Global Warming?

[cavell]

Did NASA scientist James Hansen, the global warming alarmist in chief,
once believe we were headed for . . . an ice age? An old Washington
Post story indicates he did.

On July 9, 1971, the Post published a story headlined "U.S. Scientist
Sees New Ice Age Coming." It told of a prediction by NASA and Columbia
University scientist S.I. Rasool. The culprit: man's use of fossil
fuels.

The Post reported that Rasool, writing in Science, argued that in "the
next 50 years" fine dust that humans discharge into the atmosphere by
burning fossil fuel will screen out so much of the sun's rays that the
Earth's average temperature could fall by six degrees.

Sustained emissions over five to 10 years, Rasool claimed, "could be
sufficient to trigger an ice age."

Aiding Rasool's research, the Post reported, was a "computer program
developed by Dr. James Hansen," who was, according to his resume, a
Columbia University research associate at the time.

So what about those greenhouse gases that man pumps into the skies?
Weren't they worried about them causing a greenhouse effect that would
heat the planet, as Hansen, Al Gore and a host of others so fervently
believe today?

"They found no need to worry about the carbon dioxide fuel-burning puts
in the atmosphere," the Post said in the story, which was spotted last
week by Washington resident John Lockwood, who was doing research at
the Library of Congress and alerted the Washington Times to his
finding.

Hansen has some explaining to do. The public deserves to know how he
was converted from an apparent believer in a coming ice age who had no
worries about greenhouse gas emissions to a global warming fear monger.

This is a man, as Lockwood noted in his message to the Times' John
McCaslin, who has called those skeptical of his global warming theory
"court jesters." We wonder: What choice words did he have for those who
were skeptical of the ice age theory in 1971?

People can change their positions based on new information or by taking
a closer or more open-minded look at what is already known. There's
nothing wrong with a reversal or modification of views as long as it is
arrived at honestly.

But what about political hypocrisy? It's clear that Hansen is as much a
political animal as he is a scientist. Did he switch from one
approaching cataclysm to another because he thought it would be easier
to sell to the public? Was it a career advancement move or an honest
change of heart on science, based on empirical evidence?

If Hansen wants to change positions again, the time is now. With NASA
having recently revised historical temperature data that Hansen himself
compiled, the door has been opened for him to embrace the ice age
projections of the early 1970s.

Could be he's feeling a little chill in the air again.

("The 'Old' Consensus?", "Investor's Business Daily," 9/21/2007.)

 

[notto]

Why is anybody amazed that overwhelming evidence and the consensus of the scientific community can change an individual scientists mind?

Why is anybody surprised that we can move beyond a failed hypothesis and evidence that is 35 years old and deal with current evidence?

There was no consensus is the 70's for Rasool hypothesis. It was tested and found lacking. That is simply a falsehood woven into the title of this Investors Business Daily Op Ed.

It is interesting to note that Hansen had nothing to do with Rasool's hypothesis other than providing software for modeling and his name was not on the research.

This articles insinuation would be like me blaming Bill Gates for the poor quality of the Investors Business Daily simply because it was written in Microsoft Word.

Just another poorly constructed argument that doesn't do anything to change the data, evidence, or scientific consensus that global warming is happening and is a threat.

 

[Avatar]

So global warming isn't real. eh? So why does winter start 2 weeks later than it used to, and spring two weeks earlier up here? I've seen that in my lifetime, so what's up with that?

 

[fanatiquefou]

What really gets me about global warming deniers is that, even if GW isn't really happening now (which, given the overwhelming proof available, is hard for me to believe, but we'll leave that for now), how do they not understand that pollution and exhausting natural resources are still BAD things?? "Oh, global warming isn't real, so let's continue to pump noxious chemicals into our environment, strip the trees, and guzzle oil." How can anyone deny that we need to take SOME kind of action with a straight face?

 

[simplicity]

I heard about NASA revising its historical data. It's pretty interesting. Apparently there was some kind of mistake.

 

[FilM]

I heard about NASA revising its historical data. It's pretty interesting. Apparently there was some kind of mistake.

NASA did revise its data, and it showed that 1934 was the hottest year in the USA. But global temperatures in the last decade have been the hottest on record.

So some may blow out one correction in data to continue sowing the doubt but it's important to note that that one change has not made the national academies of science in countries around the world or the IPCC revise their opinion on climate change. They still state that climate change is happening and that human emissions are to blame.

So I'll stick to the findings of scientists and my own observations everytime I step out the door rather than what some PR guy or two wants me to believe.

 

[simplicity]

Here is a link to an article from NASA (Marshall Flight Space Center):

http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd14jul97_1.htm

It states the followng: [SIZE=+2]H[/SIZE]owever global temperature measurements obtained from satellites of the Earth's lower atmosphere reveal no definitive warming trend over the past two decades.

It seems very few climatologists bothered checking the data. So most discussions have been based on faulty baseline information.

I think the important point here is that we need more research and that science must always be focused on the search for truth. I think we should be cutting back on the use of fossil fuels because it's a serious source of pollution and a yoke in terms of dependence on foreign sources.

The other point I want to make is, if the world is changing and we blame things on questionable findings, we come no closer to understanding the truth. The earth is like a battery catching solar radiation and converting it to complex molecules. We have so much to learn. We shouldn't be creating our own obstacles.

 

[Fantine]

Obviously, even if the use of fossil fuels is putting "a fine dust" into the atmosphere that is blocking out the sun's rays, they are also "depleting the ozone layer." The thinning of the ozone layer filters out fewer of the sun's rays.

This is why there is such an increase in skin cancers such as malignant melanomas.

The real question is which did a better job of screening out the sun's rays--a stronger ozone layer or this "fine dust?"

And I believe that Hansen, after looking at climate statistics and evidence in coral reefs, glaciers, etc. has realized that, even though the two forces may counteract one another, the thinning of the ozone layer more than compensates for the "fine dust" of fossil fuels.

 

[Avatar]

Obviously, even if the use of fossil fuels is putting "a fine dust" into the atmosphere that is blocking out the sun's rays, they are also "depleting the ozone layer." The thinning of the ozone layer filters out fewer of the sun's rays.

This is why there is such an increase in skin cancers such as malignant melanomas.

The real question is which did a better job of screening out the sun's rays--a stronger ozone layer or this "fine dust?"

And I believe that Hansen, after looking at climate statistics and evidence in coral reefs, glaciers, etc. has realized that, even though the two forces may counteract one another, the thinning of the ozone layer more than compensates for the "fine dust" of fossil fuels.

Huh? What do carbon emissions have to do with the ozone layer?

 

[simplicity]

The faulty numbers started coming in around 1998 - thereabouts - indicating a substantial increase in temperatures. Apparently there was some kind of record-keeping problem. It's too bad nobody bothered double-checking the data.

 

[chaim]

It is a little bit dishonest to look at an article that is 10 years out of date and claim that no one has bothered to check the data. If YOU had bothered to check the data you would have found that the tropospheric temperatures are actually increasing as expected, and there was an issue with the early satellite measurements of tropospheric temperatures:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements

Here is a link to an article from NASA (Marshall Flight Space Center):

http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd14jul97_1.htm

It states the followng: [SIZE=+2]H[/SIZE]owever global temperature measurements obtained from satellites of the Earth's lower atmosphere reveal no definitive warming trend over the past two decades.

It seems very few climatologists bothered checking the data. So most discussions have been based on faulty baseline information.

I think the important point here is that we need more research and that science must always be focused on the search for truth. I think we should be cutting back on the use of fossil fuels because it's a serious source of pollution and a yoke in terms of dependence on foreign sources.

The other point I want to make is, if the world is changing and we blame things on questionable findings, we come no closer to understanding the truth. The earth is like a battery catching solar radiation and converting it to complex molecules. We have so much to learn. We shouldn't be creating our own obstacles.

 

[notto]

I think the important point here is that we need more research and that science must always be focused on the search for truth.

And the truth in this matter is that this corrected data was only one small dataset out of many that has to do with influencing the consensus of scientists to the conclusion of global warming.

Any suggestion that the very minor corrections of this data should be used to suggest that global warming is still not a scientific consensus would be far from the truth. The corrections were made to a small dataset covering a small amount of time over a small geographic area. They were not heavily influential in the consensus of global warming.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

August 2007: A discontinuity in station records in the U.S. was discovered and corrected (GHCN data for 2000 and later years were inadvertently appended to USHCN data for prior years without including the adjustments at these stations that had been defined by the NOAA National Climate Data Center). This had a small impact on the U.S. average temperature, about 0.15°C, for 2000 and later years, and a negligible effect on global temperature, as is shown here.

If you think that scientists aren't still collecting data and searching for truth then you haven't been paying attention. They never stopped.

Any suggestion that this data correction is in some way a red flag to doubt that consensus is simply propaganda.

 

[fanatiquefou]

Oh come on, everybody knows that if we just got more pirates out there, this whole global warming kerfuffle could be easily solved! The proof is right before your eyes:

 

[simplicity]

The discovery of the faulty data was made by fellow Torontonian, Steve McIntyre.

This was published in the Toronto Star on August 14, 2007:

"This time, he sifted NASA's use of temperature anomalies, which measure how much warmer or colder a place is at a given time compared with its 30-year average.

"Puzzled by a bizarre "jump" in the U.S. anomalies from 1999 to 2000, McIntyre discovered the data after 1999 wasn't being fractionally adjusted to allow for the times of day that readings were taken or the locations of the monitoring stations.

"McIntyre emailed his finding to NASA's Goddard Institute, triggering the data review."

I got this from an article by Michelle Malkin:

"Bottom line:

According to the new data published by NASA, 1998 is no longer the hottest year ever. 1934 is. Four of the top 10 years of US CONUS high temperature deviations are now from the 1930s: 1934, 1931, 1938 and 1939, while only 3 of the top 10 are from the last 10 years (1998, 2006, 1999). Several years (2000, 2002, 2003, 2004) fell well down the leaderboard, behind even 1900. (World rankings of temperature are calculated separately.)
​

In other words: Four of the top ten are in the 1930’s, before mainstream scientists believe humans had any discernible impact on temperatures."

Gentlemen, I have nothing to lose on this issue. But a fair number of intellectual jauggernauts in the scientific community might stand to lose everything. I'm just trying to add some balance to the discussion.

 

[simplicity]

Here's an alternate picture:

Oops, the thing won't post . . . Sorry.

Anyways, it's shows less convincing temperature changes.

 

[chaim]

This adjustment to the data has been blown way out of proportion. Firstly the adjustment is very minor, below the level of uncertainty so it doesn't really change anything. Secondly the adjustment is to US temperature anomalies and does not change global anomalies, regional climate does not reflect global climate. This adjustment does not in anyway change the significance of the temperature trend observed over the last century. Finally this is a good example of the way science is supposed to work, results are published, then they are scrutinized and if something is found to be in error, it is fixed.

This adjustment has been incredibly politicized by the right, who typically pay no attention to the actual science. The all of a sudden when an insignificant change is made, they are interested in it.

The discovery of the faulty data was made by fellow Torontonian, Steve McIntyre.

This was published in the Toronto Star on August 14, 2007:

"This time, he sifted NASA's use of temperature anomalies, which measure how much warmer or colder a place is at a given time compared with its 30-year average.

"Puzzled by a bizarre "jump" in the U.S. anomalies from 1999 to 2000, McIntyre discovered the data after 1999 wasn't being fractionally adjusted to allow for the times of day that readings were taken or the locations of the monitoring stations.

"McIntyre emailed his finding to NASA's Goddard Institute, triggering the data review."

I got this from an article by Michelle Malkin:

"Bottom line:

According to the new data published by NASA, 1998 is no longer the hottest year ever. 1934 is. Four of the top 10 years of US CONUS high temperature deviations are now from the 1930s: 1934, 1931, 1938 and 1939, while only 3 of the top 10 are from the last 10 years (1998, 2006, 1999). Several years (2000, 2002, 2003, 2004) fell well down the leaderboard, behind even 1900. (World rankings of temperature are calculated separately.)
​

In other words: Four of the top ten are in the 1930’s, before mainstream scientists believe humans had any discernible impact on temperatures."

Gentlemen, I have nothing to lose on this issue. But a fair number of intellectual jauggernauts in the scientific community might stand to lose everything. I'm just trying to add some balance to the discussion.

 

[notto]

Gentlemen, I have nothing to lose on this issue. But a fair number of intellectual jauggernauts in the scientific community might stand to lose everything. I'm just trying to add some balance to the discussion.

Michelle Malkin and internet bloggers won't add a whole lot of balance.

They are using this as a political issue when it is a scientific one.

Find a climate scientists who agrees with your position and find their published and peer reviewed works to that affect.

That is science.

Your 'balance' is taking a small sampling of US data over a short period of time from one measuring instrument and suggesting that it has had more influence in the consensus then it actually has. That is not balance, that is distortion.

You do realize that the temperatures in question were for the US only, right?

Do you think that is what the global warming consensus is based on?

If your sources are trying to convince you of this, you should question your sources because obviously they are misinformed.

 

[stranger]

We are currently playing brinkmanship gambling with the future existence of most life on the planet just to put off changing the way we live ... it is beyond imprudent because the price of putting things in order is exponentiating and is capable of going beyond the max the world can 'pay' ... that makes no sense even to economists ,it is a case of a stich in time could not only save vast cost, but may actually be necessary if we are to avoid catastrophic death of all mankind and most life here by thermal run-away caused by currently accelerating feedback processes among which those where the earth emits CO2 and methane as the temperatue rises causing the temperature to rise even more , even faster ..

The new model then is dynamic and tells the tale of two states in which men do not exist on the planet any longer , and the guarding feedback which men have taken away by CO2 emissions over the past century and a half which are in excess of what the planet can handle ... we simply have no option but to intervene if we are to survive, and the cost of that intervention increases with time ... it makes no sense at all to delay, not only because the cost increases very rapidly and the increase gets faster , but there does come a point where nothing we can do can stop thermal run-away and our death...

In February 2006, at the St. Louis meeting of the AAAS, a panel of paleo-climatologists voiced their concern that current climate prediction models did not correlate outputs with researched realities of CO2 concentration and temperature profiles in the geological series of extreme climate events. Raised levels of atmospheric CO2 drove radiative forcing away from zero and precipitated feedback dynamics which amplified global heating and raised temperatures significantly above those projected by current models. The implication is that climate sensitivity is greater than had previously been thought.

The most sombre outcome of the new research is that we face not just the need to adapt to a shift of a few degrees and its consequences, but that we may well be in the early stages of setting in motion a major extinction event like those in geological history which wiped out between 80% and 95% of all life on earth.

the new model shows that anthropogenic emission of greenhouse gasses has pushed the climate system past a bifurcation point and triggered an extreme event driven by the accelerating amplification of complex feedback dynamics

The closer we come to the critical threshold, the more massive and costly the required intervention becomes.

Inactivity is not neutral. Every passing year reduces even further the window of opportunity within which it is still possible to avoid the chain-reaction of uncontrollable runaway climate change.

We are now in the early stages of runaway Climate Change. There does not appear to be any naturally occuring negative feedback process in place to contain its effects.

To achieve climate stabilisation we have to generate a negative feedback intervention of sufficient power to overcome the now active positive feedback process.

Then maintain its effectiveness during the period while temperature-driven feedback continues to be active.

The plan then :-


First establish at the highest possible level of competence and as a matter of utmost urgency, a global analysis and modelling capacity in order:

• To test the accuracy of the Anthropocene Extinction Event [AEE] Hypothesis
• To map and quantify the complex feedback system driving the dynamics
• To ascertain the time-frame of the event and its cumulative impact

Second , develop an effective intervention strategy to prevent the occurrence of the AEE and to minimise potential damage to the whole earth system

Third then mobilise global action by EVERY SINGLE PERSON to implement the strategy as quickly and effectively as possible

Fourth monitor the emergent situation, to evolve continuously improving task performance, and to ensure optimum goal achievement.

 

[stranger]

Reference links:-

Bexbroke - Oxford University http://www.begbroke.ox.ac.uk/climate/interface.html A clear presentation on the basics of climate prediction.
Times interview with Mark Lynas http://www.timesonline.co.uk/.../ Mark Lynas explaining in March 2007 why if we don't drastically reduce global emissions by 2015, it may be too late to avoid catastrophe.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) http://www.truthout.org/.../ The UN's conservative and consensus-driven IPCC supports Mark Lynas' analysis in its latest report (Sept 2007), saying that "if warming is not kept below 2 degrees C, which will require the strongest of mitigation efforts, and currently looks very unlikely to be achieved, then substantial global impacts will occur, such as: species extinctions and millions of people at risk from drought, hunger and flooding, etc." Press release available here. Full report here.
Geoffrey Lean of the Independent http://www.nzherald.co.nz/.../ Geoffrey Lean explains that areas of the Amazon Rainforest are already catching fire due to drought, and warns of mega-fires which could release the 90 billion tonnes of carbon contained by the drying forest.
How to answer climate change sceptics http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics/ There are still some arguments out there to the effect that man is not really causing severe climate change. Unfortunately the evidence says that that's not true - here are the answers to the common contrarian arguments.
Real Climate http://www.realclimate.org/.../ A climate change site run by climate scientists. If you're confused by some of the more complex aspects of climate change, this is the site that knows the answers.
The Stern Report http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/.../ Sir Nicholas Stern's Review on the economics of climate change (to give it its full title) told governments that acting now on climate change would be a lot cheaper than acting later. Since he is a former Chief Economist of the World Bank, this caused a bit of a stir.
On death and hopelessness http://www.truthout.org/.../ A man who has met the death of hope in the most direct way tells us what he learnt there.

Climate Change links (the solutions):
Contraction and Convergence http://www.gci.org.uk/ The Global Commons Institute proposes an international framework which would allow developing countries to slightly increase per capita emissions until these converged with the emissions levels of the developed countries. All countries globally would then contract their emissions levels from this point. Unfortunately their website design is not so elegant.
Zero Carbon Britain http://www.zerocarbonbritain.com/ This perceptive report was published by the Centre for Alternative Technology in July 2007, laying out the challenges we face and presenting a bold, radical vision of how Britain could eliminate carbon emissions altogether within 20 years. The suggested policy framework is built around Contraction and Convergence at the international level and TEQs at the national.
The Apollo-Gaia Project http://www.meridian.org.uk/.../ David Wasdell, an expert on climate feedbacks, outlines the type and scale of programme required to quantify and respond to our current global situation.
The Stop Climate Chaos Coalition http://www.stopclimatechaos.org/ A registered charity which counts many of the UK's leading environmental, international development and other campaigning bodies among its members. It aims to build irresistible public pressure on the UK Government to act at home and abroad to prevent global warming from exceeding the widely-accepted danger threshold of 2 degrees C, although it must be recognised that at present its demands are wholly insufficient to this task.
Painting the Town Green (pdf) http://www.green-engage.co.uk/.../ A report by Green Engage Communications investigating how we communicate climate change, and why we so often fail to prompt any behavioural change in those we talk to. This is crucial information for all of us, as MPs still claim that the popular support is not there for realistic action on climate change, and this must change. Chapters 6 + 10 especially recommended.
Carbon Trading - A Critique (pdf) http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/.../ An excellent exploration of some of the shortcomings of our current systems of international carbon trading, such as the Kyoto Protocol and the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS). Edited by Larry Lohmann.
The Man in Seat Sixty-One http://www.seat61.com/ An extremely useful site for those of us who have decided not to fly (for whatever reason). This site gives first-hand information on how to get almost anywhere in the world by surface-based transportation.
Carbon offsetting? http://www.treeaid.org.uk/ or http://www.treesforcities.org/ If you're considering using a carbon offsetting service, why not donate to one of these charities instead? There is justifiably much controversy surrounding carbon offsetting, but these charities were carefully planting trees where they would be most beneficial long before offsetting became fashionable (and profitable). Just don't buy the myth that donating money gives you any ethical right to emit more carbon!

Lean Energy links:
Transition Culture http://transitionculture.org/ Blog site by Rob Hopkins, founder of the rapidly spreading Transition Towns movement, which is mobilising localities to prepare for the future.
Sustrans http://www.sustrans.co.uk/ The UK's leading sustainable transport charity, working on practical, imaginative ways of dealing with the transport challenges that affect us all.
Green Alliance report on 'Grid 2.0' (pdf) http://www.green-alliance.org.uk/.../ The Green Alliance have produced a clear and compelling piece of work on the new thinking that is needed for electricity distribution and the National Grid.
Online energy conversion tool http://www.onlineconversion.com/energy.htm Confused by BTUs, petajoules, gallons, kilowatt hours and megacalories? This conversion tool is invaluable.

Economics links:
Dr. M. King Hubbert http://hubbertpeak.com/hubbert/monetary.htm A short extract from an interview with Dr. Hubbert, in which he outlines the clash between our understanding of Physics and matter-energy and our monetary culture.
Money as Debt (video) http://video.google.ca/.../ An astonishingly clear and engaging explanation of the little-understood reality behind our existing monetary system, presented as a video animation.
Dr. Albert Bartlett http://globalpublicmedia.com/lectures/461 Dr. Bartlett applies the arithmetic of steady growth to populations and to fossil fuels. A lot more interesting than it sounds, and available here as video, audio or text.
The Endangered US Dollar http://www.richardheinberg.com/archive/149.html Richard Heinberg looks to history to find the roots of our present global economic position.
The International Forum on Globalisation http://www.ifg.org/ A research and educational institution composed of leading activists, economists, scholars, and researchers. They provide analyses and critiques on the cultural, social, political, and environmental impacts of economic globalisation and stimulate new thinking, joint activity and public education with regard to the neoliberal free-market economic paradigm.
New Economics Foundation http://www.neweconomics.org/ A UK organisation proposing alternatives to the dominant economic paradigm. Practising economics as if people and planet mattered.
The Ecologist http://www.theecologist.co.uk/.../ Dr. Stephan Harding's article in The Ecologist magazine on economic growth and TEQs.

TEQs links:
DEFRA-comissioned report on 'Individual Carbon Trading' (pdf) http://www.defra.gov.uk/.../ A report by the Centre for Sustainable Energy, outlining the current (Nov '06) progress of TEQs/DTQs and other proposed models.
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/whatsnew/dtqs.pdf Working to provide a detailed evaluation of the appropriateness of TEQs (AKA: DTQs) as an instrument for reducing greenhouse gas emissions arising from energy use. Tyndall produced this (pdf) important report on the feasibility and implementation of TEQs (AKA: DTQs).
RSA CarbonLimited http://www.rsacarbonlimited.org/ The Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce is pulling together wrk in this area to investigate the practicalities of a personal carbon trading system.
Sustainable Development Commission http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/ The SDC is keen to see further research on the TEQs concept as part of a range of longer-term policy measures to tackle climate change - this was one of the recommendations to Government in their submission to the Climate Change Programme Review process.
Oxford Environmental Change Institute (ECI) / UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC) http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/ Researching the case for personal carbon trading as a means of reducing carbon emissions from household energy use and personal travel.
David Boyle article http://david-boyle.co.uk/.../ David Boyle looks back from 2021 to the day when TEQs were implemented in 2011!
TEQS

http://www.teqs.net/index.html

Other links:
Write To Them.com http://www.writetothem.com/ The very easiest way to write to your MP or other political representatives, even if you don't know who they are (UK residents only).
truthout http://www.truthout.org/ An independent online news source, supported solely by donations from readers.
The Optimum Population Trust http://www.optimumpopulation.org/ A UK charity opening the critical debate over sustainable human population levels.
On biodiversity and extinction http://media.www.theticker.org/.../ UN experts: "If things continue, in as little as 35 years half of all species of life will be extinct."
Big Picture.tv http://www.big-picture.tv/ Big Picture TV streams free video clips of leading experts, thinkers and activists in environmental and social sustainability, including scientists, journalists, economists, businessmen, designers and politicians.
Resurgence http://www.resurgence.org/ Over 40 years after it was first published Resurgence magazine continues to publish articles on the cutting edge of current thinking. Resurgence not only offers penetrative critique of the old paradigm, it gives working models for an emerging new paradigm and is full of positive ideas about the theory and practice of good living, including spirituality, permaculture, community supported agriculture, local economics, creativity, ecological building, art in the environment, small schools and deep ecology.
Schumacher College http://www.schumachercollege.org.uk/.../ A truly transformative place where space and time is given for learning, reflection and the exchange of ideas and experiences. Much of its unique character comes from the way the College community creates an expression of a sustainable lifestyle, with participants sharing in essential activities including cooking, housekeeping and gardening. If you have a chance to study there do not fail to take it.

 

[Avatar]

Please explain to me how global warming will destroy the human race. I get that its going to be rough for a lot of areas but I haven't heard anyone claim that it was going to be the end of the world. Until now, that is.