp rise in ocean levels since the industrial era kicked into full gear in the late 19th century. And notice the nearly vertical trend in recent years: it's getting much worse, very quickly.

Some people won't be convinced of the magnitude of this crisis until all of the coastal cities around the globe are underwater. At this rate, some of us may live to see that. I do not envy them - by then the struggle for survival will make The Road Warrior look like an afterschool special.

Ah, the old Proxies+observational data trick.

Proxies + observational = bullshit.

Either go all proxy or all observational. The proxy data doesn't show enough variability.

The sea level dropped 30 centimeters during the Little Ice Age.

The sea level may have been as much as 10 meters higher before 2000 BC (when the Arctic was 4.6°C warmer than today).

There are ancient sea ports located up to 15 km inland.

This doesn't mean that CO2 won't make it a little warmer or the sea level a little higher.

But the argument that all warming since 1900 is CO2 related doesn't hold up well.

The natural sea level is around 6 inches higher and there isn't much we can do to stop it.

And there are scientists dubious about the sea level claims:
http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf

Let alone "Munk's Enigma".
 
Last edited:

CasualBystander

Celestial
So you don’t believe in the global climate crisis…because it hasn’t killed us yet?

Well...

No, I don't believe in the global climate crisis.

The "global climate crisis" is based on the assumption that the coldest period of the interglacial (during an Interglacial with some of the lowest CO2 levels in history) is optimum for life and climate.

That is just nonsense.

40+ of our food comes from fossil fuel CO2. C4 plants are a historic aberration that shouldn't exist. They are an "in your face" proof the CO2 level is too low. As soon as the CO2 level hits 700 PPM they go extinct since they aren't competitive.

The "violent storms", acidic ocean, etc. are just fantasy alarmism.

Acidification: The 38,000 GT of carbon already in the ocean (and the 100x annual change acidity at any point in the ocean relative to claimed change from "acidification") render ocean acidification a moot point.

Storms: The claimed weather changes are within the error ranges and the US recently (2017) ended an all time record period with no major hurricanes hitting the US (12 years - which beat the previous record by over 50%). Further, the strong reporting bias with modern satellite observations means any comparison becomes an opinion.

Sea level: the massive glacial buildup during the Little Ice Age has to melt (and the ocean warm) if temperatures stay near the Interglacial average. The MWP (Medieval Warming Period) had a 5-6 inch higher sea level. So the sea level has to rise 5-6 inches.

There is some evidence of a CO2 effect. But AIRS shows there is almost no effect at the equator, it is mostly a polar effect, and has little effect on daily high temperatures and just raises daily low temperatures.

The problems at the equator are due to massive deforestation (which is now primarily driven by biofuel). It really screws up the hydrological cycle and weather patterns making the equatorial region drier and windier. Fortunately the CO2 fertilization effect is mitigating some of this by allowing a blooming of arid regions and vastly increasing plant growth.

There isn't a "crisis" (unless you consider massive deforestation a crisis) and reducing fossil fuel use is making deforestation (the real problem) worse.
 

CasualBystander

Celestial
Well...

DDT wasn't so bad. I used to have so much DDT in my system it killed mosquitoes that bit me.

But the real word on global warming is:

Science's Untold Scandal: The Lockstep March of Professional Societies to Promote the Climate Change Scare

The same thing is happening in the United States, where feathers were really ruffled at the American Physical Society (APS) when Dr. Hal Lewis, emeritus professor of Physics at the University of California, sent his resignation letter to the Society after being a member for 67 years. In his letter, he described the joy of working with brilliant physicists for decades, when no one expected to get rich in this field. Lewis explained how studies done within the society had effective oversight that enabled members to stake their reputations on the work of the organization. He said that has all now changed. Open dialogue has disappeared and all organization policies follow the new politics of the organization leadership rather than the membership. It is apparently focused on the money that accrues to the organization and its members by going along with popular concerns.


Lewis’ letter can be found here. A telling quote from that letter follows:

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone that has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents which lay it bare.


 

nivek

As Above So Below
So here are a few more over-the-top climate change warnings, these are basically fear-mongering ploys IMO...Not saying climate change isn't occurring, just that these claims listed below is false...

Five most over-the-top climate warnings

1) WARMING IS SO BAD, PEOPLE AVOID HAVING KIDS

Birth rates are at their lowest level in decades, and polls say that one big reason is fear of climate change.

In one Morning Consult survey done for The New York Times, 33 percent cited climate change as a factor in having fewer kids.

A recent Marketwatch article also found young people who don't save money for retirement because of climate change.

"I do not see how things could not be chaotic in 50 years,” a woman named Rodriguez told MarketWatch. “The weather systems are already off, and I don’t think it’s hyperbolic to be a little apocalyptic.”

Critics say such young people are victims of scaremongering by irresponsible media and politicians.

"Scaring our young people over climate change verges on criminal," Roy Spencer, a climate scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, who maintains a database of satellite temperature data, told Fox News.

"The climate system is warming at such a slow rate that virtually no one would feel the change in their lifetime," Spencer said.

The Earth has warmed about 1 degree Fahrenheit since satellite data collecting began in 1979. U.N. average forecasts predict a further rise of between 2 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit over the next 80 years.

2) '12 YEARS LEFT TO LIVE'

Earlier this year, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., pitched her Green New Deal by saying: "Millennials and people, you know, Gen Z... we’re like: ‘The world is gonna end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change.'"

Ocasio-Cortez has since said that she wasn't being literal – the world will still exist – but she continues to argue that there are 12 years left before catastrophic consequences become unavoidable.

On Twitter, Ocasio-Cortez has set her top tweet to read: "Climate change is here + we’ve got a deadline: 12 years left to cut emissions in half."

The claim is based on a U.N. report that says such a cut within 12 years is the only way to limit the temperature increase since pre-industrial times to 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius). But the Earth has already warmed 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit since those times — so the U.N.'s 12-year statistic is about the cuts needed to avoid a further increase of more than roughly 1 degree Fahrenheit.

That's a far cry from "the world is gonna end," critics say.

"If we maintain our abundant energy and prosperity, then we'll still be doing great when it's that much warmer," Alex Epstein, author of the book "The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels," told Fox News.

3) TORNADOES CAUSED BY CLIMATE CHANGE

Rep. Ocasio-Cortez highlighted a tornado warning in DC last week, saying on Instagram: "They are no longer being limited to the Great Plains, and are shifting to other regions of the country."

While she noted that "tornadoes are challenging to link to climate change links due to their nature," she went on to link them to climate change.

"The climate crisis is real y'all ... guess we're at casual tornadoes in growing regions of the country?" she said.

She left out that since the 1950s, strong tornadoes have become slightly less common, according to data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

"Strong to violent tornado activity has been going down for decades, so when one happens now it seems unusual," Spencer said.

An NPR article Ocasio-Cortez shared linked to an academic study that found that tornadoes have increased in an area centered around states like Aransas, Mississippi, and Tennessee. But those increases have been offset by declines in other areas, in particular in Texas.

The study reported that "it is currently unknown if this is due to rising global temperatures or natural variability."

4) MORE MAN-EATING TIGERS

The website "The Conversation," which advertises "Academic rigor, journalistic flair" reported last week that an Indian tiger which allegedly ate a human "tells us so much about the climate crisis."

The article claimed: "The reasons why big cats turn on humans are complex and can be specific to individuals. But they can no longer be explained outside the context of climate change."

The article did not cite proof showing climate change caused man-eating tigers.

It also failed to mention that Indian tiger populations increased sharply in recent years, rising from 1,411 tigers in 2008 to 2,226 in 2014, thanks to Indian conservation efforts.

5) MASS EXTINCTIONS

News outlets around the world recently covered a U.N. report on biodiversity.

The New Yorker magazine ran the headline: "Climate Change and the New Age of Extinction."

Harvard Business Review reported that "through a combination of human-caused climate change and the near complete occupation of the planet by humans, we’re destroying habitats and species at an unreal rate (similar to previous extinction events from, you know, asteroids)..."

But critics say that such a "mass extinction" doesn't show up in the hard data — that the database cited by the U.N. actually shows a decline in species extinctions throughout the last century, as conservation efforts have increased.

"Extinctions peaked in the late 1800s and the early 20th century, followed by a significant decline that continues today," geologist Gregory Wrightstone wrote on his website, "Inconvenient Facts," on which he charted the raw extinction data.

While those data show humans are getting better at conserving species, many animals still remain endangered — including certain species of elephants, rhinos, tigers, apes, giant turtles, and others.

But the U.N. report itself finds that climate change plays a relatively small role in extinctions, putting it at less than one-fifth of the cause. Far greater is the impact of human encroachment on natural territory, according to the report.

Given what some scientists see as climate alarmism, they advise the public to be skeptical.

"People can make up virtually any claim they want, connecting something in nature to human-caused climate change, and millions of people will believe it," Spencer said.

He added: "Our young people need to be taught how to think, not be told what to think."

.
 

oxsnaard

Adept
It has not ended. The United States isn't the only place in the world. The earth as a whole has been warming for years. The cold we are having in the United States is due to the fact that arctic sea ice and a warming arctic is causing displacement within the arctic vortex.

For the most part, I'm staying well away from this conversation. I simply can't stand climate change deniers and I would rather them waddle in there own stupidity. I feel like I would make to much sense for them to really grasp anything I say.
And your source for this alleged warming is from where?
Who exactly are these climate change deniers? Do you mean global warming deniers?
Where is earths thermostat located and what is the correct temperature it should be set at?
 
Top