Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #685858
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics |
| Subject | Re: Global Warming is a religion |
| Date | 2018-05-17 08:27 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fm3pjmFaopaU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | (13 earlier) <pda8vk$1ioo$1@gioia.aioe.org> <flro4hFhajbU1@mid.individual.net> <pdhs79$aj8$1@gioia.aioe.org> <fm3iseF98hqU1@mid.individual.net> <pdi6eq$tcb$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
On 17/05/2018 7:05 AM, Sergio wrote: > On 5/16/2018 3:32 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >> On 17/05/2018 4:10 AM, Sergio wrote: >>> On 5/13/2018 4:13 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>> On 14/05/2018 6:59 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>> On 5/13/2018 3:39 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>> On 13/05/2018 4:06 PM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/12/2018 11:31 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>> On 13/05/2018 10:21 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 5/12/2018 2:46 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 13/05/2018 1:20 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 5/11/2018 11:52 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/05/2018 2:11 PM, James McGinn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 1:18:59 PM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2 >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 12:25:37 PM UTC-7, James McGinn >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 10:55:51 AM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 10:43:02 AM UTC-7, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pnal...@gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really, Jim, you should be peddling your Snake Oil in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forum, you have worn out your welcome in this one. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Everyone knows, without a shred of a doubt, that you are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another physics Crank with a goofy theory that has neither >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observations nor experiments to offer as evidence to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are just another waste of oxygen who is in search of an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> audience, and there is zero chance that you are a physicist >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you don't even know that basics of that branch of science. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Go away, once and for all... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P.E.Worlds biggest air polluter will tell you the earth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dirty coal.Trump is now their big gun. Get the picture Bert >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CO2 is beneficial. There is zero evidence that it warms the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> atmosphere. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Get the picture? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> CO2 acts as an insulating blanket.Heat doesnot leak back into >>>>>>>>>>>>>> space.That is reality of global warming.Bert >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you believe that? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> **You seem to think that science is a belief system. It isn't. >>>>>>>>>>>> Your >>>>>>>>>>>> beliefs are not relevant. Science involves hypothesis, theory, >>>>>>>>>>>> experiment and proof. The FACT that CO2 acts as a greenhouse >>>>>>>>>>>> gas was >>>>>>>>>>>> proven way back in the 19th century. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> same with Water Vapor, it is a greenhouse gas, and dominates the >>>>>>>>>>> others >>>>>>>>>>> as it is 50% >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> **Not quite. Water vapour is certainly the dominant GHG, most >>>>>>>>>> of the >>>>>>>>>> time and in most places. To say that it's Solar forcing factor is >>>>>>>>>> 50% is >>>>>>>>>> a gross and highly misleading over-simplification. Depending on >>>>>>>>>> location, time of day and year, water vapour's Solar forcing >>>>>>>>>> ranges >>>>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>>>> 36% ~ 72%. CO2 ranges from 9% ~ 26%. So yes, water vapour is the >>>>>>>>>> dominant GHG, BUT, to label CO2 as 'insignificant' would be a >>>>>>>>>> really >>>>>>>>>> dumb thing to say. CO2 is a significant GHG. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> so water vapor is 3 to 4 time greater than CO2. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> **Nope. Read what I wrote. It is not as simplistic as you would >>>>>>>> want it >>>>>>>> to be. Both gases vary considerably, depending on time of day and >>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>> year to year. In any case, why do you continue to try to simplify >>>>>>>> it? >>>>>>>> Just state the facts. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> its ratioed, 36%/9% =4 and 72%/26% = 3 good ballpark of 3 to 4. >>>>>> >>>>>> **This is not 'best guess' stuff. This is science. Your errors are so >>>>>> huge that any predictions of global warming, using your data would be >>>>>> utterly useless. Let's stick the actual data, not your wild >>>>>> approximations. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The data *you presented* says Water Vapor is 3 to 4 times greater than >>>>> CO2 at glowball warming. >>>> >>>> **That is NOT what I presented, you fucking liar. >>> >>> no need for course words, >> >> **"course words"? >> >> In any case, you're a fucking liar. It's a fact. >> >> >>> it is written, and google has it now forever, you posted it on >>> 5/12/2018, right after benj, this thread >>> >>> MID >>> >>> <flna9lFhfqfU1@mid.individual.net> <pd70p1$6nt$1@gioia.aioe.org> >>> >>> Quote; >>> >>> "**Not quite. Water vapour is certainly the dominant GHG, most of the >>> time and in most places. To say that it's Solar forcing factor is 50% is >>> a gross and highly misleading over-simplification. Depending on >>> location, time of day and year, water vapour's Solar forcing ranges from >>> 36% ~ 72%. CO2 ranges from 9% ~ 26%. So yes, water vapour is the >>> dominant GHG, BUT, to label CO2 as 'insignificant' would be a really >>> dumb thing to say. CO2 is a significant GHG." >>> >>> remember ? >> >> **Correct. I did NOT say: "3 to 4 times greater..." >> >> Quote me correctly, or I will continue to call you a fucking liar, >> because that is what you are. >> > > taking YOUR data I get water vapor is 3 to 4 times more than CO2, and I > stand by that. > > *Your data shows water vapor is 3 to 4 times more than CO2* > > co2 9% * 4 = 36% (water vapor) > co2 26% * 3 = 78% (water vapor) > > and that's a fact jack. > Done, over, cooked by your own data, goosie, your are roastin! > data you got from ? where ? **You seem to think that gross approximations is adequate in science. It isn't. Quote me PRECISELY, or not at all. Liar. > > > > > >>> >>> >>> >>>>> >>>>> get over it. it is simple math using your data. google " ratio " >>>>> >>>>> guess you do not know math, which means you do not know science either. >>>> >>>> **LOL! Let's read further and see how much math you know. See the end of >>>> this message for your snipped section. Idiot. >>> >>> " Ever ski on the slopes of tensor calculus ? " -Sergio >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And we cannot do anything about water vapor at all. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> **Well, not quite. A warming planet, through excessive CO2 >>>>>>>> emissions, >>>>>>>> causes more evaporation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> and more evaporation causes more rain. >>>>>> >>>>>> **It MAY cause more rain, or it may cause more water vapour to >>>>>> remain in >>>>>> the atmosphere. >>>>> >>>>> so which is it? >>>> >>>> **Both. >>>> >>>> and why? >>>> >>>> **See: 'The hydrologic cycle'. Google it. It's basic year 10 school >>>> stuff. Ask a 10 year old, if you can't understand it. >>>> >>>> or are you waiting for me to tell you ? >>>> >>>> **I've provided a starting point for you. Off you go. Even your lap-dog, >>>> benj, might understand it. >> >> >> **Have you studied the hydrologic cycle yet? There will be questions, so >> study up. > > http://hydrologica.topdeal.site/ ? **Nope. Try this: http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/hyd/smry.rxml > >> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> so, what are you propose to do >>>>>>> about water vapor ? >>>>>> >>>>>> **You keep asking that question. Refer to my previous responses. When >>>>>> you ask the question again, refer, again, to my previous responses. >>>>> >>>>> your responce is un-responsive, like a zombie >>>> >>>> **Nope. I've already answered your question. Refer to my previous >>>> 'responce' (sic). >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> nothing, cant, that term cannot be fixed >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> and we cannot do anything about CO2 except 0.1% of it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> **Really? How do you arrive at that figure? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> internet sources, here are some others, do you have any solid ones ? >>>>>> >>>>>> **Cite. >>>>> >>>>> you do not have any other evidence to counter 0.1 % CO2 >>>> >>>> **Cite your source of the 0.1% claim. >>>> >>> >>> https://www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html >> >> **Failure to answer duly noted. > > who is duly ? ** http://www.dictionary.com/browse/duly?s=t > and who are you going to give that note to ? **You. > yer mom ? **Fuck off. Stop being a dickhead. Deal with the facts. > > >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 0% is man made. >>>>>> >>>>>> **That would be extremely pedantic of you. Humans are responsible for >>>>>> the release of billions of Tonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere. >>>>>> >>>>>> The carbon has been on this planet since it was >>>>>>> created. >>>>>> >>>>>> **Duh. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It was once in the air and was captured by plants that later >>>>>>> turned into coal and oil. Man is just releasing back into the air >>>>>>> what >>>>>>> was once there in the first place. Right now there is about 380ppm of >>>>>>> CO2 in the air. >>>>>> >>>>>> **BZZTT! It's MUCH closer to 410ppm. It was 380ppm way back in 2006. >>>>> >>>>> and that is only a 0.038% or 0.00038 of air. >>>> >>> >>> https://www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html >> >> ** >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#Current_concentration >> >> >> "It currently constitutes about 0.041% by volume of the atmosphere, >> (equal to 410 ppm)" **"It currently constitutes about 0.041% by volume of the atmosphere, (equal to 410 ppm)" >> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> of that human contribute less than 3% of that, or .0000114 >>>>> >>>>> parts per MILLION a trace gas bonehead >>>> >>>> **And again: What is my point? >> >> **And again: What is my point? **And again: What is my point? >> >> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> In the past it was over 5000ppm and the earth did just >>>>>>> fine. >>>>>> >>>>>> **Well, it did, except sea levels were several hundred Metres higher >>>>>> than they are today. It was also MUCH hotter. Too hot for human >>>>>> survival. >>>>> >>>>> URL ? >>>> >>>> ** >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_sea_level#/media/File:Phanerozoic_Sea_Level.png >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> how much hotter ? >>>> >>>> ** >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:65_Myr_Climate_Change.png >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 1 degree C ? >>>> >>>> ** Nope. Nearer 12 degrees C. >>>> >>>> >>>> How much higher was the ocean >>>>> in feet ? >>>> >>>> **No idea. No scientist on this planet uses such arcane measurements >>>> anymore. If you want to discuss science, then you need to adopt the >>>> measurements used in science. > > conversion is simplistic, **I don't care. Imperial measurements are not used in science. > you fail to discuss the topic, **And you fail to deal with the science. > just emotional fluff and red herrings. **Just science. Nothing more, nothing less. > >>>> >>>>> >>>>> get to specifics. >>>> >>>> **Done. Unlike me, I supplied the requested cites. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> And, to re-state: >>>>>> >>>>>> No one ever claimed that the planet would not be fine with higher >>>>>> atmospheric CO2 levels. The problem is that many humans will >>>>>> experience >>>>>> considerable difficulty with global warming. >>>>>> >>>>>> No tipping point. >>>>> >>>>> <snip crap> >>>> >>>> >>>> **And here is where I unsnip your stupidity How about you answer my >>>> questions, since I answered all of yours): >>>> >>>> **Well, it could be argued that the high CO2 WERE the result of a >>>> 'tipping point'. >>> >>> na >>> https://www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html >> >> **Failure to make a valid point duly noted. > > again, WHO THE FK IS DULY ? ** http://www.dictionary.com/browse/duly?s=t does he work for you ? > are you going to give your note to yer mom ? > why? what is she going to do with it ? > > >> >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> About 6% comes from human activities , totally overwhelmed by natural >>>>> sources. >>>> >>>> **Huh? If I could obtain a 6% year on year interest on my investments >>>> for 150 years, I'd be pretty damned happy. Like it or not, humans have >>>> increased atmospheric CO2 levels by around 43%. That means your 6% is >>>> VERY significant. >>> >>> cite? >> >> **Cite what? YOU made the 6% claim. > > > cite your 43% ? where did that come from ? **Do the math yourself. You CLAIM to know science. I doubt it, since you ask such banal questions. Hell, you don't even know the difference between atoms and molecules and your estimate of atmospheric CO2 concentrations is out by more than an order of magnitude. Is there are wonder why I treat your alleged scientific knowledge with contempt? > >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> So before it was something like 0.3% but over the last 20 years it has >>>>> risen to 0.4%, and so that is what is causing all the problems... >>>> >>>> **What the fuck am I talking about now? >>> >>> science dude. >>> https://www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html >> >> **Again: What the fuck am I talking about now? >> >> CO2 concentration is currently around 410ppm (0.041%, NOT 0.4%). Your >> figures are out by more than an order of magnitude! If I make such >> fundamental errors, time after time, how can you possibly believe a >> single word you type. > > so, you typing corrections officer ? **Nope. Since you continually type incorrect statements, I can only reasonably assume that you are similarly misinformed about the actual atmospheric CO2 concentration. > >> >> You don't know the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, you don't know that >> CO2 is a molecule and you seem to think that the "Sun hits CO2 atoms". > > which atom in the CO2 molecule does the light hit ? **OK, again: Light doesn't "hit" the atom. Learn some physics before you discuss this stuff. You're WAY out of your depth. > > <snip crap> > -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Global Warming is a religion James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-10 09:56 -0700
Global Warming is a religion pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-05-10 10:42 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-05-10 10:55 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-10 12:25 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-05-10 16:06 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-10 16:30 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-05-10 17:26 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-10 18:16 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-05-11 13:18 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-11 15:28 -0500
Re: Global Warming is a religion benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-11 21:02 -0400
Re: Global Warming is a religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-11 23:03 -0500
Re: Global Warming is a religion "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-05-11 14:49 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-11 20:58 -0400
Re: Global Warming is a religion James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-11 21:11 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-05-11 21:42 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-12 14:52 +1000
Re: Global Warming is a religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-12 10:20 -0500
Re: Global Warming is a religion benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-12 14:55 -0400
Re: Global Warming is a religion James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 12:27 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-13 05:46 +1000
Re: Global Warming is a religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-12 19:21 -0500
Re: Global Warming is a religion Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-13 14:31 +1000
Re: Global Warming is a religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-13 01:06 -0500
Re: Global Warming is a religion Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-14 06:39 +1000
Re: Global Warming is a religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-13 15:59 -0500
Re: Global Warming is a religion Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-14 07:13 +1000
Re: Global Warming is a religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-16 13:10 -0500
Re: Global Warming is a religion Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-17 06:32 +1000
Re: Global Warming is a religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-16 16:05 -0500
Re: Global Warming is a religion Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-17 08:27 +1000
Re: Global Warming is a religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-16 20:08 -0500
Re: Global Warming is a religion Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-17 13:30 +1000
Re: Global Warming is a religion benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-16 18:36 -0400
Re: Global Warming is a religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-16 20:14 -0500
Re: Global Warming is a religion James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 08:36 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-13 05:42 +1000
Re: Global Warming is a religion Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-11 19:19 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 08:53 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-05-10 12:54 -0700
Global Warming is a religion James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-10 11:19 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 10:23 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-05-22 14:35 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 16:28 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-11 13:52 +1000
Re: Global Warming is a religion James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-11 07:45 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-12 06:49 +1000
Re: Global Warming is a religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-11 18:27 -0500
Re: Global Warming is a religion Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-12 11:59 +1000
Re: Global Warming is a religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-12 00:02 -0500
Re: Global Warming is a religion benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-11 21:13 -0400
Re: Global Warming is a religion Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-12 12:00 +1000
Re: Global Warming is a religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-12 10:25 -0500
Re: Global Warming is a religion benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-12 15:00 -0400
Re: Global Warming is a religion James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 08:40 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-13 06:01 +1000
Re: Global Warming is a religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-12 19:17 -0500
Re: Global Warming is a religion benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-12 21:07 -0400
Re: Global Warming is a religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-12 22:13 -0500
Re: Global Warming is a religion pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-05-12 13:40 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 14:52 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-05-12 16:03 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-05-12 17:45 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 16:18 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-12 19:22 -0500
Re: Global Warming is a religion James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 17:57 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-12 14:42 -0400
Re: Global Warming is a religion Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-13 05:49 +1000
Re: Global Warming is a religion Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 04:34 -0700
csiph-web