12-05-2003, 12:08 PM | #1 (permalink) |
Crazy
|
Global Warming caused by Humans
Well, according to a new Journal of Science report, global warming IS happening, and IS caused by humans.
Here is the first link I found about it, more to come as I do more research: http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/tec...223642,00.html ----------- Global warming a fact, say US govt experts WASHINGTON - There can be no doubt that global warming is real and is being caused by people, say two top United States government climate experts. Industrial emissions are a leading cause, they say - contradicting critics, already in the minority, who argue that climate change could be caused by mostly natural forces. 'There is no doubt that the composition of the atmosphere is changing because of human activities and, today, greenhouse gases are the largest human influence on global climate,' wrote Dr Thomas Karl, director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Centre, and Dr Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Centre for Atmospheric Research. 'The likely result is more frequent heatwaves, droughts, extreme precipitation events and related impacts, such as wildfires, heat stress, vegetation changes, and sea level rise,' they added in a commentary to be published in the latest issue of the journal Science. The two men estimate that, between 1990 and 2100, there is a 90 per cent probability that average global temperatures will rise by between 1.7 and 4.9 deg C. Such dramatic warming will further melt already crumbling glaciers, inundating coastal areas. They noted that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have risen by 31 per cent since pre-industrial times. Carbon dioxide is the No. 1 greenhouse gas, causing warming temperatures by trapping the sun's energy in the atmosphere. 'Given what has happened to date and is projected in the future, significant further climate change is guaranteed,' they wrote. The US has balked at signing global treaties to reduce climate-changing emissions. But global cooperation is key, said the experts. 'Climate change...may prove to be humanity's greatest challenge,' they wrote. 'It is very unlikely to be adequately addressed without greatly improved international cooperation and action.' -- Reuters ---------- More to come... http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-tsc120103.php Pretty much the same article, with a few more excerpts from the actual report. MB Last edited by m0ntyblack; 12-05-2003 at 12:12 PM.. |
12-05-2003, 12:50 PM | #2 (permalink) |
The Northern Ward
Location: Columbus, Ohio
|
1.7 degress in 110 years!!!?!?
RUN! WE'RE ALL DOOMED!1!!! I can't bring myself to take these dumbasses seriously.
__________________
"I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy |
12-05-2003, 01:03 PM | #3 (permalink) |
Crazy
|
That's 1.7 degrees Celsius, or around 3 degrees F. Up to 9 degrees F. And it may not seem like much to you, but look at it in a human body... 98.7 F. That raised to 101.7 F and you have a fairly bad fever, raised to 107.7 F, you're well on your way to death.
MB |
12-05-2003, 01:13 PM | #4 (permalink) |
The Northern Ward
Location: Columbus, Ohio
|
Yeah, being 98 degrees outside instead of 95 degrees in 110 years is going to bother me a whole hell of a lot too.
I won't look at it in a human body either, because for one 98.7 is an average, and two it's completely different than global climate.
__________________
"I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy |
12-05-2003, 01:46 PM | #5 (permalink) | |
Pissing in the cornflakes
|
Quote:
The concept of 'saving' the earth is false. The earth doesn't need saving and has survived FAR worse then SUV's just fine. The concept of 'maintaining' the earth 'as is' is another issue and I'm much more worried about a possible ice age then a natural warming trend.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. |
|
12-05-2003, 02:16 PM | #6 (permalink) |
Crazy
|
I was just using the body temperature as an example...face it, 1 degree is ALL that seperates ice from water. And I'm not worried about saving the planet, the planet will do just fine without us, however, I do have a bit of compassion for our species. As it stands right now, no one can really tell what difference that 3 degrees will make, or even if it will make a difference, but the thing is, we ARE responsible for our actions, and our actions ARE making a difference.
I used to think the right was all about "personal responsibility" and "accountability." At least that's what I believed when I considered myself a fine upstanding young conservative. However, all the arguments I hear against global climate initiatives sound like dodges of responsibility. And another thing: 15 years ago, every right-wing article I read stated that there was "no such thing as global warming." In the last 5 years there has been substantial proof of global warming and all the arguments turned to "Its a natural cycle of the earth, we don't have any control of how close to the sun we are." And now with at least limited proof that industrial-age emmissions ARE causing some effect on global climate, I've been hearing arguments such as Phaenx's "its only a little change." When is enough going to be enough that the right suddenly says, "oh crap, they WERE right, and we're all pwned unless we start doing something now?" And IF it comes to that point (and I really hope it doesn't, as much as I don't agree with you guys sometimes, I really do like you), will it be too late? Oh well, enough ranting for now. Cheers MB |
12-06-2003, 06:11 AM | #7 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: NJ
|
It's still flawed reasoning. Look at it in terms of geologic history and there is no way ANYONE can make accurate statements about whether the earth is the hottest it's ever been or that there is really a warming trend. Concrete temperature records only exist for about 100 years. The rest are assumptions based on questionable science.
Global warming has become an industry. It creates grants and scholarships for study, money for foundations, government programs, and has been wildly successful in separating proponents of ecological reform from their money. What motivation is there for these groups (including the government since the public has bought into it) to prove it isn't happening? The search for truth perhaps? Not likely since that means no more $$$$.
__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant. |
12-06-2003, 10:02 AM | #8 (permalink) | |
Dubya
Location: VA
|
Quote:
|
|
12-06-2003, 10:51 AM | #10 (permalink) | |
Pissing in the cornflakes
|
Quote:
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. |
|
12-06-2003, 11:37 AM | #11 (permalink) |
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
Location: Grantville, Pa
|
Too much of anything is a pollutant.
Too much oxygen and it is poisonous to animal life. It becomes corrosive and eats away at your lungs. Too much water vapor in the atmosphere and we will choke on the air. Too much nitrogen and the air would become dangerously flammable Too much CO2 and the earths temperature rises..... |
12-06-2003, 02:30 PM | #12 (permalink) | |
Pissing in the cornflakes
|
Quote:
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. |
|
12-06-2003, 03:06 PM | #13 (permalink) | ||
Dubya
Location: VA
|
Ustwo, please stop relying on Rush Limbaugh as your greenhouse gas scientist of choice:
Quote:
Here are those endnote references: Quote:
|
||
12-06-2003, 04:12 PM | #14 (permalink) | |
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
Location: Grantville, Pa
|
Quote:
Methane is about 36 times better at trapping heat per molecule, but it is also only somewhere in the hundredths of a percent of the volume of the CO2 we are putting in the atmosphere. So, by doing the math it is easy to dismiss any obscure models you may find that would attribute methane as a bigger problem than the CO2. |
|
12-06-2003, 05:17 PM | #15 (permalink) | |
Pissing in the cornflakes
|
Quote:
Again, I'm really not in the mood for about the 5th or 6th time in my life to go into debating global warming on some message board in depth, but please, try not to make ignorant statements about me by somehow assuming Limbaugh is the source of my science knowledge. It always ends with the other guy either saying crap like 'Well since we are not SURE we should still reduce emissions just in case!' forgetting the cost of doing so, or I get the equivalent of 'lalalalalala I can't hear you'. I get that on every OTHER thread here, but at least those aren’t rehashes to me. Maybe if you keep making ignorant statements you can goad me into it. Rush isn't a scientist, and as such makes an excellent straw man for the global alarmist crowd. A few years ago I did listen to Limbaugh on global warming and I really wanted to call in since he had the right conclusion but was missing the real evidence. I've been looking into this long before any of you heard about it in the early 80's late 70's as a kid (though the alarmists then were worried about possible global cooling and how we would all be starving in the 90's). Then it was a true theory, totally non-political, and never mentioned by activists. At that point the big environmental story was acid rain, and my first science project was on the effect of acid rain on Annelids. I kept up with the tree hugging degrees in college and post grad. The bad science and political motivations of the global warming crowd was a real turn off. Basically the center of the global warming crowd is, anti-human expansion, anti-progress, and suffers from elitism and a nice touch of hubris. For many global warming is a means to an end, and many are more then willing to believe them since they have similar feelings. There MAY well be a global warming trend. It has not been proven, and there is contradictory evidence, but I can not discount the possibility. What I find suspect is the human effect on this warming. Nothing I've seen so far proves it to a point where I'm willing to trash the US economy over.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. Last edited by Ustwo; 12-06-2003 at 05:22 PM.. |
|
12-06-2003, 05:23 PM | #16 (permalink) |
My future is coming on
Moderator Emeritus
Location: east of the sun and west of the moon
|
What gets me is the assumption that reducing likely human contribution to global warming would "trash the American economy." It would do nothing of the sort. It would SHIFT the American economy away from industries that currently make shitloads of money with polluting technologies, and toward "clean" industries, those that develop technologies to replace and/or compete with the dirty ones. It's not a matter of ruining the economy, it's a matter of shifting the balance away from some fairly entrenched interests. Incidentally, the economic impact of running environmentally clean industries is ALL short-term. The long-term consequences of adopting cleaner technologies are almost always a net gain for the company, it's just that CEOs and shareholders seem to look at the short term. Ford motors, oddly enough, is actually a leader in "green" industry technologies, and they're realizing tons of benefits. Fuji and Kodak cleaned up their acts about 5-10 years back and got huge economic benefits. This "wrecking the American economy" argument is just a screen for protecting the immediate interests of the petroleum, power, and auto industries.
__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." - Anatole France |
12-06-2003, 05:27 PM | #17 (permalink) |
Pissing in the cornflakes
|
Lurkette, cheap power and cheap transportation are key for a good economy.
Where do you think most of it comes from? This isn't about being clean. You CAN'T get cleaner then H2O and CO2 with combustion. I'm happy seeing 'clean' cars and the like, but if it burns, it makes CO2.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. |
12-06-2003, 06:15 PM | #18 (permalink) | ||
My future is coming on
Moderator Emeritus
Location: east of the sun and west of the moon
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." - Anatole France |
||
12-06-2003, 08:36 PM | #19 (permalink) |
Pissing in the cornflakes
|
Lurkette I'm sorry but you don't know what you are talking about. Its not like you would just need to turn our coal, oil, and natural gas plants to wind/solar/wave/geothermal power and be done with it. The problem with wind/solar/wave is that the amount of power produced isn't enough. It would take an insane amount of wind and solar plants to produce the CURRENT level of power generation the US uses. The solution of the greens is always making due with less power, and that my friend is basically saying 'lets have a recession'. Geothermal is not practical in most parts of the country, and the same applies to hydraulic.
And lets take transportation. You can make cars more efficient and I’m all for it, but either they get their power from gas (aka CO2) or are charged before hand with power produced by other means. Means you wish to eliminate in favor of far less efficient means. And now lets add cross country transportation for shipping, everything from condoms to grain. More expense, more cost. Would you suggest we start to reduce our emissions while at the same time NOT having the technology to back it up (we don't) AND redesign all of our major cities involving millions and millions of people to be 'eco-friendly' and somehow think this will be painless? It wouldn't require a shift in thinking, it would require a draconian government to force the population into lower standard of living while paying for the biggest rebuilding process the world has ever come close to seeing. Not going to happen here.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. |
12-06-2003, 10:17 PM | #20 (permalink) |
Dubya
Location: VA
|
Ustwo, the only assumption in my post was that you get your opinions from Limbaugh, which the evidence from countless previous threads would suggest.
When you replied with your non-human explanation for CO2 emissions, I was reminded of one of the more famous "Rush Myths" concerning the environment, so I posted those myths specifically relating to CO2 emissions. Instead of replying to that, you decided to insult me, then present anecdotal evidence from your youth. Welcome, to the Desert of the Ignored. /moving on...
__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work." |
12-07-2003, 05:20 AM | #21 (permalink) | |
My future is coming on
Moderator Emeritus
Location: east of the sun and west of the moon
|
Quote:
Listen, show me some data from INDEPENDENT scientific and economic sources *i.e., not the Sierra Club or the Center for Individual Freedom, or the much bandied Rush Limbaugh) and I'll gladly eat my words. I think a key source of disagreement here is a basic difference in assumptions. I don't think that preserving the grossly elevated American standard of living is sufficient argument for ignoring the purported effects of human behavior (largely Western, largely American behavor) on global climate change that affects not just 300 million Americans but 7 billion people around the world. You can argue about the science all you want, but it's fairly well-accepted that the global warming trend is a fact, and that human behavior contributes a substantial amount of that effect. It's a bit of a Pascal's wager for the environment - the consequences of ignoring the science, if it happens to be true, are much greater than the consequences of acting to change our behavior in the face of faulty assumptions.
__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." - Anatole France |
|
12-07-2003, 09:22 AM | #22 (permalink) |
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
Location: Grantville, Pa
|
Apparently this Global Warming conspiracy is the largest, most successful in history.
It includes: EPA NCDC and NOAA NOAA & NESDIS (Confirms ground based measurements of global warming over the past 25 years IPCC A collaborative effort of thousands of international scientists. National Academy of Sciences National institute of water and atmospheric research US GLobal Change Research Panel (GOVT) Global Change Data and Information Systems (GOVT) All federal agencies that organize under GCDIS: ARM CDIAC DAACs DTIC EIA EROS FGDC GCMD LTER NAL NCAR NOAA NEDI NOAA NVDS NCAR (National Center for Atmospheric Research GOVT) US Department of State The 100 + nations that have ratified the Kyoto Protocol I can find dozens more credible institutions such as the US Department of Energy under Reagan verifying global climatic models, and a collection of insurers and reinsurers who are trying to stem their economic downfall as global warming induced problems chip away at their available funds etc... Global Warming naysayers are the fringe, while all the credible scientific institutions including almost all universities line up behind Global Warming happening, being a problem, and being primarially human induced. Your list, if you made one, would include mostly groups funded by Exxon and Scaife. |
12-07-2003, 09:37 AM | #23 (permalink) |
Registered User
Location: Somewhere in Ohio
|
Lurkette, I can understand you concern, but I can guarantee you there is no possible way in hell to make my job cleaner for the environment, and if it could be done I could guarantee you that it would cost 100x more to get the job done, but other countries wouldn't change their ways, and even more imports would be brought to this country, which would eliminate millions of jobs.
A qick question, How can there be intelligent city planning to reduce total miles driven when almost all cities are already built? And what about people who choose to live 50 miles away from work... Are you saying the governmenet should make them move into a 5 mile radius from where they work? I want no part of that world. I'll agree that some companies could do simple things that would cost nothing, but if nobody is making them change then why would they? It just can't be done in all situations. Like it or not, there are a ton of factories that keep the economy moving, and people employed. If they couldn't get things done and keep cost down they would all go to Mexico, and completely fuck up the economy. |
12-07-2003, 09:57 AM | #24 (permalink) |
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
Location: Grantville, Pa
|
The pollution from driving will be virtually eliminated once we transition to electrically driven cars.
And the solution to that is to dump billions of dollars into the research for it. Then, once the american car companies have that technology, we would have a leg up on the competition and easily make back that spent capital. Then once we have solved that for our cars, it will only be a matter of scale to get it to work for our industries. All it takes is some leadership. |
12-07-2003, 10:19 AM | #25 (permalink) | |
Pissing in the cornflakes
|
Quote:
Also we won't ask about the coal mining towns and unions Must....resist.....urge........to.......post......more......
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. |
|
12-07-2003, 10:43 AM | #26 (permalink) |
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
Location: Grantville, Pa
|
Yes leadership by government mandates where our leaders contribute the tens of billions of dollars towards hydrogen fuel technologies, solar cell technologies, nanotech and wind turbines rather than give those tens of billions of dollars to the fossil fuel companies in the form of tax breaks.
We must do this so that the technology that currently does not exist, DOES in the near future so we can mandate that industries convert over to them. |
12-08-2003, 12:22 AM | #27 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: San Jose, CA
|
Quote:
On the other hand, here in california the bay area spent a lot of money building affordable housing near Caltrain stations, and they found out afterwards that most of the tenants still didn't ride Caltrain. You can't force people to do many things, but I believe you can change the behavior of people over the long run. For an opposite example of this look at GM's intentional destruction of public transit systems in many major metro areas many years ago. |
|
12-08-2003, 02:14 PM | #28 (permalink) |
Crazy
Location: Great white north
|
I have seen quite a bit of evidence supporting global warming. From my perspective, to deny that it is happening or that human consumption is not the root cause is just naive. What else would be driving the warming. Yes, there have been past temp swings, but nothing as drastic as what is currently happening. The reality of it all is that economics are against doing anything proactive about it - there is no money in changing and a lot of money invested in the status quo - big business, fossil fuels, etc.
|
12-08-2003, 02:56 PM | #29 (permalink) | |
Pissing in the cornflakes
|
Quote:
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. |
|
12-08-2003, 03:11 PM | #30 (permalink) |
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
Location: Grantville, Pa
|
An anomaly caused by huge amounts of ash in the atmosphere and a decrease in sun activity which, when factored over the 6000 year cooling trend is nothing more than a blip on the radar?
Yes, I've heard about the little Ice Age. |
12-09-2003, 07:57 AM | #31 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: NJ
|
Quote:
__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant. |
|
12-09-2003, 08:42 AM | #32 (permalink) |
Illusionary
|
Hmmm, 6000 yrs. for a little ice age blip vs. 115 yrs for our current little blip. I am truly stunned at the inherent blindness of most humans in this country. All it takes is a few minutes of reading to gather the data, and with any intellect at all the warming trend becomes obvious, even to those who may be somewhat ....challenged. But dont worry, the effects will probably have no bearing on your life, your children will likely be BASKING in your glory.
__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha |
12-09-2003, 10:14 AM | #33 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: NJ
|
Quote:
The earth is 4,550,000,000 years old. Even if we had 1 billion years of data we would be looking at less than a quarter of its history.
__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant. |
|
12-09-2003, 10:35 AM | #34 (permalink) | |
Pissing in the cornflakes
|
Ummm whats this 6000 year figure? Sorry kids, wrong Ice age.
Quote:
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. |
|
12-09-2003, 10:45 AM | #35 (permalink) | |
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
Location: Grantville, Pa
|
Quote:
And we know what caused the little ice age. Just like we have very solid, credible evidence to explain the warming trend that all scientific evidence tells us should not be happening if not for human interference. What evidence explains why earth is getting warmer? Because it truly is. The suns radiation has been dimmer "lately" (as in the last couple hundred years) We are getting farther from the sun. Earth trends show us we are entering a glacial period. How does all that fit into your theory of the world naturally warming? Last edited by Superbelt; 12-09-2003 at 10:47 AM.. |
|
12-09-2003, 10:57 AM | #36 (permalink) | |
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
Location: Grantville, Pa
|
Quote:
This planets orbit around the sun oscillates from a round orbit to an ellyptical one. 6000 years ago the planets orbit peaked in it's circular and began its transition to its ellyptical. Why this is important is that the round orbit gives a more regular warming which allows the earth to generally warm up. The ellyptical one is uneven and produces a general cooling. We know this cycle has persisted for at least 700,000 years from measurements we made through ice core and sea bed samples. The science is that the ellyptical orbit we are presently getting further and further into affords us less and less insolation. This is the reason for the back and forth of the planets glacial cycles. This is all irrefutable, observable evidence and along with the physics of carbon (it's heat absorbing properties) blows to shit any argument that says global warming RIGHT NOW is a natural process. |
|
12-09-2003, 01:27 PM | #37 (permalink) |
Pissing in the cornflakes
|
Again, the 'little ice age' was very different. It was a sharp cooling trend that lasted a few centuries and we are only just recovering from.
Prior to this Europe at least (1400's), was WARMER then it currently is, as was the earth 6000 years ago (about 2 degrees). Yet despite these swings in temperature, the current weak trend MUST be due to human causes?
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. |
12-09-2003, 02:53 PM | #38 (permalink) |
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
Location: Grantville, Pa
|
Yes before the 1400's the earth was warmer than it currently is. The world was still coming down from the high temps.
Then the abberation of the LIA occured. and it bounced back, and kept going down until the IR. lets do this, This is a generic graph to show what I'm talking about. AA....BB....CC....DD....EE....FF....GG...HH....II....JJ....KK....LL....MM 58....56....55....52.....44....40....39....44....51...50....49....51....53 At points AA through DD normal global cooling is occuring. Then at point EE we started the LIA. Abnormally rapid cooling occured. The cause was unusually high volcanic activity. Around point HH the planet recovers and by II we are back to normal global cooling levels. Then point LL (slightly after the Industrial Revolution) and there is a change in direction. The planet starts warming and as you go out to and pass point MM the planet keeps warming when it really should continue to cool to 48...47... etc. So when you average out the LIA anomaly you see the graphs steady decline. We know the cause for the LIA. We also know the cause for the STRONG warming trend we are experiencing now. And it is a strong trend. This is the most rapid warming this planet has experienced for at least 4 million years and possible the fastest warming in the last 20 million. Last edited by Superbelt; 12-09-2003 at 02:55 PM.. |
12-09-2003, 03:46 PM | #39 (permalink) | |
Pissing in the cornflakes
|
Quote:
*chuckles* fastest warming in the last 4 MILLION years? Oh dear. Ok Superbelt, I hope you are ready to back this up with real data, you can expect my responce in a day or two, right now its time for an Xmass party.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. |
|
Tags |
caused, global, humans, warming |
|
|