Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects, Environment, etc part II

Message boards : Politics : Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects, Environment, etc part II
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 . . . 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · 27 · 28 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20523
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1196008 - Posted: 16 Feb 2012, 15:38:35 UTC - in response to Message 1195996.  

...I'm sorry, but there is simply no evidence to quantify anything you suggest.

Then you are playing the part of an ostrich with head in the sand and refuse to look...

"Which makes the changes we are making over just the last half century all the more remarkable for how very quickly we are changing the atmosphere"


We? or Thee?

You seem to be absolutely sure not only that the very minor rise in C02 levels in the last 'half century', while at global mean lows are our fault, but further that they will have devastating consequences.

[...]

The fact is, our pathetic 30,000 years out of the cave is so statistically insignificant on the timeline of life on this planet, that ...


... that for us to make such a radical change to the composition of our atmosphere in just 200 years of industrialization compared to our previous 30000 years is indeed great cause for concern and consternation.


With our ever increasing industrialization, we have indeed done more in the last 50 years or so than in our entire previous human history.

Such is the runaway disaster of exponential growth and exponentially increasing pollution. It is just a question of "when". That "when" looks to have been significant around the 1960's... We're now seeing the first effects...


You certainly have no evidence that increasing CO2 pollution has no effect upon our world.

Still our only one planet,
Martin

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1196008 · Report as offensive
Profile archangel
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Apr 01
Posts: 62
Credit: 1,842,428
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1196013 - Posted: 16 Feb 2012, 15:56:13 UTC - in response to Message 1196008.  
Last modified: 16 Feb 2012, 15:59:17 UTC

...I'm sorry, but there is simply no evidence to quantify anything you suggest.

Then you are playing the part of an ostrich with head in the sand and refuse to look...

"Which makes the changes we are making over just the last half century all the more remarkable for how very quickly we are changing the atmosphere"


We? or Thee?

You seem to be absolutely sure not only that the very minor rise in C02 levels in the last 'half century', while at global mean lows are our fault, but further that they will have devastating consequences.

[...]

The fact is, our pathetic 30,000 years out of the cave is so statistically insignificant on the timeline of life on this planet, that ...


... that for us to make such a radical change to the composition of our atmosphere in just 200 years of industrialization compared to our previous 30000 years is indeed great cause for concern and consternation.


With our ever increasing industrialization, we have indeed done more in the last 50 years or so than in our entire previous human history.

Such is the runaway disaster of exponential growth and exponentially increasing pollution. It is just a question of "when". That "when" looks to have been significant around the 1960's... We're now seeing the first effects...


You certainly have no evidence that increasing CO2 pollution has no effect upon our world.

Still our only one planet,
Martin



"...that for us to make such a radical change to the composition of our atmosphere in just 200 years of industrialization..."

There you go again... Us... What evidence do you have that the * minuscule* increase in CO2 levels over the past 200 years has anything to do with the industrial age?

Just because both occupied the same space in 200 years?

Pretty flimsy... Modern telescopes also occupied this period, are you *certain* they are not to blame?

Are you sure it doesn't have *anything* to do with increased solar output and warming temperatures during this same period?

For you to just blanket assume that because 2 things happened over a 200 year period they are cause and effect of the other is just silly."

"You certainly have no evidence that increasing CO2 pollution has no effect upon our world."

Not so, not at all.

I have the previous 600 million years of history, including the 30,000 years prior to the industrial revolution, where the CO2 content of the atmosphere was *Higher* than it is today.

The uptick in CO2 levels is only a very recent change, in an ever changing, and ongoing cycle.

I have every evidence that mans minuscule contributions of the modern age pose no significant danger compared to naturally occurring levels which were orders of magnitude higher, which supported life throughout history.

Regards!~
ID: 1196013 · Report as offensive
Profile John Clark
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Sep 99
Posts: 16515
Credit: 4,418,829
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1196040 - Posted: 16 Feb 2012, 16:50:50 UTC

It seems to me there is only one solution to the CO2 climate problem.

Use genetic engineering to develop a human targeted pathogen and wipe out the human race in total and globally.

Then there would be no argument on the possible damaging effects of industrialisation.
It's good to be back amongst friends and colleagues



ID: 1196040 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20523
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1196055 - Posted: 16 Feb 2012, 17:06:15 UTC - in response to Message 1196013.  
Last modified: 16 Feb 2012, 17:06:48 UTC

"...that for us to make such a radical change to the composition of our atmosphere in just 200 years of industrialization..."


There you go again... Us... What evidence do you have that the * minuscule* increase in CO2 levels over the past 200 years has anything to do with the industrial age?

Just because both occupied the same space in 200 years? ...


And so you also deny that we burn coal, oil and gas on an ever increasingly vast industrial scale? Including from open-cast mining covering areas greater than the size of some countries?...


Or you just trying to do some filiblustering to distract from the Heartland Institute embarrassment?

Or just a bored general troll?


All on our only one planet,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1196055 · Report as offensive
Profile archangel
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Apr 01
Posts: 62
Credit: 1,842,428
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1196075 - Posted: 16 Feb 2012, 18:33:02 UTC - in response to Message 1196055.  
Last modified: 16 Feb 2012, 18:34:28 UTC

"And so you also deny that we burn coal, oil and gas on an ever increasingly vast industrial scale? Including from open-cast mining covering areas greater than the size of some countries?"

I deny nothing... Of course we burn coal, oil and gas...

Here's questions back at you.

Did coal, oil and gas not burn uncontrolled in vast, ancient swamps and tar pits?

Did the formative substances that created these not burn in vast uncontrolled forest fires?

Were there more or fewer volcanoes, which even today add billions of tons of CO2 to the atmosphere?

Do humans alone have exclusive rights and domain on the creation of CO2?

Or are we but a part of the natural environment, along with quadrillions of other creations, contributing to the whole?

Can the entire annual human production of CO2 equal one crustal pocket of gas breaking free and erupting in an ocean somewhere, unseen, unheard, and undetected?

We know CO2 pockets of trillions of pounds of gas exist within earths crust, we know these break free and bubble to the surface of oceans... We have even seen huge ships sunk by the phenomenon.

The only thing mysterious to me is your fascination with our tiny contribution to the whole.

So many possibilities, but only one answer you are willing to accept.
ID: 1196075 · Report as offensive
Nick
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 11 Oct 11
Posts: 4344
Credit: 3,313,107
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1196094 - Posted: 16 Feb 2012, 19:25:16 UTC
Last modified: 16 Feb 2012, 20:12:27 UTC

Archangel, looking at the graph you posted shows direct evidence of a
150 million year cycle between troughs in low temperature. To this end
the forecast is for our average planetary temperature to start to rise again.
This exactly what it has been doing up-till 1996, and as I suspect what ever
causes this rise in average temperature also causes CO2 to rise in tandem
sometimes too. What ever the cause it does look like average planetary
temperatures will continue to rise, whether man likes it or not and rise independently
of any man-made contribution towards it, if at all he has contributed to it.

When mother nature decides to pump-up CO2 again she will do so creating a level
far in excess of that - that man can ever produce himself. Mans just filling a vacant hole
at the moment whilst levels are currently very low. This is having
no effect upon our climate for can you see a change directly attributable to
this slight rise in CO2. Some people think they can see a change but have so
far been unable to prove conclusively that this change is down to man.
The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.
ID: 1196094 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20523
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1196130 - Posted: 16 Feb 2012, 22:53:52 UTC - in response to Message 1196094.  

Archangel, looking at the graph you posted shows direct evidence of a
150 million year cycle between troughs in low temperature. To this end...

Trying to get back to the here and now and the last few thousand years of our existence, I'll let you read this article and fire up your neurons to work out the charts for yourselves:


NASA Report: Greenhouse Gases, Not Sun, Driving Warming

A recent, prolonged lull in the sun's activity did not prevent the Earth from absorbing more solar energy than it let escape back into space, a NASA analysis of the Earth's recent energy budget indicates.

An imbalance like this drives global warming — since more energy is coming in than leaving — and, because it occurred during a period when the sun was emitting comparatively low levels of energy, the imbalance has implications for the cause of global warming.

The results confirm greenhouse gases produced by human activities are the most important driver of global climate change...

... the Earth absorbed 0.58 watts of excess energy per square meter than escaped back into space during the study period from 2005 to 2010, a time when solar activity was low. By comparison, the planet receives 0.25 watts less energy per square meter during a solar minimum, than during a period of maximum activity in the sun's 11-year cycle. ...



Sorry, but any claims that NASA is a "conspiracy" will be just laughed off the forums...


Still our only one planet,
Martin


See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1196130 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30758
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1196138 - Posted: 16 Feb 2012, 23:46:45 UTC - in response to Message 1196130.  

Archangel, looking at the graph you posted shows direct evidence of a
150 million year cycle between troughs in low temperature. To this end...

Trying to get back to the here and now and the last few thousand years of our existence, I'll let you read this article and fire up your neurons to work out the charts for yourselves:

That is the problem, it is only the last thousand years of the billion years that there is any correlation between CO2 and temperature. This simple fact the warmists must deny to continue to spread their FUD.

Yes, the earth is getting warmer. Yes, CO2 going up. Are they related? No they are mere coincidence if the last billion years of evidence are to believed.

If you wish to deny the last billion years evidence, that is an extraordinary claim and needs extraordinary proof. I see no such proof being offered.

Does it mean we shouldn't cut back on CO2, no. Build more Chernobyl's and Fukushima Daiichi's; the people must have energy (spice), or return the earth to a fourth world hunter gatherer existence. Your choice Martin.

ID: 1196138 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20523
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1196157 - Posted: 17 Feb 2012, 0:42:28 UTC - in response to Message 1196138.  

That is the problem, it is only the last thousand years of the billion years that there is any correlation between CO2 and temperature. This simple fact the warmists must deny to continue to spread their FUD.

Yes, the earth is getting warmer. Yes, CO2 going up. Are they related? No they are mere coincidence if the last billion years of evidence are to believed. ...

And this where you are back to denying physics:


Youtube: Iain Stewart demonstrates infrared radiation absorption by CO2


How has temperature and CO2 changed since the last ice age?

... Around fifteen thousand years ago, the temperature started to warm (probably as a result of variations in the earth's orbit, see below), triggering natural CO2 release and a feedback greenhouse effect. The temperature increase...

For the past ten thousand years, however, the earth's temperature and atmospheric CO2 has been relatively stable...

The near-vertical red line at the far left marks the rise in atmospheric CO2 since the start of the industrial revolution.



Has a sudden rise in greenhouse gases ever caused climate change?

... To test whether this is so, it is important to know whether a rapid increase in greenhouse gases, such as is now occurring, can actually cause significant climate change. Two events in the past suggest that this is, indeed, the case...


What is causing the increase in CO2 and other greenhouse gases?

... The first clue comes from comparing the current increase with changes that have occurred in the past...

... The second line of evidence comes from changes in the isotopic concentration of atmospheric carbon...



Climate Change: The Smoking Guns for Humans

... Where is all of this carbon dioxide coming from?...


Impact of Greenhouse Gases

... Atmospheric temperature is influenced by gases that absorb outgoing radiation and these gases are called greenhouse gases. Although greenhouse gas concentrations appear to be small (less than one percent), their effect is certainly not...


So... Can the denialists really claim that to be all lies and conspiracy?

All on our only planet,
Martin


See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1196157 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30758
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1196189 - Posted: 17 Feb 2012, 2:24:59 UTC - in response to Message 1196157.  

That is the problem, it is only the last thousand years of the billion years that there is any correlation between CO2 and temperature. This simple fact the warmists must deny to continue to spread their FUD.

Yes, the earth is getting warmer. Yes, CO2 going up. Are they related? No they are mere coincidence if the last billion years of evidence are to believed. ...

And this where you are back to denying physics:


And this is where you deny observation.
At 550 M years ago the CO2 spiked, nothing happened to temperature. From there to 500 M ago it dropped, nothing happened to temperature. At 450 M ago CO2 went up and temperature spiked down. At 390 M ago CO2 spiked down to near present levels by 350 M ago. Took 25 M years for the temperature to respond. At 275 M ago, they for the first time they both went up/down together. Well at 150 M ago CO2 Spikes up and temperature spikes down. At 50 M ago, CO2 way down and falling temperature spikes up at an incredible rate.

It is clear that CO2 has had near zero influence on global temperature over the last 550 million years. Why is it the sole factor for the last couple thousand? Something else is driving global warming and the sooner we find out what it is the sooner we can do something about it.

ID: 1196189 · Report as offensive
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 19162
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 1196334 - Posted: 17 Feb 2012, 13:47:17 UTC

Another article you might like to read.

The inside story on climate scientists under siege
ID: 1196334 · Report as offensive
Nick
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 11 Oct 11
Posts: 4344
Credit: 3,313,107
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1196409 - Posted: 17 Feb 2012, 18:59:21 UTC

Something else is driving global warming and the sooner we find out what it is the sooner we can do something about it.


I agree with you on this point Gary, "Something else is driving global warming" and it's cyclical in nature too. Man is the red herring here, he needs to
be taken out of the "global warming" equation...Something else is behind this
global warming and what ever it is it's bigger than man.


The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.
ID: 1196409 · Report as offensive
Profile archangel
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Apr 01
Posts: 62
Credit: 1,842,428
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1196498 - Posted: 17 Feb 2012, 22:55:54 UTC - in response to Message 1196130.  
Last modified: 17 Feb 2012, 22:59:24 UTC

MLI,

NASA above most has proven themselves to be a biased, politically influenced, scientifically untrustworthy agency whose findings are less predicated on facts than funding dollars.

The principle problem all of the warmists run into, is that all research being conducted by those who 'find' evidence in support of these claims, relies on them coming to a predetermined conclusion.

Government agencies, universities and even elite donors all want to hear a specific outcome. one wrong word and these funds evaporate.

The only 'pure' science left being conducted is in the garages and basements of stand-alone, gifted, loner scientists.

You can find over 600 of these with prestigious doctorates and no ulterior motive other than the output of their research here: http://www.stopglobalcoolingnow.com/?p=188

Most of these come from the institutions and the very studies you link, including NASA, Berkley, MIT, etc, etc, etc...

They espouse the very thing i am saying, that the 'science' is corrupted by the money. These are the very scientists researching the studies you point to as gospel, stepping out of the corruption and warning against it.

you can link to endless article espousing the view you want, i can link to endless articles espousing the counter view from people at the same facilities that publish your article.

The only question you have to ask yourself, as a human, is "Where did the money go?"

Follow the money, and you will find a conclusion warranting further study every single time!

What motivation do these respected scientists have for stepping out of their cushy government research grants and absolving themselves of this, other than their own personal morality?

It certainly isn't that nice new, cushy teaching job at a lesser university..

regards,

Archangel!~
ID: 1196498 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20523
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1196627 - Posted: 18 Feb 2012, 4:54:45 UTC - in response to Message 1196189.  
Last modified: 18 Feb 2012, 5:18:41 UTC

... Yes, the earth is getting warmer. Yes, CO2 going up. Are they related? No they are mere coincidence if the last billion years of evidence are to believed. ...

And this where you are back to denying physics:


And this is where you deny observation.
At 550 M years ago the CO2 spiked, ...

It is clear that CO2 has had near zero influence on global temperature over the last 550 million years. Why is it the sole factor for the last couple thousand? Something else is driving global warming and the sooner we find out what it is the sooner we can do something about it.


The "Something else is driving global warming and the sooner we find out what it is the sooner we can do something about it" is still very much us.


I'm not sure if you are genuinely questioning and befuddled or whether you're just generating yet more FUD and distraction...

Looks like you've pulled the diagram from the www.geocraft.com site. Or would you care to reference it?

The CO2 concentration trace looks genuine enough and looks like it follows the GEOCARB III trace as seen on wikipedia. However, the temperature plot looks to be highly "diagrammatic" and set to no real values. Can you say where that part comes from?...

Regardless, even if you take the temperature plot as accurate gospel truth, all that shows is that conditions millions of years ago were very different to what we have now. For example, significantly, the land masses were very differently arranged, the sun was much cooler so far back, and early life was steadily changing the atmospheric composition. The high CO2 helped to keep the early earth warmer than it would otherwise have been with the cool sun and the arrangement of the land mass at that time... You also had periods of much greater volcanic activity that we don't see in present times. Nor do you have today anything like the continent-wide swamps that laid down our present day fossil-fuel coal and oil...

The various ensuing changes caused a number a calamitous extinctions.

For our entire existence, we have enjoyed stable and benign conditions that have allowed Mankind to flourish. You can't argue against our recent very rapid change of our atmosphere that is set to wreck those favorable stable conditions... CO2 still directly absorbs the outgoing infrared radiation (heat radiation) from our earth, regardless of anything you might claim.


For more of the story of ancient climate and some of what changed the ancient climate, take a look at: Climate during geological ages. Note also how you see different effects across different scales.

Note also "The Heat Was On: Atmospheric CO2 Triggered a Global Warming Event 40 Million Years Ago".

We are now living in the here and now.

Still our only planet,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1196627 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20523
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1196634 - Posted: 18 Feb 2012, 5:05:20 UTC - in response to Message 1196409.  

Something else is driving global warming and the sooner we find out what it is the sooner we can do something about it.


I agree with you on this point Gary, "Something else is driving global warming" and it's cyclical in nature too. Man is the red herring here, he needs to be taken out of the "global warming" equation...Something else is behind this global warming and what ever it is it's bigger than man.



That's the whole point. In recent times, that is now, Man is by far the greater influence than any of the natural cycles. We are directly measuring that to be so, every day now.


Still our only one planet,
Martin

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1196634 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20523
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1196639 - Posted: 18 Feb 2012, 5:09:28 UTC - in response to Message 1196498.  
Last modified: 18 Feb 2012, 5:21:02 UTC

... The only question you have to ask yourself, as a human, is "Where did the money go?"

Follow the money, and you will find a conclusion warranting further study every single time! ...


As demonstrated by the Heartland Institute embarrassment.


Meanwhile, in contrast you have a world of Science and open peer review and also the real world to compare against that keeps scientific fact honest and truthful.

The real shame is how fraudsters and lobbyists for certain fossil fuel companies are trying so desperately to discredit honest science for the sake of corporate greed.

Oh, and as a side effect we get to burn the planet.


Ooooer... Is that a "Stupid or Not Stupid?".

Still our only planet,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1196639 · Report as offensive
Profile archangel
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Apr 01
Posts: 62
Credit: 1,842,428
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1196644 - Posted: 18 Feb 2012, 5:15:33 UTC - in response to Message 1196634.  


That's the whole point. In recent times, that is now, Man is by far the greater influence than any of the natural cycles. We are directly measuring that to be so, every day now.

Still our only one planet,
Martin



Remind me of that, next time a class X 2 flare or a VEI 6 super volcano happens to pop up, as they do about once every double our pathetic history of existence...

It's hard to admit you are statistically insignificant... But it's easy to have a superiority complex....
ID: 1196644 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20523
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1196653 - Posted: 18 Feb 2012, 5:24:10 UTC - in response to Message 1196644.  

Remind me of that, next time a class X 2 flare or a VEI 6 super volcano happens to pop up, as they do about once every double our pathetic history of existence...

Wow! Distraction or what?

Has either of those thingies had any effect upon our recent climate?...

Thought not.


Still our only planet,
Martin

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1196653 · Report as offensive
Profile archangel
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Apr 01
Posts: 62
Credit: 1,842,428
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1196656 - Posted: 18 Feb 2012, 5:29:07 UTC - in response to Message 1196653.  
Last modified: 18 Feb 2012, 5:42:25 UTC

Remind me of that, next time a class X 2 flare or a VEI 6 super volcano happens to pop up, as they do about once every double our pathetic history of existence...

Wow! Distraction or what?

Has either of those thingies had any effect upon our recent climate?...

Thought not.


Still our only planet,
Martin



Not?

You mean other than Toba, Yellowstone or 1987, right?

Just talking about the last million years here...

Oh wait, nothing that happened before homo sapiens arrived is important to you, right?

/boggle
ID: 1196656 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20523
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1196669 - Posted: 18 Feb 2012, 5:40:33 UTC - in response to Message 1196656.  
Last modified: 18 Feb 2012, 5:41:08 UTC

Not?

You mean other than Toba, Yellowstone or 1987, right?

Just talking about the last half a million years here...

Very good.

Now you tell me the numbers and how significant or not those events were as compared to the continued increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.

Hint: They've been modeled in detail in various ways...


Still our only planet,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1196669 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 . . . 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · 27 · 28 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects, Environment, etc part II


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.