Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt...

There are 60662 comments on the Newsday story from Dec 14, 2008, titled Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt.... In it, Newsday reports that:

When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Newsday.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#30745 Jun 14, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
The answer I suggest lies in remaining open to the possibility that a goodly proportion of the folks you feel are "disparaging science" are in fact not disparaging science per se - only disparaging the mis-use and co-option of science as a stalking horse and camoflage by those whose real purpose is to advance certain 'revolutionary' political and social engineering ideologies and agendas.
This is not at all an unreasonable view, when history (the Cultural Revolution and Great Leap Forward disasters in China, e.g.) as well as present-day experience (Scientology, e.g.) provide so many examples of the ills and horrors that can result when proponents of such movements succeed in foisting their ideologies off on the masses as "scientific."
It is unfair and intellectually dishonest to brand such folks with disparaging labels such as "denialist," when all they are standing up for is an open airing of the true social agenda to see whether it withstands scrutiny when stripped bare of the "scientific" camoflage.
To promote such a position in my opinion is conspiratorial in nature. The phrase, "mis-use and co-option of science as a stalking horse and camoflage by those whose real purpose is to advance certain 'revolutionary' political and social engineering ideologies and agendas." is at best a political statement in itself.

There is a difference in promoting social change as being scientific and promoting scientific principles because they withstand the rigors of scientific scrutiny.

It is not just the denialists who are for open airing of the true science to see whether it withstands scrutiny when stripped bare of the political agendas. In order for the anti global warming movement to have any teeth, it is paramount for those denying to demonize the science because they have little else to offer. It is much easier to be against something than it is to have support for that position.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#30746 Jun 14, 2012
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
To promote such a position in my opinion is conspiratorial in nature. The phrase, "mis-use and co-option of science as a stalking horse and camoflage by those whose real purpose is to advance certain 'revolutionary' political and social engineering ideologies and agendas." is at best a political statement in itself.
There is a difference in promoting social change as being scientific and promoting scientific principles because they withstand the rigors of scientific scrutiny.
It is not just the denialists who are for open airing of the true science to see whether it withstands scrutiny when stripped bare of the political agendas. In order for the anti global warming movement to have any teeth, it is paramount for those denying to demonize the science because they have little else to offer. It is much easier to be against something than it is to have support for that position.
Anything other than what you believe in is a conspiracy to you. It is blantantly obvious that the UN's goal, overall, is to govern the world. It has been using science and any other way it can to try to pry sovereign countries of their individual rights. It's attempting to infringe on the US 2nd amendment with global small arms treaty. It is attempting to stick it's nose into the US voting laws. The latest is LOST. Look it up if you don't know what that is. It has been talking about a "global tax". And, the list keeps going. If you don't see this huge political agenda, that is your own shortsightedness, or, possibly naivety. In a perfect world, all the politicization shouldn't enter into the MMCC debate. However, it has weaved it's way so far into it, I don't think there is any chance of cutting it out completely and scrutinizing just the raw science of it.

What you continuously seem to get confused over is not that people are denying the climate is changing. They're not. They are arguing against it being man made. THAT IS THE PLAIN, SIMPLE, FACT that you overlook in your arguments in calling skeptics 'denialists' and other denegrating terms.
Teddy R

San Francisco, CA

#30747 Jun 14, 2012
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
To promote such a position in my opinion is conspiratorial in nature.
"Conspiratorial??" My goodness! How so? Who exactly are the parties to this "conspiracy?" I had no idea - please let me know who my fellow conspirators are ASAP so I can get together with them in whereever the Evil HQ is and wreak even more eeeevul.
Also - I had no idea that in merely suggesting a possibility I was actually "PROMOTING A POSITION!" Talk about a reactionary response ...
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
The phrase, "mis-use and co-option of science as a stalking horse and camoflage by those whose real purpose is to advance certain 'revolutionary' political and social engineering ideologies and agendas." is at best a political statement in itself.
Of course! That's the whole point! As far as I'm concerned, there's no real controversy worth debating outside of the academic literature insofar as the actual science is concerned. The very fact that there is controversy and debate going on AT ALL reveals the fact that this whole AGW/Warmist/Denialist food fight is PURELY political. The UN and their creature the IPCC is a POLITICAL body.

The true "deniers" in all this are those who would deny this obvious fact - it's a purely political controversy; NOT scientific. The only reason the science comes into it at all is that one side in the debate is using science as a tactical rhetorical device.
Teddy R

San Francisco, CA

#30748 Jun 14, 2012
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
There is a difference in promoting social change as being scientific and promoting scientific principles because they withstand the rigors of scientific scrutiny.
You insist on pressing a scientific debate - but you're fencing with ghosts. No one actually CARES about the science. BORING. There's no scientific controversy worth debating (outside of the review comments and correspondence in the academic literature).

The science debate you want to have is a red herring. A Judas goat. A side-show to lure in the Rubes.
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
It is not just the denialists who are for open airing of the true science to see whether it withstands scrutiny when stripped bare of the political agendas. In order for the anti global warming movement to have any teeth, it is paramount for those denying to demonize the science because they have little else to offer. It is much easier to be against something than it is to have support for that position.
Yeah, well that makes it pretty clear you're just another crypto-social engineer doggedly pretending to defend the holy flag of "science" rather than man up, engage and defend your political and social engineering agenda on its broader merits (or lack of merit).

No - some of us that you are so pleased to label as "denialists" couldn't care less about an "open airing of the true science to see whether it withstands scrutiny when stripped bare of the political agendas." No - we want and open and honest airing of the true warmist/alarmist POLITICAL AND SOCIOECONOMIC AGENDA to see whether it withstands scrutiny when stripped bare of the spurious SCIENCE smokescreen.

And no, many of those you label as "deniers" have no interest or need to argue or "demonize the science." Take all the AGW "science" you feel compelled to argue incessantly and take it all as given and accepted, in fact. Argument over. Now comes the hard part you don't want to step up to - SO WHAT?! How about we just end the fuss and drama, and get on with making all the preparations necessary to live in a world that's 3 deg. C warmer?

But that option cannot be allowed to be recognized as an option worthy of discussion, can it? Because it drags the TRUE warmist/alarmist ideological, political, and socioeconomic revolutionary game plan out into open - where it's rapidly seen to be indefensible.

Nope - in order for the warmist/alarmist movement to have any teeth, it is paramount for them to insist on making the argument a false one about "the science" because they have little else to offer.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#30749 Jun 14, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
"Conspiratorial??" My goodness! How so? Who exactly are the parties to this "conspiracy?" I had no idea - please let me know who my fellow conspirators are ASAP so I can get together with them in whereever the Evil HQ is and wreak even more eeeevul.
Also - I had no idea that in merely suggesting a possibility I was actually "PROMOTING A POSITION!" Talk about a reactionary response ...
<quoted text>
Of course! That's the whole point! As far as I'm concerned, there's no real controversy worth debating outside of the academic literature insofar as the actual science is concerned. The very fact that there is controversy and debate going on AT ALL reveals the fact that this whole AGW/Warmist/Denialist food fight is PURELY political. The UN and their creature the IPCC is a POLITICAL body.
The true "deniers" in all this are those who would deny this obvious fact - it's a purely political controversy; NOT scientific. The only reason the science comes into it at all is that one side in the debate is using science as a tactical rhetorical device.
"The very fact that there is controversy and debate going on AT ALL reveals the fact that this whole AGW/Warmist/Denialist food fight is PURELY political."

While that may be true, the fact is that the science supports the premise. If it did not, then there would be no fight. Some just do not want science to get in the way of their agendas. If the skeptical scientists can solidly support their position we would see a change in the premise. Unfortunately, that has not happened.

It is also obvious that the whole thing has taken on a partisan tone. This is obvious when one scrutinizes the studies showing this very thing. However, the so called independents align more with the science thus showing that there is a definite political RW bias.

Science is not and has never aligned with a liberal agenda....or a RW one for that matter. While there may be political biases among individual scientists, the scientific method is apolitical.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#30750 Jun 14, 2012
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
It is also obvious that the whole thing has taken on a partisan tone. This is obvious when one scrutinizes the studies showing this very thing. However, the so called independents align more with the science thus showing that there is a definite political RW bias.
Science is not and has never aligned with a liberal agenda....or a RW one for that matter. While there may be political biases among individual scientists, the scientific method is apolitical.
An RW bias, huh? This link is not about MMCC. However, it IS about how an agenda can affect(align) the "science" you and others continue to insist is not politicized by the(highly ethical - LMAO!) IPCC.
-------
Homeland Security-Funded Study Pushing Tea Party Terrorism Narrative

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/06/11/homeland...
Northie

Spokane, WA

#30751 Jun 14, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
The answer I suggest lies in remaining open to the possibility that a goodly proportion of the folks you feel are "disparaging science" are in fact not disparaging science per se - only disparaging the mis-use and co-option of science as a stalking horse and camoflage by those whose real purpose is to advance certain 'revolutionary' political and social engineering ideologies and agendas. This is not at all an unreasonable view, when history (the Cultural Revolution and Great Leap Forward disasters in China...
Good gawd. Another teabagger convinced that the entire world scientific community is in cahoots with the ghosts of Mao and Lenin.

I appreciate your attempt to explain the insanity of climate science deniers, but insanity it remains.
Teddy R

San Francisco, CA

#30752 Jun 14, 2012
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
"The very fact that there is controversy and debate going on AT ALL reveals the fact that this whole AGW/Warmist/Denialist food fight is PURELY political."
While that may be true, the fact is that the science supports the premise. If it did not, then there would be no fight.
While the science may support the premise, that by itself is of little interest or value in reaching a useful or practical resolution, when the real crux of the controversy is a continuation of decades- and even centuries-old ideological feuds between free-market capitalists, socialists, statists, anti-corporatists, antiglobalists, neo-Luddites, environmentalists, over global wealth and income distribution, etc.

Frankly, apart from providing the warmist/alarmist camp with the latest trendy meme to use as leverage, the real scientists and their science are just so much curious but ultimately unimportant baggage in this discussion, to be shuffled off into the corner out of the way when the real nut-cutting begins.
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Some just do not want science to get in the way of their agendas.
No doubt - and equally, there are some others that some just don't want to openly and honestly admit the "science" is merely a convenient rhetorical cloak to mask their real agendas.
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
If the skeptical scientists can solidly support their position we would see a change in the premise. Unfortunately, that has not happened.
Fair point, when the premise in question is truly a scientific matter.

But when the premise is one of advocating the necessity of radically re-structuring societies, lifestyles, economies, and re-allocating global wealth and political power, these are not matters scientists are not qualified to deal with, and not amenable to inquiry by the scientific method.
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
It is also obvious that the whole thing has taken on a partisan tone.
I would suggest instead it is obvious this is a pre-existing and long-standing partisan fight that has merely moved into a new battle-space (i.e., AGW). It's not the partisan tone that is new ...
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
This is obvious when one scrutinizes the studies showing this very thing. However, the so called independents align more with the science thus showing that there is a definite political RW bias.
Science is not and has never aligned with a liberal agenda....or a RW one for that matter. While there may be political biases among individual scientists, the scientific method is apolitical.
Sorry, amigo - that's just denial on your part. Liberals have no superior claim for being on the side of scientific truth than their partisan foes.

This isn't a matter of scientists aligning with partisan agendas (with some exceptions that are readily reconiled by recognizing the principle that when a scientist crosses the line into advocating a political position, he or she is no longer a scientist), it's a matter of scientists as innocents having their work and names co-opted, wittingly or unwittingly, by partisan political actors pushing ideological and political agendas.

When liberals decide there is mileage to be gained for their liberal agendas by aligning with some scientific argument that happens to support it, they are no more or less shy about snatching up that rhetorical weapon for their quiver than are conservatives.

And liberals are no less prone to demonize, deny, and denigrate science and Nobel Prize-winning scientists when it doesn't happen to support their partisan liberal agendas (e.g., Milton Freedman, to take a blatant example)
Teddy R

San Francisco, CA

#30753 Jun 14, 2012
*these are matters scientists are not qualified to deal with, and not amenable to inquiry by the scientific method.
Teddy R

San Francisco, CA

#30754 Jun 14, 2012
Northie wrote:
<quoted text>
Good gawd. Another teabagger convinced that the entire world scientific community is in cahoots with the ghosts of Mao and Lenin.
I appreciate your attempt to explain the insanity of climate science deniers, but insanity it remains.
You either misunderstand or intentionally misrepresent my point - experience unfortunately suggests it's probably the latter.

I believe the world scientific community (with certain notable exceptions - a few scientists that have decided to stop being scientists in order to dabble as amateurs in politics) that is largely the innocent and unwitting tool in the Great AGW Controvery.

“EnvironMENTAList ”

Since: Feb 07

Near Detroit

#30755 Jun 14, 2012
You climate blamers look your own children in the eyes and condemn them to a CO2 demise. Love the planet with fear?

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#30756 Jun 15, 2012
Interesting score on this page.
Alarmists 0 Sceptics 9
Scorers:
Teddy R (6) fishaholic (2) kristy (1)

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#30758 Jun 15, 2012
Earthling-1 wrote:
Interesting score on this page.
Alarmists 0 Sceptics 9
Scorers:
Teddy R (6) fishaholic (2) kristy (1)
Earthworm -1

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#30759 Jun 15, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
While the science may support the premise, that by itself is of little interest or value in reaching a useful or practical resolution, when the real crux of the controversy is a continuation of decades- and even centuries-old ideological feuds between free-market capitalists, socialists, statists, anti-corporatists, antiglobalists, neo-Luddites, environmentalists, over global wealth and income distribution, etc.
Frankly, apart from providing the warmist/alarmist camp with the latest trendy meme to use as leverage, the real scientists and their science are just so much curious but ultimately unimportant baggage in this discussion, to be shuffled off into the corner out of the way when the real nut-cutting begins.
<quoted text>
No doubt - and equally, there are some others that some just don't want to openly and honestly admit the "science" is merely a convenient rhetorical cloak to mask their real agendas.
<quoted text>
Fair point, when the premise in question is truly a scientific matter.
But when the premise is one of advocating the necessity of radically re-structuring societies, lifestyles, economies, and re-allocating global wealth and political power, these are not matters scientists are not qualified to deal with, and not amenable to inquiry by the scientific method.
<quoted text>
I would suggest instead it is obvious this is a pre-existing and long-standing partisan fight that has merely moved into a new battle-space (i.e., AGW). It's not the partisan tone that is new ...
<quoted text>
Sorry, amigo - that's just denial on your part. Liberals have no superior claim for being on the side of scientific truth than their partisan foes.
This isn't a matter of scientists aligning with partisan agendas (with some exceptions that are readily reconiled by recognizing the principle that when a scientist crosses the line into advocating a political position, he or she is no longer a scientist), it's a matter of scientists as innocents having their work and names co-opted, wittingly or unwittingly, by partisan political actors pushing ideological and political agendas.
When liberals decide there is mileage to be gained for their liberal agendas by aligning with some scientific argument that happens to support it, they are no more or less shy about snatching up that rhetorical weapon for their quiver than are conservatives.
And liberals are no less prone to demonize, deny, and denigrate science and Nobel Prize-winning scientists when it doesn't happen to support their partisan liberal agendas (e.g., Milton Freedman, to take a blatant example)
"While the science may support the premise, that by itself is of little interest or value in reaching a useful or practical resolution"
Meaning that all you have for an argument is a conspiracy theory.

'"science" is merely a convenient rhetorical cloak to mask their real agendas.'
In other words reject science if it does not support your favorite conspiracy.

"But when the premise is one of advocating the necessity of radically re-structuring societies, lifestyles, economies, and re-allocating global wealth and political power, these are not matters scientists are not qualified to deal with, and not amenable to inquiry by the scientific method. "
Double negative here, but I think I follow what you are trying to spin. We are talking about the science, not the political ramifications thereof.

"When liberals decide there is mileage to be gained for their liberal agendas by aligning with some scientific argument that happens to support it, they are no more or less shy about snatching up that rhetorical weapon for their quiver than are conservatives. "
There is nothing wrong with aligning WITH scientific argument. It is when science is rejected for political purposes that things become problematic.

Nice try at spin and flabbergast but the fact remains that the scientific method is apolitical.
Teddy R

Reston, VA

#30760 Jun 15, 2012
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
"While the science may support the premise, that by itself is of little interest or value in reaching a useful or practical resolution"
Meaning that all you have for an argument is a conspiracy theory.
I have political actors and bodies like the UN and domestic US governments militating for global wealth re-distribution, redistributive and Pigolian taxation, increased regulation and restrictions in individual free choice in consumption and economic activities, diversion of public monies to fund sective "green" ventures - all overtly citing AGW THEORY as justification for these political and socioeconomic agendas.

So you are saying these actors and bodies are merely theoretical, and do not actually exist? You are denying that they are citing AGW THEORY explicitly as part of, if not the principal basis for their agendas of political and socioeconomic revolution?

If that's a mere "conspiracy theory" to you, then everything is just another conspiracy theory also, and your argument is no argument at all.
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text> '"science" is merely a convenient rhetorical cloak to mask their real agendas.'
In other words reject science if it does not support your favorite conspiracy.
That's your strawman.

No - accept the science, and having recognized it, accept also that it's then largely irrelevant to the REAL and LARGER political and socioeconomic matters at issue.
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text> "But when the premise is one of advocating the necessity of radically re-structuring societies, lifestyles, economies, and re-allocating global wealth and political power, these are not matters scientists are not qualified to deal with, and not amenable to inquiry by the scientific method. "
Double negative here, but I think I follow what you are trying to spin. We are talking about the science, not the political ramifications thereof.
I corrected the double-negative in a post immediately following - but you read this as intended.

No - YOU are talking about the science off in the corner with a few other similarly obsessed nerds.

Everyone else at the party is bored with the science and has moved on to the much bigger topics of Pigolian Carbon taxes, taxing certain "undesireable" industries and economic activity, subsidizing others with public money, redistributing global wealth, etc.- and then throwing out cherry-picked pop AGW "science" as rhetorical support for their various agendas.
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>"When liberals decide there is mileage to be gained for their liberal agendas by aligning with some scientific argument that happens to support it, they are no more or less shy about snatching up that rhetorical weapon for their quiver than are conservatives. "
There is nothing wrong with aligning WITH scientific argument. It is when science is rejected for political purposes that things become problematic.
Nice try at spin and flabbergast but the fact remains that the scientific method is apolitical.
"... the scientific method is apolitical."

Agreed.

Co-opting it for political purposes is not.

Nor is the the scientific method universally applicable to all human and cultural issues and problems - except in the mind of logical positivists like yourself who are only capable of seeing and dealing with the real world through that one lens.

And there is everything wrong with aligning WITH scientific argument when "the scientific method" is hauled out beyond its proper sphere into the political arena, to be used by the POLITICAL contestants as a rhetorical bludgeon to steamroller and suppress other, equally or more valid, viewpoints and and arguments on matters that are not properly matters of scientific inquiry.

Go ahead and do it - but leave your pretended "apolitical" lily-white "scientific" robes at the door when you do.
freaking-crazy

Olive Branch, MS

#30761 Jun 15, 2012
Northie wrote:
<quoted text>
Good gawd. Another teabagger convinced that the entire world scientific community is in cahoots with the ghosts of Mao and Lenin.
I appreciate your attempt to explain the insanity of climate science deniers, but insanity it remains.
Its only people like your self that like 2 through around the word teabagger & think it will make people cower down 2 your point of view .. just like how you & your fellow like minded thinkers think calling one a Racist. It seams like you guyz are the thin skined ones..

If you have an Objection 2 another's point of view you like 2 call names..

That's so Preschool of you.. I thought your Supposed 2be the smart ones..

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#30762 Jun 15, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
I have political actors and bodies like the UN and domestic US governments militating for global wealth re-distribution, redistributive and Pigolian taxation, increased regulation and restrictions in individual free choice in consumption and economic activities, diversion of public monies to fund sective "green" ventures - all overtly citing AGW THEORY as justification for these political and socioeconomic agendas.
So you are saying these actors and bodies are merely theoretical, and do not actually exist? You are denying that they are citing AGW THEORY explicitly as part of, if not the principal basis for their agendas of political and socioeconomic revolution?
If that's a mere "conspiracy theory" to you, then everything is just another conspiracy theory also, and your argument is no argument at all.
<quoted text>
That's your strawman.
No - accept the science, and having recognized it, accept also that it's then largely irrelevant to the REAL and LARGER political and socioeconomic matters at issue.
<quoted text>
I corrected the double-negative in a post immediately following - but you read this as intended.
No - YOU are talking about the science off in the corner with a few other similarly obsessed nerds.
Everyone else at the party is bored with the science and has moved on to the much bigger topics of Pigolian Carbon taxes, taxing certain "undesireable" industries and economic activity, subsidizing others with public money, redistributing global wealth, etc.- and then throwing out cherry-picked pop AGW "science" as rhetorical support for their various agendas.
<quoted text>
"... the scientific method is apolitical."
Agreed.
Co-opting it for political purposes is not.
Nor is the the scientific method universally applicable to all human and cultural issues and problems - except in the mind of logical positivists like yourself who are only capable of seeing and dealing with the real world through that one lens.
And there is everything wrong with aligning WITH scientific argument when "the scientific method" is hauled out beyond its proper sphere into the political arena, to be used by the POLITICAL contestants as a rhetorical bludgeon to steamroller and suppress other, equally or more valid, viewpoints and and arguments on matters that are not properly matters of scientific inquiry.
Go ahead and do it - but leave your pretended "apolitical" lily-white "scientific" robes at the door when you do.
Your entire premise is based upon there being a great conspiracy that encompasses all the respected scientific academies throughout the entire world. If that were to be true, then all is lost! I understand your thoughts in the political arena but heartily disagree that this is driving the study of climate science throughout the world.
litesong

Everett, WA

#30763 Jun 15, 2012
freaking-crazy wrote:
Its only people..... that like 2 through(sic) around the word teabagger & think it will make people cower down 2 your point of view.....
I love that teabaggers are called the tealiban. It portrays the levels of uneducated self-righteousness needed for people to think destroying civilization is a good thing.

& to think it only involves adding one letter!

Since: Jan 12

Western Hemisphere

#30764 Jun 15, 2012
We can stand to lose a few polar bears, and we don't need that much ice on the north pole anyway. I enjoy warm summers, and lots of sun. I say it's not a big deal - global warming - just something to scare people.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#30765 Jun 15, 2012
GlobeStar wrote:
We can stand to lose a few polar bears, and we don't need that much ice on the north pole anyway. I enjoy warm summers, and lots of sun. I say it's not a big deal - global warming - just something to scare people.
Polar bears haven't done quite as well as humans in the reproduction stakes, but they appear to be in it for the duration, unlikely to disappear any time soon.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Global Warming Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Poll Will it, won't it? Part 3 (Aug '12) 3 hr litesong 3,265
News Will Green Political Machine Foil Trump? 3 hr Say It Ain t So Jo 30
More & Larger Western U.S. Forest Fires (Apr '14) 3 hr A Real American 49
News Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 3 hr LIbEralS 35,561
mau nomor togel jitu hub 082319208865 (Aug '15) 5 hr YOHANES1 14
News Panel recommends options to reduce aviation car... 12 hr tina anne 3
GW based on flawed science 19 hr IB DaMann 43
More from around the web