Quartz: Climate Studies Need Hot Weather to Persuade

Hansens’s 1988 testimony – the birth of the cap and trade temple

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

According to Quartz, proper stage management and timing is required to make climate studies persuasive.

To get people talking about climate change, publish your study during a hot summer

By Akshat Rathi

That said, there’s still a sizeable population on the planet that doesn’t care about climate change or, worse, denies it’s real. To turn those people around, some of the world’s most preeminent scientists have figured out it makes sense to publish global-warming studies when it’s hot outside.

It was the trick Jim Hansen, one of the world’s leading lights on climate change, used when he gave his now-famous testimony to the US Congress on a blistering hot day in June 1988.

The good news is that it’s not too late. “We as a global community can also manage our relationship with the system to influence future planetary conditions,” Katherine Richardson of the University of Copenhagen told the BBC. But it will require bold moves, such as switching to fully zero-carbon energy sources by mid-century, readying ways to suck carbon dioxide from the air, and maybe even consider solar geoengineering. All that, however, will require all of us to believe that the threat of global warming is real and deserves drastic action.

Read more: https://qz.com/1350565/the-hothouse-climate-change-study-is-big-news-thanks-to-the-heatwave/

Remember the fairy Tinker Bell from the story Peter Pan? In the story, every time someone says “I do not believe in fairies”, somewhere a fairy dies. The only cure was to clap loudly while reciting “I do believe in fairies” over and over, until the belief was strong enough to revive the dying fairy.

Now we have a field of science where everyone has to believe or it doesn’t work.

Every time someone says “I do not believe in climate change”, somewhere a sad climate scientist decides to write about their feelings. Perhaps if we all clap hands and recite “I do believe in the climate crisis”, we can make them smile again, and help save the world.

Advertisements

78 thoughts on “Quartz: Climate Studies Need Hot Weather to Persuade

  1. “All that, however, will require all of us to believe that the threat of global warming is real and deserves drastic action.”

    Translation:
    All that, however, will require all of us to believe the myth of catastrophic global warming is real and requires global socialism.

      • yea, sure David, but the real purpose is one world government. period. the rest is collateral damage by the hangers-ons and bloodsucking parasites of society who make a living off proliferating lies.

  2. Oh, so you want the message about “hot” to be more persuasive? — well what would be more persuasive than a hot naked babe holding a graph of the hockey stick over her intimate areas?

    The approach suggested by Quartz is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too reserved. To target men, use hot females. To target women, use hot men. All other sexual orientations could have their own specific versions of hotmess, but the one thing all would have in common would be the theme of covering their intimate areas with that graph. The graph also would suggest a climax, which would make the effect even hotter.

    I know — it’s brilliant. You’re welcome, climate alarmists.

  3. So Quartz decided to discriminate against those in the Southern Hemisphere by publishing ‘studies’ in the summer months in the USA/Europe. Funny how that works!

    • I would be surprised if the Quartz people understood that summer doesn’t occur everywhere at the same time on the Earth.

  4. It is such a struggle to get people on board for a cause when you lack data, theoretical understanding of basic processes, honesty, scientific principles, mathematical rigor and when the natural world just won’t play along.

    • Translation: It’s hard to get people to believe, when your story is wholly unconvincing.

      • Greg Cavanagh
        Translation: It’s hard to get people to believe, when your story is wholly unconvincing.

        BUT

        It’s easy to get people to believe – signaling no rational thinking needed.

    • Maybe they should accuse any non-believers of being selfish. Or shills for the “fossil fuel industry.”

      I myself believe there is no problem that can’t be solved with the universal solution of a combination of:
      1. Higher taxes.
      2. More power of government over industry.
      3. Wealth transfers.

  5. “By Akshat Rathi

    It was the trick Jim Hansen, one of the world’s leading lights on climate change, used when he gave his now-famous testimony to the US Congress on a blistering hot day in June 1988.”

    Hansen’s “nature trick”? Hot SUMMER day + air conditioning off + open windows = global warming! Got it! Thanks Hansen you are a real blessing to humanity.

    • “Thanks Hansen”

      That story is rubbish, as has been gone over many times here. Of course Mr Worrall won’t do anything to make that clear.

        • You haven’t been following the discussion of this issue here have you.

          https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/07/15/global-warming-today-is-now-haunted-by-an-almost-unbelievable-deceptive-beginning/

          https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/03/30/setting-the-record-straight-the-real-story-of-a-pivotal-climate-change-hearing/?utm_term=.ba9a1df79b7b

          Read through that article and thread thoroughly and see what you think. Having read all that, what would you put forward as evidence to support the claim?

          The only evidence for it happening like you said is what Wirth said, and he later said that it didn’t happen like that, and he wasn’t there anyway. All the other evidence either supports it not having happened like that, or doesn’t support it having happened like that.

          So, you’re left with all the other evidence against it having happened like that, and the only thing contradicting that is the word of a liar who changed his story, and who’s original version of the events was contradicted by all the other evidence.

          • I’ve read the pieces.

            The story depends on an initial statement by Wirth, who seemed to be proud of his statement that he used an underhand method (picking a hot day and opening windows (in some stories I’ve heard, turning off the Air Con)) to influence the committee.

            He now denies it, though in very vague terms – “So let’s put those stories to rest and instead focus on the substance of the hearing” – which sound like an attempt to sweep the story under the carpet.

            The Washington Post was unable to find a smoking gun. They looked for proof that the hottest day was picked (an obvious impossibility, since you can’t be sure that any day will be ‘the hottest’ until a few hours beforehand, and a committee obviously has to have a lead time of a month or so), and ‘proof’ that someone had intentionally altered the temperature – again, something that almost certainly can’t exist. No one documents a malicious act. They agree that the room was hot.

            So, what we have is an activist claiming credit for an underhand attempt to influence a committee, and then withdrawing that claim. One of those positions must be a lie, and the whole episode is obviously unethical. That being the case, I am unconcerned whether the temperatures were intentionally altered, or happened by chance. I believe that Wirth et al have shown themselves to be thoroughly untrustworthy, and that if the start of the Global Warming fiasco was not born in deception, it was not for want of trying…

          • dodgy geezer said stuff.

            What do you think happened? Apart from the room being hot, and Wirth being a liar, exactly what do you have any evidence for?

            This is the statement I was responding to.

            “Hansen’s “nature trick”? Hot SUMMER day + air conditioning off + open windows = global warming! Got it! Thanks Hansen you are a real blessing to humanity.”

          • We both agree that Wirth is a liar. So was he lying for years when he claimed credit, or is he lying now when he sort of, in a round about way denies having done it.

          • Wirth recanted on having first-hand knowledge…but said he was just repeating what people with first-hand knowledge had told him.

            Decades too late to weasel out of that one.

        • Look for videos of the 1988 hearing. I was only able to find a few short snippets but there was no sign of discomfort, distress, perspiration, loosening ties, taking jackets off etc., any or all of which would have been evident if it really was that hot. Had to conclude that the story is bogus.

          • Your story sounds pretty bogus. Senate hearings are full of discomfort, distress, etc, regardless of temperature.

      • Philip – your turn to make that clear:

        Just exaggerate about the topic: 10 Min. max.

          • Sorry Philip, left out citation:

            “Philip Schaeffer
            “Thanks Hansen

            That story is rubbish, as has been gone over many times here.

            * Of course Mr Worrall won’t do anything to make that clear.”
            _________________________________________________

            defaults to my

            Philip – * your turn to make that clear:

            Just exaggerate about the topic: 10 Min. max.

      • So you are calling Akshat Rathi – to coin a polite term – ‘misinformed’?

        Akshat after all is the one making the claims here that Hansen ‘nature tricked’ back in June.

        By extension, if Akshat is ‘misinformed’ about the ‘nature trick’, then should we also automatically consider the rest of this article as being ‘misinformed’. Or to word it another way, can we trust anything a ‘warmest’ actually says? If they can be ‘misinformed’ about the ‘nature trick’ what else don’t they really understand?

        Also, and more to the point, why do you care so much? You do seem to have a deep emotional attachment on the issue. Very little about what Hansen claimed or how much of is predictions actually did or didn’t come true 30 years later. Neither do you seem to want to discuss the implications or where Hansen sits on the Saint/Sin sliding scale of Saving The World, just comment after comment arguing if the windows were closed or not.

        Your interest in the ‘Nature Trick’ is a tad confusing.

        • Not confusing at all. If Phil Jones can use it (“Mike’s” nature trick) so can I. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander!

      • Hansen bragged about doing it, until someone advised him that it was hurting his cause.
        Now he says he was lying earlier when he claimed credit for it.
        Of course, since he admits to be willing to lie to admit the cause, how do we know he isn’t lying now?

        And the true believers such as Philip will continue to believe whatever they are paid to believe.

        • MarkW said:

          “Hansen bragged about doing it”

          What did Hansen brag about? Are you sure you aren’t getting him confused with Wirth?

          “And the true believers such as Philip will continue to believe whatever they are paid to believe.”

          At least I bothered to actually look at all the evidence myself.

          Also, I notice that none of the people speculating about which time Wirth lied haven’t actually looked at all the other evidence. You don’t have to rely on Wirth, or choose which of his statements to believe if you look at the rest of the story.

          But round and round we go. Do any of you know what the rest of the evidence is? The focus on Wirth suggests not.

  6. Droughts and Bushfires also bring out the Warmista Global Warming Scientists, politicians media and newspapers in their droves, regardless of whether it is winter or summer.

    • Drought here in Australia, bush fires in California, heatwaves in Europe. Yes the media here in Australia are wetting themselves with excitement about the coming climate catastrophe that cannot be stopped…unless we adopt a tax on energy and socialism.

      • Clarification, Patrick just for those playing from overseas. Drought here in PARTS of Australia.

        In other parts of Australia winter has been cold and sodding wet. There has been so much rain where I live that I see ponds complete with literal ducks by the sides of Port Wakefield Road in the mornings. Not quite getting to the levels of damaging floods, but not a huge way from it either.

        Not that our easily excited media wants to connect the two events. Instead Australia, ALL of Australia, is gripped by one of the worse droughts of all time and that is all everyone needs to know about it.

        No disrespect to the areas actually under drought, but if Australia as a whole was really under the ‘Worse Drought Ever(tm)’ then us Southern states would be under water restrictions like we were about 10 years ago. We are clearly not, so in all honestly good luck convincing people of your big bad Global Problem, Mr Turnbull.

        • Yes, in reality, it’s PARTS. In the media it’s, so far ALL of NSW. And what is ignored is that it is NORMAL for Australia! What is not normal is modern farming practices. Farmers in Aus ALWAYS look to Gubmint when times are bad, and now they are looking to cash in, literally, to Gov’t climate cash! Rather than farming beef, they want to do nothing and farm “carbon”.

      • Someone who just came back from Brazil assures me that it is unusually cold over there and the hotel was panicking about not having any heating.

      • I’m all about taxing socialism! IF you are a socialist, you pay taxes and benefit the non-payers. If you are not, you don’t but you still get the benefit from taxation!
        Let’s see how many socialists there are after that

    • Greg. There’s psychological MANIPULATION involved.
      There are no more ‘bushfires’ there are only WILDFIRE!!!!s
      There are no more ‘forest fires’, only WILDFIRE!!!!!s.
      There is no more hot weather, only EXTREME weather.
      …and so on.

      It’s really no joke.

    • Cheating, deceiving, and lying are all part of it for Gang Green, because “the ends justify the means”, and they are proud to do it as self-professed “planet-saviors”.

  7. **************************************************************************************************
    Largest Canadian climate study shows NO GLOBAL WARMING

    Climate science is a renegade science with no scientific discipline and no morals. In the approximate 32000 papers that have been published in the last 40 years, the vast majority of them show no adherence to the null hypothesis scientific method , nor the true understanding of what a “p value” properly shows, nor do they interpret confidence intervals properly. To top this off, the vast majority assume CO2 as the major cause of global warming and you can begin to see what a mess climate science is in. It gets worse.

    1) The trend toward publish or perish has resulted in pal review and magazine editor gatekeepers. Gatekeepers in climate science magazines are especially pernicious; in that if your study doesnt demonstrate belief in CO2 causes warming; it will be extremely difficut to get it published.
    2) Climate science has developed its own set of “attack dog” scientists who publish fake rebuttals of any study that contradicts global warming and squeaks through the gatekeepers
    3) The method of replying to rebuttals has been changed so that an original author often wont have the chance to reply to a rebuttal and thus the rebuttal stands as the last word to “prove” that the original study was debunked. Dr. Richard Lindzen in 2008 wrote an exscellent paper on this and other problems in trying to get accurate climate science published.
    4) In 2015, the editor of Lancet magazine, the prestigious UK medical journal said that 50% of all medical studies could not be duplicated. Climate science has a worse problem than that. No one even tries to duplicate studies based on computer models.
    5) Climate scientists have a big problem understanding the difference between accuracy and precision.
    6) Climate scientists have adopted scare tactics in their studies that cry out for more funding.
    As an example I am focusing on the most important climate study ever done for Canada. It finally got published online in 2010 even though the study was completed and submitted in September 1999 and published in the Journal Atmosphere and Ocean so was obviously peer reviewed. I doubt whether it would get past peer review today. Countless other climate reports (whenever talking about Canadian climate) afterwards are all citing this report.

    https://www.pacificclimate.org/~wernera/zyp/Zhang%20Vincent%20Niitsoo%202000%20AO.pdf

    What follows are specific criticisms of the above report. Pay particular attention to the last criticism no. 13.

    “From 1900–1998, the annual mean temperature has increased between 0.5C and 1.5C in the south.”

    1) This is the 1st conclusion in the abstract and it is shown to be an alarmist statement because in the actual report on page 11, they say
    “There is a statistically significant positive trend, which accounts for an increase of 0.9 C, for the region during the period.”

    Anybody that just reads the abstract will get a misleading picture.

    2) The authors measure 6 variables maximum, minimum and mean temperatures; diurnal temperature range; precipitation totals and the ratio
    of snowfall to total precipitation; with 3 types; temperature,rainfall, and snowfall. They discuss the ratio of snowfall to total precipitation and in the study the authors state that the issue is complex. In reality they don’t understand the science of snowfall to total precipitation and its importance. Therefore the authors should not have included it in the report.

    3) The authors were not satisfied with measuring only trends of the above variables but attempted to measure extreme climate conditions. They were following in the footsteps of many others before whereby “extreme” means precipitation or temperature below the 10th or above the 90th percentile (approximately 2 sigma) of the relevant time series data. However they still werent satisfied with that so they invented the term “abnormal climate”. This is precipitation or temperature below the 34th or above the 66th percentile (approximately 1 sigma) of the relevant time series data.

    I conjecture that this has led to some of the claims we see on the news today of abnormal weather events. It certainly categorizes much more weather than before as abnormal and when applied to climate studies it makes it seem the majority of weather is abnormal, if the population curve is Gaussian.

    4) On page 19 of the study they say “The annual mean temperature anomalies relative to the 1961–1990 mean for the whole of Canada (1950–1998) are also shown in Fig. 3. No significant linear trend is detected for the entire country during the period.”

    Why wasn’t this statement in the abstract? By omitting this statement the authors have shown their bias toward the AGW crowd.

    5) It is when we get to page 3 that we find out the real reason for doing this study.

    “As well, the anthropogenic climate change signal is projected to be stronger in the high-latitudes (Nicholls et al., 1996). This suggests that it might be easier to detect climate change in a country like Canada.”

    However the next paragraph puts a minimum condition that has to be met to achieve the above.
    “The detection of climatic trends, including those predicted to occur from rising
    concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases (Wigley and Barnett, 1990), may
    be sought in historical climate records providing that such records are representative
    and cover a long enough period of time (typically more than 100 years).”

    They had to break up the report into 2 time periods 1900- 1998 and 1950-1998. That is because they didnt have enough data for the above 60th parallel in the far north until 1950. They did not state how many weather sations are part of the far north since 1950. They only state the total number for Canada. 210 temperature stations and 489 precipitation stations. They found a 0.9 C difference( annual mean temperature) for the whole century 1900-1998 which covers Southern Canada because of the reason explained above. Since some of that was before 1950 it may explain why, the authors don’t break down the differences in temperatures between the 2 periods 1900-1949 and 1950-1998 except in Table 1 which gives gridded area % based on the abnormal data and in Figure 3 which graphs the Departures from the 1961–1990 mean of area average mean temperature(C).

    So, for the one period 1900-1998 (Southern Canada only) that meets the above minimum condition for attempting to prove global warming (at least from a Canadian perspective) ; they failed to even look at the differences except by the graph in Figure 3. What they do say is the following:

    “The linear trend is not exactly monotonic. The rises of temperature prior to the 1940s and after the 1970s account for the significant trend. There is a modest decrease during 1940–1970. ”

    So it seems they gave up on their non-stated null hypothesis process. They actually produced this report and then ignored the real reason for writing the report!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    6) As for precipitation data I quote;

    “The station data were gridded using a procedure developed by Hogg et al. (1997).
    The procedure uses statistical optimal interpolation and employs climatology as a
    “first guess” field and interpolating only the departures from the climatology of the
    relevant field. ”

    When you have to torture your data to this extent, it calls into question the relevance and accuracy.

    7) The authors state on page 4 “Karl et al. (1996) developed and analyzed a climate extremes index
    (CEI) and a greenhouse climate response index (GCRI) for the United States. They
    found a positive trend in the U.S. GCRI during the 20th century that is consistent
    with projections resulting from increased emissions of greenhouse gases.”

    This is very curious because it was around that time that James Hansen had said there was no warming in the 20th century for the US.

    8) It seems that Canadian data is also subject to adjustment upwards as witnessed by the above quote on page 5.

    “A significant improvement over previous versions of the temperature database is the adjustment
    in the minimum temperature to account for changes in observing procedure at principal stations in 1961 (Vincent and Gullet, 1999). Adjustment for this bias results in a less pronounced cooling in minimum temperature in terms of magnitude (by as much as 0.5 C) ”

    9) On page 9 they attempt to parameterize an equation that takes the serial correlation into account. However they assume the trend is linear.
    Since climate has seen many sine curves in the data over the years, this assumption is not valid.

    10) On page 12 we find the source for the alarmist claim of 1.5C increase in the abstract.

    “The greatest warming, which is in the Prairies, is about 1.5 C over the 99-yr period.”

    11) No account is taken for Urban island heat effects.

    12) On page 14 of the report the authors state:
    “Most of the decrease in the diurnal temperature range (DTR) occurred prior to the 1950s, especially late in the first half of the 20th century,
    coinciding with an increase in total cloud amount in Canadian mid-latitudes during
    the first half of the 20th century (Henderson-Sellers, 1989; McGuffie and Hender-
    son-Sellers, 1988). Henderson-Sellers (1989) did not propose any specific reasons
    for the cloud increase. Significant decrease in the DTR did not occur in the second
    half of the century when the greatest increase in greenhouse gases took place. This
    suggests that trends in the DTR are closely related to changes in total cloud amount.
    The trends in both DTR and total cloud cover differ from one season to the other.
    Future investigation into the relationships between the changes in DTR and cloud cover is needed”

    Since this is only conjecture , the authors should have left out any discussion of DTR. They admit it has nothing to do with global warming.

    13) On page 25 of the report the authors state :

    “The annual mean temperature for Canada has increased by 0.3C over the last 49 years(1950-1998), but this increasing trend was not statistically significant.”

    However there are at least 4 parts of the report where the authors profess their belief in global warming.

    THE AUTHORS SHOULD HAVE STATED UNEQUIVOCALLY THAT THERE WAS NO GLOBAL WARMING SHOWN IN THE DATA FOR CANADA.

    • Once you emerge from the science of the models, you enter the realm of “decision-making under uncertainty.” This is a world of cost vs. benefit, and of decision trees, and one branch is ALWAYS the “do nothing” response.

      When is the last time an alarmist talked about the possible course of action of spending our resources in adjusting to the changing climate instead of trying to prevent the climate from changing?

    • This indicates that southern Canada has not become hotter but less cold.

      Hungh? This indicates that my understanding has not become greater but less dependent on stupid sentences.

  8. “Quartz: Climate Studies Need Hot Weather to Persuade”

    And so they chase after examples all over the globe to find the proper weather to support their contentions because all of the indicators they have declared canaries in the coal mine have failed to die in the mine and instead flew off somewhere else. It’s like an endless time and resource wasting internet finders game. The finder gets a jewel or coin every time they manage to find some new angle or take on some weather event somewhere that they can twist or lie about to support the meme. How I despise the game.

    • which is why I stick to NWO topics, the attack on the individual, the attack on free press (Alex Jones, Tony Robinson, Natural News, etc..). I was taught bogus paper wasting filth at PSU during my wandering through Political science…then I get into the real world, start actually researching how things really work. What a difference!

  9. Eric Holthaus is clapping… wildly… somewhere. In a straight jacket…. figuratively.

  10. It’s a paradox that “everyone” knows CAGW is real, and there is no further need for discussion, yet the few flat-earthers in climate denial that somehow exist have THE dominant position when it comes to action.

  11. They always say these things, but they NEVER name anyone who denies climate change.

    I know, they mean human-caused, catastrophic, climate change, but that’s not what they’re saying. They aren’t allowed to just change the meanings of words and then say that people deny those new meanings.

  12. At a science camp this summer the Climate Change group took on a project of rewriting a brochure down to a fifth grade level, because the reason for denial is simply a lack of understanding. The insulting presumption is that our dim light bulbs might come on if these high schoolers can just dumb it down enough for us.

  13. As long as we give importance and talk of people like Jim Hansen and Michael Mann the global warming mania will continue and thus associated impact theories.

    Scientists must concentrate on local and regional issues instead of wasting time on global.

    Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

  14. “That said, there’s still a sizeable population on the planet that doesn’t care about climate change or, worse, denies it’s real.”

    Dear Akshat, please provide evidence that a sizeable population denies climate change is real. I am yet to meet anyone who thinks climate change is not real. Now when it comes to what causes climate change, if a sizeable population thinks humans don’t cause climate change then I would have to say that sizeable population is in fact correct, and it’s not too late for you doomsayers, climate catastrophe mongers, to come over to the science side of the ledger.

  15. ‘it makes sense to publish global-warming studies when it’s hot outside.’ What will really confuse “climates scientist” is when it hot up North is cold Down Under.

  16. Too late, I’m afraid. This year’s European heatwave has come to a thundery end. The much vaunted two-day hot house on the Iberian peninsula has gone with temperatures back to normal. Here in Liverpool the sun is out but there is a distinct chill in the air. The long-sleave shirts are back in use. Global warming? It already is a faint memory.

  17. i dont believe x gazillions
    now how many of the bu**ers fell of the perch?
    i’d do that every morning if it worked;-)

  18. Why do they think that they need to persuade us skeptics? why can they not simply reduce their C02 output and show us how it is done? In fact they are using us skeptics as a reason NOT to reduce themselves, and still have something to complain about. they should be happy to have fossil fuels, they should be dancing in the streets.

  19. It’s kind of like a magic trick – it only works if you’re viewing from a certain perspective and tricked into looking in the wrong direction.

  20. For the most part my biggest climate-related fear is the self-inflicted cost of ineffective “mitigation” policies. But I’ve got to say “sucking CO2 from the air” is one phrase that really makes me want to invoke the Precautionary Principle. A sufficiently powerful and out-of-control scheme along this line really could end life as we know it. That’s not remotely true of geologically naive “Hothouse Earth” scenarios.

    • The laws of unintended consequences practically guarantees that world government interference will have catastrophic outcomes. What we really need to fear is encapsulated in this pseudo-scientific statement: “But it will require bold moves, such as switching to fully zero-carbon energy sources by mid-century, readying ways to suck carbon dioxide from the air, and maybe even consider solar geoengineering.” That is, in nutshell, the real Catastrophic Anthropegenic Climate Change.

  21. I guess renaming it ‘Climate Change’ wasn’t persuasive enough – what with calling it ‘Global Warming’ for so long. Kind of leaves the impression they’re changing their story… again.

    Oh, wait, I forgot – NOW it’s skeptics that changed the name – to undercut the alarmism.

    Sigh.

  22. So essentially suspend belief in reality is what they’ve got for game. All I’ve asked for is real uncompromised data to convince me we are roaming out of natural ranges. Measuring a tenth of a percent C above a record in 1931 off the pier of Scripps on a day in 2018 is supposed to excite? I only marvel that it was basically this warm ~90 yrs ago! This is pretty pathetic stuff, especially when its record cold water 100km north of La Jolla!

    Why would I accept empirical evidence from all other sciences to convince me but not buy into alarmist climate science. I have process patents in hydrometallurgy so Im not anti-science

    https://patents.justia.com/inventor/gary-pearse

    So far, all the horrors spoken of since 1988 have yet to manifest themselves in any miniscule fashion. On the contrary, I am coming to think on the evidence so far that with the greening of the planet, more likely we are heading for a prosperous Garden of Eden Earth ^тм by 2050.

Comments are closed.