Man-made Global Warming - Really?
Let me start off by saying that I don’t particularly like talking about global warming with a firm believer of the theory that humans are the main cause behind climate change. It’s a waste of time, as I’ve never really seen anybody change their views on the matter, even when presented with the cold hard facts. But I’d like to present to you today my opinion, and I hope that you are able to take something from this article.
I presume that many of you have seen Al Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth. If you have not yet watched it, don’t. I’m also pretty sure that if you did manage to make it through the entire duration of the film, you felt guilty and thought that you must change your ways, or be responsible for the destruction of the planet. But after a week, all you can remember is that it featured Al Gore on a scissor lift, pointing to a graph with a concerned look on his face. However, your opinion will have been formed. When Al Gore showed you his graph with the global temperature and carbon dioxide levels steadily rising, any thoughts of skepticism on your part were vanquished and you immediately dashed around the house, turning off lights and kitchen appliances.
But just think for a minute. If I were to plot the values of, let’s say, the number of people on the earth and the annual military budget of the United States over the past 100 years, both would show a constant increase. But quite obviously, these two are completely unrelated. The number of nuclear submarines that the United States clearly has no effect on how many people are born in China. The same may well be true in the case of carbon dioxide and temperature change.
But wait, you are saying. Surely in I can’t just dismiss your views that quickly? Surely Al Gore, and other tree huggers for that matter, provides more proof of his point?
Just think about it for a moment. No, not really. He just rambles on about the possible consequences of the world getting hotter, such as fluffy polar bears not having anywhere to live, and winter not being quite so cold and wet. The reason for people’s current beliefs in global warming is because that is all they’ve ever been told.
The truth is that the IPCC, which is the intergovernmental panel on climate change, skewed facts to show what Al Gore wanted us to see. Al Gore also tells quite a few lies in his movie, to try and scare people into believing him1. This is often referred to as ‘alarmism’, and is commonly used by people such as Al Gore.
Sure, we’re pumping billions of tons of Carbon into the atmosphere every year, but that doesn’t mean to say that it is causing the earth to heat up. After all, there was a medieval warming period larger than the current one. During this time, it is known that the Vikings grew crops in Greenland, far before we had factories and lawn mowers.
Source: UIG
www.uigi.com/air.html
Now that I’ve successfully discredited Al Gore, the IPCC and the United Nations, I’ll tell you about the more likely scenario, and it is, as you’ll be pleased to know, much simpler than the theory of greenhouse gasses. The sun, which is the big yellow thing in the sky, is actually quite erratic at doing its job of heating us and providing light. Some years it is particularly active, and some years it’s not. When it’s active, the earth receives more energy from the sun, and the planet heats up. When it’s not active, the earth receives less energy from the sun, and begins to cool down. Simple as that. Even NASA agrees with me.
Source: NASA
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm
Then why, I ask, do so many believe the theory of man-made global warming? Well, it’s partially because it’s all we’ve ever been told, and partly because of human religious morals, which are: that we have sinned (due to our industrial society), we face disaster (by the planet warming dangerously), and we must repent and change our ways (by all hopping to work).
Now, if you’re an Al Gore fan, I’m sure this is coming across as extremely biased. In a world where every such expert is influenced by something, usually money, we scoff at reports released by corporations that vindicate their product. And we should be skeptical. It’s not a good idea to follow the advice given by tobacco corporations. But this does not mean that we should not listen to their side of the story. If you have some time on your hands, read Climate Change Considered: The 2009 report of the Nongovernmental Institute on Climate Change (NIPCC). In the report’s 880 pages, (don’t worry, there is a summary) a clear rebuttal of the IPCC’s findings is presented.
Source: NIPCC
http://www.nipccreport.org/
And if you think good ol’ Al Gore is a saint, think again. He makes huge amounts of money through giving speeches on global warming; receiving £100 000 to deliver a poorly received 30 minute speech at the Fortune Forum2. He has also refused to take a pledge, dreamt up by eco-mentalists like himself, that states that he will use less energy than the average USA household3. But if you still think that everybody, including the NIPCC, has some sort of agenda, what about me? I’m not very cozy with Al Gore, and neither am I receiving funding from Chevron.
But right now, the world has enough real problems, such as the financial crisis, poverty, conflict, diseases, and the release of Donte Stallworth from prison, to be concerned about problems like global warming, which we have no control over. If global warming does one day become a problem, we will do what we have always done: get used to our new conditions. I hope people realize this, and eventually come to their senses. And just remember, there is no scientific consensus on man-made global warming, no matter how much people tell you4!
By James Graham
PS: If anyone has any rational points or arguments they would like to address, please do.
Notes
1 – http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3308582/Al-Gores-climate...
2 - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-500586/Al-Gore-criticised-l...
3 - http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Pledge
4 - http://www.warmingscaretactics.com/Consensus.php (many links from page)
Sources
- Warming Scare Tactics - http://www.warmingscaretactics.com
- U.S Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works - http://epw.senate.gov
- Climate Realists - http://climaterealists.com
- Wall Street Journal - http://online.wsj.com/home-page
- Article: Superstition, not science, feeds top folly of our age http://www.busrep.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=4908350
I presume that many of you have seen Al Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth. If you have not yet watched it, don’t. I’m also pretty sure that if you did manage to make it through the entire duration of the film, you felt guilty and thought that you must change your ways, or be responsible for the destruction of the planet. But after a week, all you can remember is that it featured Al Gore on a scissor lift, pointing to a graph with a concerned look on his face. However, your opinion will have been formed. When Al Gore showed you his graph with the global temperature and carbon dioxide levels steadily rising, any thoughts of skepticism on your part were vanquished and you immediately dashed around the house, turning off lights and kitchen appliances.
But just think for a minute. If I were to plot the values of, let’s say, the number of people on the earth and the annual military budget of the United States over the past 100 years, both would show a constant increase. But quite obviously, these two are completely unrelated. The number of nuclear submarines that the United States clearly has no effect on how many people are born in China. The same may well be true in the case of carbon dioxide and temperature change.
But wait, you are saying. Surely in I can’t just dismiss your views that quickly? Surely Al Gore, and other tree huggers for that matter, provides more proof of his point?
Just think about it for a moment. No, not really. He just rambles on about the possible consequences of the world getting hotter, such as fluffy polar bears not having anywhere to live, and winter not being quite so cold and wet. The reason for people’s current beliefs in global warming is because that is all they’ve ever been told.
The truth is that the IPCC, which is the intergovernmental panel on climate change, skewed facts to show what Al Gore wanted us to see. Al Gore also tells quite a few lies in his movie, to try and scare people into believing him1. This is often referred to as ‘alarmism’, and is commonly used by people such as Al Gore.
Sure, we’re pumping billions of tons of Carbon into the atmosphere every year, but that doesn’t mean to say that it is causing the earth to heat up. After all, there was a medieval warming period larger than the current one. During this time, it is known that the Vikings grew crops in Greenland, far before we had factories and lawn mowers.
Source: UIG
www.uigi.com/air.html
Now that I’ve successfully discredited Al Gore, the IPCC and the United Nations, I’ll tell you about the more likely scenario, and it is, as you’ll be pleased to know, much simpler than the theory of greenhouse gasses. The sun, which is the big yellow thing in the sky, is actually quite erratic at doing its job of heating us and providing light. Some years it is particularly active, and some years it’s not. When it’s active, the earth receives more energy from the sun, and the planet heats up. When it’s not active, the earth receives less energy from the sun, and begins to cool down. Simple as that. Even NASA agrees with me.
Source: NASA
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm
Then why, I ask, do so many believe the theory of man-made global warming? Well, it’s partially because it’s all we’ve ever been told, and partly because of human religious morals, which are: that we have sinned (due to our industrial society), we face disaster (by the planet warming dangerously), and we must repent and change our ways (by all hopping to work).
Now, if you’re an Al Gore fan, I’m sure this is coming across as extremely biased. In a world where every such expert is influenced by something, usually money, we scoff at reports released by corporations that vindicate their product. And we should be skeptical. It’s not a good idea to follow the advice given by tobacco corporations. But this does not mean that we should not listen to their side of the story. If you have some time on your hands, read Climate Change Considered: The 2009 report of the Nongovernmental Institute on Climate Change (NIPCC). In the report’s 880 pages, (don’t worry, there is a summary) a clear rebuttal of the IPCC’s findings is presented.
Source: NIPCC
http://www.nipccreport.org/
And if you think good ol’ Al Gore is a saint, think again. He makes huge amounts of money through giving speeches on global warming; receiving £100 000 to deliver a poorly received 30 minute speech at the Fortune Forum2. He has also refused to take a pledge, dreamt up by eco-mentalists like himself, that states that he will use less energy than the average USA household3. But if you still think that everybody, including the NIPCC, has some sort of agenda, what about me? I’m not very cozy with Al Gore, and neither am I receiving funding from Chevron.
But right now, the world has enough real problems, such as the financial crisis, poverty, conflict, diseases, and the release of Donte Stallworth from prison, to be concerned about problems like global warming, which we have no control over. If global warming does one day become a problem, we will do what we have always done: get used to our new conditions. I hope people realize this, and eventually come to their senses. And just remember, there is no scientific consensus on man-made global warming, no matter how much people tell you4!
By James Graham
PS: If anyone has any rational points or arguments they would like to address, please do.
Notes
1 – http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3308582/Al-Gores-climate...
2 - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-500586/Al-Gore-criticised-l...
3 - http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Pledge
4 - http://www.warmingscaretactics.com/Consensus.php (many links from page)
Sources
- Warming Scare Tactics - http://www.warmingscaretactics.com
- U.S Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works - http://epw.senate.gov
- Climate Realists - http://climaterealists.com
- Wall Street Journal - http://online.wsj.com/home-page
- Article: Superstition, not science, feeds top folly of our age http://www.busrep.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=4908350
Replies to This Article
-
Permalink Reply by Nick Cholst on -
Let me first off say thank you for presenting such a controversial opinion to the international community. It really shows the kind of diversity in opinions that should make this website great.
To begin, I’d like to convey to you the fact that many of us “tree huggers” have formed our opinions not through watching a movie of “Al Gore on a scissor lift”, but rather through legitimate research on the matter.
That said, I’m skeptical about your source for your first graph. If you go to the webpage you’ve sourced for your graph, and scroll down to where that graph appears on the page, you’ll notice the data for the graph is courtesy of the NOAA. If you follow that source, you’ll end up here.
http://www.research.noaa.gov/spotlite/archive/spot_sunclimate.html
Basically, the data sourced for the graph doesn’t actually exist. It is either somewhere else on the website, or was completely made up. The article linked to simply focuses on global warming’s drastic increase in the past 100 years.
The article, however, does help demonstrate man’s impact on Global Warming. No reputable scientist advocating man's impact on Global Warming will claim that the average temperature of the Earth does not operate in cycles. Those that do believe man has an effect on Global Warming claim that this is evidenced by accelerated rates of Global warming in recent years that can be scientifically tied to the activities of man. This would not be visible on the graph you presented.
Despite this, you assert that you’ll “tell [us] about the more likely scenario, and it is, as [we’ll] be pleased to know, much simpler than the theory of greenhouse gasses.”
Here are some very basic websites explaining the science behind greenhouse gases. I encourage you and anyone still skeptical about the phenomenon to click these links.
http://mp.apogee.net/kids/\?ver=kkblue&utilid=mp&id=16170
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Greenhouse_gas
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/greenhouse.html (I realize this is a government website. I acknowledge that it’s entirely possible that the EPA is indeed in the cahoots with Al Gore to let him profit as much as possible from Global Warming hysteria.)
http://environment.about.com/od/faqglobalwarming/f/greengases.htm
http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochures/greenhouse/Chapter1.htm
You do present an interesting point about sunspots being the cause of Global Warming. However, sunspots are not the reason for the recent acceleration in global warming. As convincing as your data for the past 15 years is, a graph showing that sunspot activity has gone up, and then, appallingly enough, back down, simply doesn’t mean anything. Sure you can say “erratic bursts of energy back the world heat up consistently lately” but it doesn’t stand if you don’t show proof of correlation. In fact, studies on the subject have proven the exact opposite:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warm...
I quote, “Solar activity has shown little to no long term trend since the 1950's. Consequently, any correlation between sun and climate ended in the 1970's when the modern global warming trend began.”
I am very glad that you offered a legitimate text as a source. Unfortunately, I do not have time to go through and write a rebuttal to what they address in 880 pages, but I visited the website and went straight to the Species Extinction section at
the very end. Unfortunately, I noticed they made the same mistake as you, which is understandable, but still surprising.
http://www.nipccreport.org/chapter8.html
“The world’s species have proven to be remarkably resilient to climate change. Most wild species are at least one million years old, which means they have all been through hundreds of climate cycles involving temperature changes on par with or greater than those experienced in the twentieth century.”
Notice how they completely disregard the notion of recent accelerating global warming. The reason that species have been able to survive over millions of years is, as I’m sure you must agree, adaptation to new conditions. Unfortunately, evolution does not happen overnight, nor did the changes to the climate in the past.
These changes are accelerating, however, and evolution cannot keep up with them. Couple that with the fact that a lot of causes of global warming are associated with the artificial destruction of habitat, such as deforestation (more carbon dioxide in the air, less shade and sunlight absorbed, etc.), and it would be ridiculous to consider that the recent acceleration in global warming and the threat of extinction various species face are not intertwined.
So, to conclude, I just want to restate that none of your data is suspect and proves a moot point since you missed the point of accelerated global warming. Additionally, please verify your sources before citing them.
“Also, as I noted earlier, I find it insulting that you discredit the widespread belief of man-induced accelerated Global Warming simply based on the preachings of one man who far from discovered the phenomenon. We don’t believe in it because Al Gore told us so. We believe it because it’s been scientifically proven so. The only reason that there is no scientific consensus is because of the political power weighed by the powerful companies that exploit nature and contribute to its destruction for profit, and therefore the funding power.
I’ll end with some quick impressions of your notes/sources. Remember that just because they are on the internet does not make them instantly credible:
Note 1: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3308582/Al-Gores-climate...
The title here is incredibly misleading. No reputable figure has accused the film of being propaganda, just some middle-aged parent with no qualifications in the subject complaining to the Supreme Court about ‘indoctrination’.
Notes 2 and 3: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-500586/Al-Gore-criticised-l...
Again, this has nothing to do with actual facts. You are attacking the image of the posterboy for global warming activism. That is all.
Note 4: http://www.warmingscaretactics.com/Consensus.php
People disagree with this concept, nobody’s debating that. It’s unfortunate, but true. It’s a shame you didn’t actually provide any reasons that these people use to justify opposing the notion, as I’m sure they were more factual than yours.
Finally, thank you for sourcing the main page of Warming Scare Tactics, the U.S Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Climate Realists, and the Wall Street Journal. Please provide relevant links. It’s like me sourcing google as a reason why you’re wrong.
Several of my sources for the arguments I employed are included in my response to your article. Nevertheless, for your convenience, here is a comprehensive list of why everything you thought about global warming is probably wrong:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-...
-
Permalink Reply by James Graham on -
Reply to Nick Cholst
Let me start off by saying a big thank you to yourself for actually reading my article, scathing as your review was. Its nice to know that people actually do so. I concede that my article is a highly emotive and opinionated one, as it is adapted from a speech I gave. However, despite me not liking a certain ex-almost president, I still like to think that the logic behind them is sound, or at least reasonable.
Lets go through this systematically then.
Firstly, I acknowledge that the first graph is spawned from a grey background. Truth be told, having seen many similar graphs to this, I merely posted one which backed up my point. Thanks for pointing this out. Below, I've added a more reputable one.
Figure 3. Corrected reconstruction with 95% confidence intervals (from Loehle and McCulloch, 2008)
Source: http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/11/a-2000-year-...
References:
- Loehle, C. 2007. A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-tree ring proxies. Energy and Environment, 18, 1049-1058.
- Loehle, C. and J.H. McCulloch. 2008. Correction to: A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-tree ring proxies. Energy and Environment, 19, 93-100.
Hopefully that'll cheer you up.
Don't worry, I think that most of us, myself included, fully understand the theory of greenhouse gases. No need to fire off a string unnecessary links that all repeat themselves.
Now, your next point is an interesting one. While your source (http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warm...) discredits my theory regarding changes in solar activity, mine confirms it, oddly enough. Which leads me to challenge the validity of your source. I mean really, its basic science. If the thing that gives the earth heat gets hotter, what happens to the earth?
After accounting for the increase in CO2 and other greenhouse gases, the Earth’s surface temperature corresponds with the increase in solar radiation, except during major volcanic eruptions.
Source: http://lasp.colorado.edu/science/solar_influence/index.htm (Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics)
Thanks again for looking at the NIPCC report. Instead of actually reading any of the important stuff, you skipped right to the last chapter, one which I didn't even comment on. But yes, I concede that evolution doesn't happen overnight. Quite a few species could well become extinct. However, this is not that unusual. I'm sure that life on earth was tough during the ice ages. And yeah, dinosaurs can now only be viewed in museums. At least we can agree on something. However, no one can confirm that deforestation will occur through a rise in CO2 levels. Instead, common sense would suggest that a rise in the levels of carbon in the atmosphere would benefit plants, as they can grow up to 50 percent faster in concentrations of 1,000 ppm CO2 when compared with ambient conditions (i).
In response to your opinion that the lack of scientific consensus is due to pressure placed on scientists, I find that the opposite is often the case. Pressure usually originates from politicians, to find evidence supporting their policies of "industry is bad".
The Global Warming Petition Project states: We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth. 31,478 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs. Thankfully, it seems the amount of Americans that attribute global warming to man's actions is a minority, at 42% (ii)
I apologize if my attempts to poke fun at Al Gore hurt you. I was merely trying to illustrate to you the point that many people form opinions by what they see on TV and in the media, unlike you and I. And no, it has not been scientifically proven.
Commentary on your impressions of notes:
1- Silly me, not a very bright link to choose. My mistake. Rather try: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-486969/Judge-attacks-errors...
Actual ruling by high court judge.
2 & 3 - Good point. I agree. Just showing that Al isn't as altruistic as everybody thinks he is.
4 - What I intended by attaching this note was to show the vast extent of skepticism surrounding the topic. I concede, the theory of solar activity has holes, as does the theory of greenhouse gasses. The point that I was trying to get across was that the "conventional" theory of greenhouse gases causing global warming is not necessarily the correct one.
In reply to your rather mean comments to my list of sources, perhaps I should have titled it "List of internet directories for further reading, inter alia.
In conclusion, there are many scientists out there, who have many different theories, and have their findings used by many different sources. Just because mine are debatable, does not make yours legitimate .
New notes:
i) Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food & Rural Affairs: Carbon Dioxide in Greenhouses http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm
ii) Rasmussen Reports: Energy Update - 47% Blame Global Warming on Planetary Trends, Not Humans
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_eve...
Comments? Questions?
-
Permalink Reply by ISBangkok on -
you must agree though, that the gasses locked up in the permafrost of the arctic will further increase the effects of global warming. And, if earth is heating up, many of al gore's predictions about the effects (the oceanic currents stopping etc..).
-
Permalink Reply by ISBangkok on
-
Well written article. If my guess is correct, i think you probably have seen in on websites like youtube - a video clip that has similar idea to yours. This issue - whether man has caused global warming - is surely controversial. However, I think economic value is involved with this issue; some 'Environment Research' groups argue in favor of Al Gore in order to rip money of from their government.
.... Is money essential problem?!
Seho Rim.
-
Permalink Reply by ISBangkok on
-
This is a really good article you have written.
I agree with you on most parts, but I still believe that global warming is mostly because humans. Not that I am a huge fan of Al Gore (he is not helping the environment a lot himself, too) or think it's the problems from each individuals, it's just that global warming has become more of a major problem these days with the horrible traffic and factories giving off CO2s.
Helen Liu from ISB
-
Permalink Reply by ISBangkok on
-
Nice article, really well written.
On a similar Stuart Scott came to our school recently. If you do not know, Stuart Scott is one of Al Gore's tree huggers.
I must say though, your article is controversial and biased. In all honesty I believe that its people like you that halt any progress being made against global warming.
Whether you like it or not, global warming is really happening; too many people have proved this and believe it. And If you have not noticed, temperatures are gradually increasing every summer. The same is happening for winters.
In any case, it really won't hurt to be environmentally friendly wouldn't you say? After all, its reasonable to believe that even you enjoy breathing clean air, eating vegetables (which would have difficulty growing if global warming continues happening on a constant rate), etc.
Thanks for the article though!!!
-
Permalink Reply by ISBangkok on
-
Like you, I am not one to argue about global warming, and discuss it over prolonged periods of time. I think it's over-exposed now, to the point where people shut off whenever the subject is brought up. I don't really have an opinion about it (what a global citizen I am!).
I think you brought up a good point, though: "The number of nuclear submarines that the United States clearly has no effect on how many people are born in China." But, I think that for some time now, the environment has become a product of humans, which isn't the way it always has been.
Lily
-
Permalink Reply by Carolyn Diggs Townsend on -
First of all I would like to say that us "tree huggers" do not base our opinions off of Al Gore's movie. I myself am a what you call "tree hugger" and I have not even seen "The Inconveniant Truth". Even though this movie is a bit exaggerated I do not think that it is not totally a lie. He may exaggerate the time in which global warming may not be reversibal, but even so there will come a time where it won't be reversibal so we therefore need to take action now.
-
Permalink Reply by Giulia Del Bianco on -
I too would like to say that it's nice to read such a strong and opinionated article!
I agree with the ideas you presented. In school, I was forced to watch An Inconvenient Truth twice and although I thougth it raised some good points, it never really changed my point of view or the way I live my life. Humans have such a strong impact on the environment and, yes, global warming is mainly man made. I am not neglecting that the Earth itself is changing, but we can't deny that we have a major effect on climate change. A lot of people are not concious of what we are doing to our planet. I am glad that you wrote this article and gave voice to these views. Good job!
-
Permalink Reply by Gaby Gerecht on -
This will not be a long response but I would just like to thank you for writing this. Everyone has become so obsessed with global warming, cutting down on water supply, on gasoline and on lighting. In this day and age people have become paranoid and negative about our future. I believe that instead of spending our time on preventing global warming we should concentrate on the things that we are able to change or to fix, for example working on a cure for breast cancer, or to help feed the hungry.
"Even if humans stop burning oil and coal tomorrow—not likely—we've already spewed enough greenhouse gases into the atmosphere to cause temperatures to warm and sea levels to rise for at least another century."
Said by John Roach by the national geographic.
My point is just to say that we cant stop global warming, and we need to put our minds together and wokr on more important things.
thank you for writing this :)
-
Permalink Reply by Matt Chisek on
-
I read your article and believing in global warming myself, your idea makes sense, but I cant change my opinion on glabal warming. You bring up some interesting points but I think you should focus more on developing your ideas, instead of insulting Al Gore. All in all its was a very good article but it didnt change my opinion, though I agree that this a very controversial topic.
-
Permalink Reply by Natasha Parvati Nicoline Vargo on
-
Very Well written article great job! I agree with your stance on global warming and I also believe that the Chicago Climat Exchange is just a way for Al Gore to make money and man isn't causing global warming.
© 2010 Created by Mark Schulte.
