Claim: Hot Days Permanently Damage Babies

Three month old infant lying on stomach

Three month old infant lying on stomach. By Tognopop (Own work) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

A new study claims exposure during early childhood to temperatures above 90F (32C) permanently damages the child’s earning potential.

Climate Change Might Lower Salaries

The more 90-degree days a fetus or infant endured, the lower his or her earnings in adulthood.

OLGA KHAZAN

Even if countries take moderate action on climate change, by the end of this century, Phoenix is expected to have an extra month of days above 95 degrees Fahrenheit, while Washington, D.C., is expected to have another three weeks of these sweltering days, as the Climate Impact Lab and New York Times reported.

A new study suggests that even days that are an average of 90 degrees Fahrenheit, or 32 Celsius, might have long-term, negative impacts on developing fetuses. The stress of the hot weather might show up as reduced human capital once those fetuses reach adulthood.

Maya Rossin-Slater, a health-policy professor at Stanford University, said she and her team wanted to understand the long-term consequences of climate change on people. For the study, published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, she and other researchers looked at data on births, weather, and earnings in half the states in the United States. For a given county, on a given day, they measured how many days above 90 degrees a child born that day would have experienced during gestation and during their first year of life. They then compared that person’s salary as an adult to someone born in that same county on that same day in other years.

It turned out fetuses and infants exposed to a single extra 90-plus degree day made $30 less a year, on average, or $430 less over the course of their entire lifetimes. Right now, the average American only experiences one such day a year. (This study looked at the average temperature throughout the entire day, not the highest temperature that day.) By the end of the century, there will be about 43 such days a year.

Read more: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/12/hot-weather-fetuses/547406/

The abstract of the study;

Relationship between season of birth, temperature exposure, and later life wellbeing

Adam Isena, Maya Rossin-Slaterb, and Reed Walker

We study how exposure to extreme temperatures in early periods of child development is related to adult economic outcomes measured 30 y later. Our analysis uses administrative earnings records for over 12 million individuals born in the United States between 1969 and 1977, linked to fine-scale, daily weather data and location and date of birth. We calculate the length of time each individual is exposed to different temperatures in utero and in early childhood, and we estimate flexible regression models that allow for nonlinearities in the relationship between temperature and long-run outcomes. We find that an extra day with mean temperatures above 32 °C in utero and in the first year after birth is associated with a 0.1% reduction in adult annual earnings at age 30. Temperature sensitivity is evident in multiple periods of early development, ranging from the first trimester of gestation to age 6–12 mo. We observe that household air-conditioning adoption, which increased dramatically over the time period studied, mitigates nearly all of the estimated temperature sensitivity.

Read more: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/11/28/1702436114.abstract

Unfortunately the full study is paywalled, but I’m concerned about the small scale of the effect the authors claim to have separated from what must be a great deal of noise.

Different states and countries at the same tropical latitude clearly have very different income levels. Singapore has a GDP per capita of $52,000 per annum. Kenya, also on the equator, has an income per capita of $1400 / annum. Ethiopia, slightly further from the equator than Kenya, has a GDP per capita of $700 / annum. Clearly birth temperature is not the only factor affecting income.

Even in the USA which is where the study authors focus their data analysis, there are significant income disparities between states with similar climates. According to Wikipedia, in 2016 California had an income of $58,619 per capita per annum. Oregon, to the North of California has an income of $50,582 – a substantial difference. Washington State, even further North, has an income of $64,454 per capita per annum. A true climate effect – going North causes both a decrease and an increase in income levels.

You wouldn’t have much of a mistake with these disparities to introduce a substantial bias into the results.

There are other more subtle biases which may have been overlooked. Cost of living tends to be substantially higher in cold climates. My personal observation is the need to pay expensive heating bills forces people in cold climates to work harder – I certainly had to work harder to cover the bills in cold months, when I lived in England.

Overheating can damage babies, you have to be very careful with babies in hot weather. But given the noisy impact of other factors on income levels, its difficult to see how that single factor could be reliably extracted from population data.

Update (EW): Tom Judd points out that all babies have already been exposed to 270 days or more of continuous 37C temperatures by the time they are born – well in excess of the 32C cited by the study authors as being the minimum temperature at which their claimed effect is detectable.

Advertisements

117 thoughts on “Claim: Hot Days Permanently Damage Babies

    • I guess that A/C is gone under their models. Remember, agenda 21 says that central heating and A/C are unsustainable. Let’s see, if one is born in a poor central African country, it is clear that one’s earning potential is because of the hot summer days. Got it. I guess being in a poor country is simply a convenient excuse for not reaching your earning potential.

      • They must not have studied Arab Nations.
        Saudi Arabia
        Yemen
        U A E
        Dubai
        Syria
        Jordan
        Libya
        Sudan
        Egypt
        Algeria
        Ethiopia
        Have so many 90+degree days during summer, 1/2 of their populace must be brain damaged

      • Bryan A, I was thinking the exact same thing. To “save” these poor buggers, give them cheap power, A/C and the problem is solved!

      • Bryan A & Aussie Bear: I was think of further back in time. Didn’t the whole human species originate in Africa around the equatorial regions? So wouldn’t all early human babies have suffered ill effects from hot temperatures?

        Makes one wonder how our species ever survived to reach our current level of achievement. A level where people can get paid to debate whether climate change allows more angels to dance on the head of a lin.

      • I wonder how this “study” aligns with the wealth gainers in the US born in the mid to late 1930s, when the number of 90 degree days, even in the north, was so much higher than they are now? I wish these people would stop denying the existence of the past. These denialists are leading us down a road to extinction – as a thinking species, that is.

    • Around 1930s temperatures were normally high including heatwave conditions. Has this effect babies/humans? Can anybody through light on this!!!

      Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

      • My parents were children in Oklahoma during the Dust Bowl and the extreme heat of the 1930’s. They seem perfectly normal to me.

      • Ah TA, what is normal in OK may be not be so in CA, beware of regional variations in societal normalcy.
        /supersarc

      • TA

        Sadly, it seems they might be earning $30 less a year than they might have had they been born in Lapland, with Santa.

        $30 a year…….seriously?

    • particularly those poor children born in a hot third world country where making money is not even possible and subsistence is almost impossible. science this is not.

      • “We observe that household air-conditioning adoption, which increased dramatically over the time period studied, mitigates nearly all of the estimated temperature sensitivity.”

        So, perceived problem mitigated by Air Conditioning ….

        If any reasonable wanted to fix the ‘problem’, they would try to help mothers into a better environment; rather than take away reasonable sources of energy they would be promoting sources of energy that could mitigate the they have defined as a problem.

  1. I was born, and lived most of my life in the tropics [North Queensland]. Apart from mining no high paying industry establishes itself here so there would be a measurable difference.

    • My kids were born into North Queensland, then grew up on the equator in Indonesia. The eldest has completed her first post grad, the third will finish her post grad medical degree next year. Do I tell them to give up according to this article.
      Sorry, this article is correlation, not causation, with children born in hot countries scoring higher as under the phenomenal industrial development in hot zones, associated education gets better. Poorly designed study with lack of adequate controls.

  2. I was born in Texas and raised without AC till I was in my late teens. I was carried through the Texas summer and I make 130000 a year. My wife is from Chennai India where it routinely hits 115 with 100% humidity and no AC. She has a PHD, an MBA, and also speaks 7 languages. Sis a COO and makes 150000 a year. I told her just think if we had been born in Montana in late April. We could rule the world.

    • Good point. Apparently the study only makes connections between location of birth and average income. Are you kidding me? And there’s some discussion of damages to babies in utero caused by hot weather. I didn’t realize that the uterus experienced temperatures above 98.6 degrees, which seems pretty warm.

      Of all the foolishness written about global warning, studies blaming temperatures like I grew up in for all sorts of ills is a special kind of B.S. It’s easy enough to expose yourself to heat stroke if you choose to be foolish, but people who grow up working outside in high heat and humidity do fine with just a modicum of common sense.

      People my age grew up without a/c in hot climates. I’ve never even heard the notion that I’m supposed to have less earning prospects because I was born and grew up in Atlanta Ga.

      • Good, good point.
        I guess if we don’t read the whole methodology we should be careful to criticise but really – 30 dollars/0,1 percent over the whole scope of this project and so many possible confounding features (A/C they mention themselves but how would you equalize that?) – surely the results can’t come anywhere close to statistically significant?

    • Yeah, but if it hadn’t been so hot you would have made $30 MORE a year. So don’t be so high and mighty.

      P.S. if anyone needs to see a sarc tag I feel sorry for you.

    • David

      There you go then, you ought to be earning $130,030, and your sister $150,030. And if your wife’s not working, she should be, and earning $30 a year.

      The science of alarmists doesn’t lie you know, you can’t say they’re wrong however, I suspect they’re several thousand dollars a year short of an uncooked human.

  3. WOW! $30 a year? “with a 0.1% reduction in adult annual earnings at age 30.” Now the standards of .001 degree counts as an increase in temperature comes the “$30 a year monetary crisis”. Insanity runs rampant these days.

  4. “A new study claims exposure during early childhood to temperatures above 90F (32C) permanently damages the child’s earning potential.”

    And constant exposure to CAGW propaganda causes liberals to be sadly deficient in critical thinking.

    • “They then compared that person’s salary as an adult to someone born in that same county on that same day in other years.”

      Who knew, your DOB determines your income to 0.1%

  5. Last time I checked, the in utero temperature remains ~98.6F no matter what the outside air temperature is. Humans are self regulating warm blooded mammals. A more obviously bogus conclusion could not be reached.
    Now, after birth AC might change things—except AC is an indication that the parents are better off. The correlation between successful parents and successful children is much stronger than the 0.1% delta found here.
    You know the wheels have fallen off the CAGW academic gravy train when it produces such silly stuff as this.

    • Exactly my first thought as well. Plus, even 30-40 years ago most babies in the developed world were born in air conditioned hospitals so the outdoor temperature on the day of birth is irrelevant. Also, $30/yr/$430/life time, are trivial amounts almost certainly due to random noise in the data.

      Then again I was born in January in Wisconsin so probably on a very cold day which may account for my brilliance and high earnings.;-)

  6. “It turned out fetuses and infants exposed to a single extra 90-plus degree day made $30 less a year, on average, or $430 less over the course of their entire lifetimes.”

    There can be no possible data to support this. Nearly every baby born in the US during the last few centuries was in utero for at least 1 day when it was 90 degrees outside. I guess this means that the entire US workforce should be making $30 more per year? Get rid of useless green driven policy and the average worker will have at least $30 more disposable income per year. Perhaps this what they really mean?

  7. Keep it coming. The more crap like this they spout the more skepticism is generated. It has gone passed being just plain silly propaganda and entered into a parody of AGW stage. And more people realize it every day.

  8. So then … this RACIST “study” concludes that equatorial peoples (of color) are STUPID. Yes, this study says that brown people whose ancestors hailed from equatorial lands are DUMB-er than white folk from Northern latitudes. Do these Global Warmist Rent-seekers even listen to themselves ?

    And PS … when will we STOP treating “statistical analysis” as though it is … “science”? It isn’t.

  9. I’ve seen dumb people make an amazing amount of money.
    Such correlation is impossible to know, as well as and how often pregnant women are indoors or outdoors, genetic variations, family dynamics, schooling, ability to negotiate a salary… there must be a billion variables. I am baffled how a person would quantify the effect of a non-existent problem on a large population of un-borns and follow their progress 30 years in to the future.

    • “I’ve seen dumb people make an amazing amount of money.”
      You also must have worked at a public university as I did!

    • America has already PROVEN that $ wealth and intelligence have nothing to do with one-another … cases in point; Tom Steyer and Al Gore. The Saudi’s are only filthy rich because of Chevron, Shell, etc. Otherwise they would still be riding camels and slaughtering each other for believing in the “wrong” version of Allah … oh wait …

  10. So now that global warming has everything covered (except penis size and erectile dysfunction which is next month’s release), what do we have left to review.

    Maybe gravity, the moon orbit, continental drift?

    • The so-called consensus demands strict allegiance and rewards authors if crap papers like this and that ridiculous lobster cannibalism paper of a few years ago eith career and financial rewards for hyping the climate,.
      We saw just last week what happens to researchers and scientists who dare point out any problems with the consensus position.

    • Who was the “journalist” who asked if global warming meant it was more likely that the earth would be hit by a meteorite?

      As to the moon’s orbit, since more CO2 in the atmosphere will expand the size of the atmosphere, I suppose it’s possible the moon will hit one or two more molecules from the atmosphere per year.
      In a couple hundred trillion years, that might be a problem.

  11. Yes it doesn’t sound factual enough to prove anything because God made our bodies to be stronger than these studies I’m supportive of Mike

  12. “Overheating can damage babies, you have to be very careful with babies in hot weather.”

    But not so much when they’re contained within a temperature controlled environment of about 98.6F.

    • Pro tip: do NOT leave your infant strapped-into their car seat in the back of your minivan on a 102deg.F. day in New Orleans when visiting the crack house to get your daily hit.

  13. The quality of the “reasoning” in this study makes me think the authors may live in a pizza oven. Years,ago it became apparentv that the obsession on CO2 would lead to dumber and dumber science. This paper, however, might be a break through in stupidity.
    Soon we can expect a paper declaring women scientists who annoy Michael Mann might float, therefore the precautionary tale demands thise women are deserving a burning at the stake.
    “If she floats she’s a witch!”

    • Ouch! Well played. Hmmmm … do you think Global Warming makes a fetus less-viable? Therefore, “proving that bible-thumping deniers are the REAL abortionists”. Trust me … that claim is forthcoming.

  14. Another absurdly daft confirmation bias paper; written based on the author’s darkest most foul vents.

    Some concerns:

    “For a given county, on a given day, they measured how many days above 90 degrees a child born that day would have experienced during gestation and during their first year of life. They then compared that person’s salary as an adult to someone born in that same county on that same day in other years.”

    How does that work?
    “compared… to someone born in that same county on that same day in other years”;
    Meaning they compared people of different ages.

    “It turned out fetuses and infants exposed to a single extra 90-plus degree day made $30 less a year, on average”

    A single “extra” day!? Giving the appearance that they’re using some mysterious average.

    Supposedly, serious researchers would’ve searched for particularly hot years, then compared some average of lifetime earnings to people born in colder years. Yet, there is not a mention regarding verification/validation.
    Got a great CAGW assumption, run with it.

    One wonders just how these researchers decided on this particular combination of events?
    Hot days during year one is extrapolated to some distant end point with total salary absolutely dependent upon a few 90°+F days.

    Any logical researcher could find thousands of possible scenarios between year one and adult life. Yet these clowns chose one specific reading.

    It is interesting that these clowns ignore all possible culture impacts to assign a temperature impact. It resembles an Eugenics 21st Century research claim.

    “Our analysis uses administrative earnings records for over 12 million individuals born in the United States between 1969 and 1977, linked to fine-scale, daily weather data and location and date of birth. We calculate the length of time each individual is exposed to different temperatures in utero and in early childhood”

    “fine-scale, daily weather data and location and date of birth”:

    Several gross assumption in this section:
    • A) Counties can cover quite large territories. How do these characters achieve “fine-scale” temperatures and weather? Why do they assume the entire county experiences the same temperature and weather?

    • B) The assumption that a baby spends their entire first year in the county where they were born.
    No moves.
    No vacations to the shore/mountains/forests, etc.
    No visits to relatives.
    No snowbirds heading to hotter climes for the winters.

    • C) Administrative earnings… Meaning that California’s tech boom and accompanying stock options, partnerships, sabbaticals, etc. are ignored.

    • D) “In utero”… Meaning that researchers assume babies experience external heat, not the Mother’s 98.6°F body temperature…

    Please tell me these clowns did this paper for free!?

    “we estimate flexible regression models that allow for nonlinearities in the relationship between temperature and long-run outcomes. We find that an extra day with mean temperatures above 32 °C in utero and in the first year after birth is associated with a 0.1% reduction in adult annual earnings at age 30.”

    “Flexible regression models that allow for nonlinearities”…
    Fudge factors!

    30 years after birth, these researchers identify a 0.1% reduction in earnings based on one extra day that is above 90°F…
    And just what are the error bounds for that assumption?

    Besides blaming someone’s dissolute life on one single extra 90°+F day; just how many other possibilities were considered?
    I suspect the answer to that is none. Meaning these researchers already knew what they intended to prove before beginning research.

    I pity the people that actually pay to read that paper.

    Eric:
    One thing about babies. Mother’s may shade their babies, but they rarely let that babe stay in open air for long. Even on the hottest muggiest days, one can observe Mother’s covering their little ones up.

    Which brings up the final question regarding these daft researchers.

    1) Why is one 90°F day so critical to a baby that just spent nine months in incubation at 98.6°F?

    No error bounds.
    No alternative possibilities.
    Absurd temperature assumption with the researchers determined to prove 90°F days as the culprit instead of the 98.6°F host Mother.

    • Wonder if they took inflation into consideration? Never mind that someone sure had to have waaaaay too much time on their hands to come up with this nonsense.

  15. And they wonder why the populace is becoming more “antiscience.” If this is what they keep dishing out, only an idiot would believe in “science.”

  16. How stupid can they get? First, all they “found” (confirmation bias anyone?) was a correlation, and a very weak one at that. Second, those who would be more apt to not have AC would be poorer people, and poor people tend to have a difficult time crossing into the middle class, so there’s your cause right there; being poor. My guess is they would find a similar effect on cold days, although perhaps less pronounced, for the same reason; lack of income, and therefore reduced ability to provide adequate heating.

  17. Um, isn’t a fetus exposed to, I dunno’, like maybe 270 days, more or less, to temperatures approximately 8.6 degrees over 90 degrees.

    Or am I goofy

  18. Well, let us take this to its logical conclusion. Africa is one of the hottest places on Earth and has almost no air conditioning…
    Somehow or another, I am thinking that the people making this claim will be unwilling to admit the results of taking their hypothesis to its logical conclusion.

    • Yes, it is our fault that they are earning less./ sarc

      Remember to stop drawing non PC conclusions. Oh yes, my partly very African family is also very clever, I’m not able to play racist if you think I am one.

  19. From the article: “It turned out fetuses and infants exposed to a single extra 90-plus degree day made $30 less a year, on average, or $430 less over the course of their entire lifetimes.”

    LOL!!! That’s one of the more ridiculous things I have heard lately.
    A whole $430 in a lifetime!

    • I cringe – is this science? Wonder who s budget, pockets are milked for such lunacy, who pays these ‘scientists’?
      And then:
      From The Lancet 20 May 2015
      “…Mortality risk attributable to high and low ambient temperature…Most of the temperature-related mortality burden was attributable to the contribution of cold. The effect of days of extreme temperature was substantially less than that attributable to milder but non-optimum weather…”

  20. Last sentence of the Abstract save them:
    “We observe that household air-conditioning adoption, which increased dramatically over the time period studied, mitigates nearly all of the estimated temperature sensitivity.”

    So actually they are advocating for more electricity usage via more A/C. Bring on the fossil fuels to keep it affordable.

  21. Let see if I got this right:
    * They looked at births over a eight year period in half of the states.
    * They then determined how much those people earned at age 30.
    * Then they identified someone born in the same county on the same date, but a different year.
    * And then calculated how much those people earned at age 30.
    * And determined that there was an annual earnings delta of 30 bucks between the two and concluded that the difference was due to one being born on a hot day.
    * And they looked at 12 million records.

    Wow, that was one hell of a study.

  22. What a load of codswallop. My daughter was born mid-summer and for the next 6 weeks the temperature was never under a 100F during the day. We had no air-con and only 32Volt electricity so no fan either. She wore little more than a nappy, and I threw damp nets over the cot.

    50 odd years later she is MA of Psychology and has raised a great family. NO impairment there.

    Maybe the urbanites of today do not know how to keep cool using physics!

    • I don’t know…I think I would give astrology more credence than this paper. But maybe these folks are astrologers since a statement like this would tend to think one was making a prediction. “By the end of the century, there will be about 43 such days a year.”

  23. Funny how the effects of “climate change” are always bad. It couldn’t be that global warming would *increase* your earnings potential. Is it possible that whenever they find a benefit from warming they ignore it, or they re-torture the data until it becomes a negative?

  24. made $30 less a year, on average, or $430 less over the course of their entire lifetimes.

    Definitely “global warming math.” If I figure their numbers correctly at $30 a year less in earnings and $430 less in total then this hypothetical person’s entire working life is less than 15 years.

    It is absolutely amazing that anyone can take these lunatics seriously.

  25. If humans can choose between warm and cool; they should obviously choose warm. We are tall and (relatively) thin, sweat all over and have no fur. We are clearly warm weather animals. However, other than relocating to a different latitude, we have as much control over climate as we do planetary orbital mechanics.

  26. Well, now I have the perfect excuse for all my failings. I was roasted in the 1950s and never recovered. And I’m backed by pal-reviewed sciency looking stuff so nobody can deny that.

  27. Hold on, they may be correct. Obviously they must have done a long term, double blind study on this subject so why the doubt.

  28. So now I know what my problems can be attributed to. I was raised in the southern United States where the temperatures often stay in the 90s with 90% humidity and we did not have air conditioning until I was 8 years old. “)

  29. Wow, a clumsy гасiаl inference the closer to the tropics you go. I have a son and a daughter who lived with me in the Sahel for a few years, one born there, who faced 100F most days (we had a fan in the house as an air con). We all faced the the riots and ensuing civil war, too – was that a mitigating factor? .

    Both won scholarships into U and during their studies . One won the B.C. Provincial math physics prize for high school students for a five year scholarship (they don’t seem to have it anymore or I’ve miss named it – it was almost 40yrs ago).

    I call BS on $30 a year earning decrement being significant. My girl, this is statistically zero difference and a bigger difference could even arise by inaccuracies in applying inflation ndices depending on variations in when they earned what! Flip a coin 20 times and see if the diference in heads vs tails relates to anything. Your statistics, as in much of climate science, is trying to tell you the factor isn’t significant. What if it worked out to $15 or 7.50?

    I guess Steve McIntyre has had enough of this sort of thing or we would have the pleasure of another worthless paper being retracted. Healthcare workers take the 101 stats course for psychology students.

  30. Oh man, this sounds really……..questionable. I will not pay for the paper but I am curious what their design of experiments might be.

    Did they engage in p-hacking? (Data mining before creating an H and H0)?

    How many variables did this have? If they shrunk down the variables arbitrarily to make the math work…ouch.

    Did they use ANOVA? or did they just look at correlation?

    Just how big or small is that p-value?

    Something seems amiss here, and the only way to know what is to really deep dive into the statistical analysis and design of experiments…..but I smell bias and p-hacking.

  31. I wonder if the authors thought about the tenous link between ….”Correlation and Causation”
    Especially in geunine scientific studies?

  32. Aside from everything else that makes this “study” an absolute laughing stock, think about this “inconvenient” fact – the vast majority of the upward “trend” in (“average”) temperature that they are crowing about ISN’T FROM THE DAYTIME HIGH TEMPERATURES INCREASING – it’s from the nighttime LOW temperatures not being s LOW.

    Just another enormously stupid attempt to “sell” you the ridiculous notion of “warm = bad.”

  33. Naturally we’ll want to induce delivery of little Johnnie a couple weeks ahead of his anticipated 39 week due date, so he can at least begin to better compete economically with all those significantly premature deliveries also spared so many extra 98.6 degree in utero fetal days (and not just rather incidental outdoor temperature readings during their infancy) so that they are plainly thereby headed for such higher salaries as say climate change outcome researchers apparently reap for so little cause. I get it.

  34. Any of us who hop around these sites see several fake claims daily. It is not merely fantasy. They are just plain lies. The Nazis knew they could prevail if they pushed the big lie continuously while blocking out contradictory information. But here the lies come at you all the time from all directions. Do you ever wonder who is paying for all this?

  35. Yet another Epidemiology Gone Mad study…..

    “It turned out fetuses and infants exposed to a single extra 90-plus degree day made $30 less a year, on average, or $430 less over the course of their entire lifetimes.”

    An insanely insignificant difference only discoverable through statistical gymnastics worthy of the Olympics — and extremely likely to be actually true in the real world.

  36. So, a 90 degree day experienced as a child makes a person more likely to spend an extra hour at the beach per year instead of at work when they are an adult.

  37. What bloody rubbish. My two oldest kids we born in a small city where +40C temps in summer were a regular thing. We then moved to a couple of small towns with the same summer temp regime. Even the town after that was similarly hot in summer, even though it was further south in Australia. Both kids are now in their 30’s and both went to university. One became a civil engineer and one a food scientist. If a rubbish paper like this were to be correct then mining industry families in Australia would never have smart kids. I pity poor bastard like those who wrote this drivel trying so hard to find a new idea on who supposed AWG can have an impact on anything. Aren’t we rather wasting our collective scientific intellect looking for impossible links of anything to do with AGW just so funding can got?

Leave a Reply - if your comment doesn't appear right away, it may have been intercepted by the SPAM filter. Please have patience while our moderation team examines it.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s