The title of this article is misleading. Prof. Freitas is not denying the "greenhouse effect", he simply (and rightly) doubts that carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels is having a significant effect. He is a climate scientist and knows the issue from all sides. One of his statements is worthy of remembering. It is: "Climate is not responding to greenhouse gases in the way we thought it might. If increasing carbon dioxide is in fact increasing climate change, its impact is smaller than natural variation. People are being misled by people making money out of this."
Also please note that the following statements were heard in a courtroom, which is where the debate about the causes of climate change should be exposed.
Peter
Published on Otago Daily Times Online (http://www.odt.co.nz)
Professor denies greenhouse effect
By Rosie Manins
Created 30/01/2009 - 05:00
Hugh Rennie Theories of climate change were challenged during an Environment Court appeal hearing for Meridian Energy's proposed $2 billion Project Hayes wind farm yesterday.
Sediment concerns raised [2]
As a witness for appellant Roch Sullivan, climate scientist Prof Christopher de Freitas was questioned on his evidence, which had been contested in the evidence of other climate witnesses called in the hearing.
Prof Freitas, of the University of Auckland, said there was no evidence to suggest carbon dioxide was the major driver of climate change.
"Climate is not responding to greenhouse gases in the way we thought it might. If increasing carbon dioxide is in fact increasing climate change, its impact is smaller than natural variation.
"People are being misled by people making money out of this," Prof de Freitas said.
He said mild warming of the climate was beneficial, especially in a country such as New Zealand, which had a prominent agricultural industry.
"One could argue that carbon dioxide is quite beneficial. There may be benefits of wind farming that I may not be aware of, but there is no data to show benefits in terms of mitigating potential dangerous changes in climate by offsetting carbon dioxide," he said.
Prof de Freitas said the Kyoto Protocol was a "politically and economically motivated instrument to deal with a perceived problem".
"I don't think anyone will benefit one way or another by adhering to it. It's not a well-formulated treaty . . . the so-called or claimed environmental benefits, I am not aware of," he said.
Prof de Freitas was questioned by Meridian Energy lawyer Hugh Rennie QC, about an article published in The New Zealand Herald in 2004, in which Prof de Freitas expressed his thoughts on wind power, the Kyoto Protocol, and climate change.
"You refer to New Zealand's need to meet its commitments to the Kyoto Protocol [in the article].
"Would you accept that any selection of generation which avoids the emission of substances controlled by that protocol is beneficial to New Zealand?" Mr Rennie asked Prof de Freitas.
Prof de Freitas took exception to the question.
"You are using legal gymnastics to corner me into a position I would not otherwise take," he said.
Prof de Freitas admitted there was debate about climate change, when questioned during cross-examination by Central Otago District Council lawyer Graeme Todd.
"The debate centres on causes. There is a possibility climate change could be impacted by human beings, but it is not a significant impact," he said.
In response to a question by commissioner Alex Sutherland, Prof de Freitas said the jury was out on climate change, and preemptive action could be dangerous.
"There's no basis for alarm. We might be shooting ourselves in the foot if we act on what turns out to be a bubble-less pot," he said.
Day 26Panel: Environment Court judge Jon Jackson, commissioner Alex Sutherland, commissioner Heather McConachy, and deputy commissioner Ken Fletcher.
Yesterday: Otago Regional Council water resource scientist Matthew Dale, of Dunedin; climate scientist Prof Christopher de Freitas, of Auckland; Electricity Commission director of transmission John Gleadow, of Wellington.
Scheduled for today: Mr Gleadow will continue to give evidence.
Quote of the day: "Climate is not responding to greenhouse gases in the way we thought it might. If increasing carbon dioxide is in fact increasing climate change, its impact is smaller than natural variation. People are being misled by people making money out of this."
- climate scientist Prof Christopher de Freitas, of Auckland.
Source URL (retrieved on 01/02/2009 - 07:56): http://www.odt.co.nz/the-regions/central-otago/41301/professor-denies-greenhouse-effect
Showing posts with label New Zealand. Show all posts
Showing posts with label New Zealand. Show all posts
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Delusions Down Under About Global Warming And Climate Change
Environmental global warming alarmists are not limited to North America and Europe...sadly, this delusional illness also exists in Australia and New Zealand. We must help them escape the quagmire of deceit known as the myth of man-caused global warming. Peter
ANDREW BOLT: DOOMED TO A FATAL DELUSION OVER CLIMATE CHANGE
The Herald Sun, 9 July 2008
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23991257-25717,00.html
PSYCHIATRISTS have detected the first case of "climate change delusion"- and they haven't even yet got to Kevin Rudd and his global warming guru.Writing in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, Joshua Wolf and Robert Salo of our Royal Children's Hospital say this delusion was a "previously unreported phenomenon". "A 17-year-old man was referred to the inpatient psychiatric unit at Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne with an eight-month history of depressed mood . . . He also . . . had visions of apocalyptic events."(So have Alarmist of the Year Tim Flannery, Profit of Doom Al Gore and Sir Richard Bra(n)zen, but I digress.)
"The patient had also developed the belief that, due to climate change, his own water consumption could lead within days to the deaths of millions of people through exhaustion of water supplies." But never mind the poor boy, who became too terrified even to drink. What's scarier is that people in charge of our Government seem to suffer from this "climate change delusion", too.
Here is Prime Minister Kevin Rudd yesterday, with his own apocalyptic vision: "If we do not begin reducing the nation's levels of carbon pollution, Australia's economy will face more frequent and severe droughts, less water, reduced food production and devastation of areas such as the Great Barrier Reef and Kakadu wetlands."
And here is a senior Sydney Morning Herald journalist aghast at the horrors described in the report on global warming released on Friday by Rudd's guru, Professor Ross Garnaut: "Australians must pay more forpetrol, food and energy or ultimately face a rising death toll . . ." Wow. Pay more for food or die. Is that Rudd's next campaign slogan?
Of course, we can laugh at this -- and must -- but the price for such folly may soon be your job, or at least your cash. Rudd and Garnaut want to scare you into backing their plan to force people who produce everything from petrol to coal-fired electricity, from steel to soft drinks, to pay for licences to emit carbon dioxide --the gas they think is heating the world to hell. The cost of those licences, totalling in the billions, will then be passed on to you through higher bills for petrol, power, food, housing,air travel and anything else that uses lots of gassy power. In some countries they're even planning to tax farting cows, so there's no end to the ways you can be stung.
Rudd hopes this pain will make you switch to expensive but less gassy alternatives, and -- hey presto -- the world's temperature will then fall, just like it's actually done since the day Al Gore released An Inconvenient Truth. But you'll have spotted already the big flaw in Rudd's mad plan -- one that confirms he and Garnaut really do have delusions. The truth is Australia on its own emits less than 1.5 per cent of the world's carbon dioxide. Any savings we make will make no real difference, given that China (now the biggest emitter) and India (the fourth) are booming so fast that they alone will pump out 42 per cent of the world's greenhouse gases by 2030.
Indeed, so fast are the world's emissions growing -- by 3.1 per cent a year thanks mostly to these two giants -- that the 20 per cent cuts Rudd demands of Australians by 2020 would be swallowed up in just 28 days. That's how little our multi-billions of dollars in sacrifices will matter. And that's why Rudd's claim that we'll be ruined if we don't cut Australia's gases is a lie. To be blunt.
Ask Rudd's guru. Garnaut on Friday admitted any cuts we make will be useless unless they inspire other countries to do the same -- especially China and India: "Only a global agreement has any prospect of reducing risks of dangerous climate change to acceptable levels." So almost everything depends on China and India copying us. But the chances of that? A big, round zero.
A year ago China released its own global warming strategy -- its own Garnaut report -- which bluntly refused to cut its total emissions. Said Ma Kai, head of China's powerful State Council: "China does not commit to any quantified emissions-reduction commitments . . . our efforts to fight climate change must not come at the expense of economic growth." In fact, we had to get used to more gas from China, not less: "It is quite inevitable that during this (industrialisation) stage, China's energy consumption and CO2 emissions will be quite high."
Last month, India likewise issued its National Action Plan on Climate Change, and also rejected Rudd-style cuts. The plan's authors, the Prime Minister's Council on Climate Change, said India would rather save its people from poverty than global warming, and would not cut growth to cut gases. "It is obvious that India needs to substantially increase its per capita energy consumption to provide a minimally acceptable level of well being to its people." The plan's only real promise was in fact a threat: "India is determined that its per capita greenhouse gas emissions will at no point exceed that of developed countries." Gee, thanks.
That, of course, means India won't stop its per capita emissions (now at 1.02 tonnes) from growing until they match those of countries such as the US (now 20 tonnes). Given it has one billion people, that's a promise to gas the world like it's never been gassed before. So is this our death warrant? Should this news have you seeing apocalyptic visions, too? Well, no. What makes the Indian report so interesting is that unlike our Ross Garnaut, who just accepted the word of those scientists wailing we faced doom, the Indian experts went to the trouble to check what the climate was actually doing and why.
Their conclusion? They couldn't actually find anything bad in India that was caused by man-made warming: "No firm link between the documented (climate) changes described below and warming due to anthropogenic climate change has yet been established." In fact, they couldn't find much change in the climate at all. Yes, India's surface temperature over a century had inched up by 0.4 degrees, but there had been no change in trends for large-scale droughts and floods, or rain: "The observed monsoon rainfall at the all-India level does not show any significant trend . . ." It even dismissed the panic Al Gore helped to whip up about melting Himalayan glaciers: "While recession of some glaciers has occurred in some Himalayan regions in recent years, the trend is not consistent across the entire mountain chain. It is, accordingly, too early to establish long-term trends, or their causation, in respect of which there are several hypotheses."
Nor was that the only sign that India's Council on Climate Change had kept its cool while our Rudd and Garnaut lost theirs. For example, the Indians rightly insisted nuclear power had to be part of any real plan to cut emissions. Rudd and Garnaut won't even discuss it. The Indians also pointed out that no feasible technology to trap and bury the gasses of coal-fired power stations had yet been developed "and there are serious questions about the cost as well (as) permanence of the CO2 storage repositories".
Rudd and Garnaut, however, keep offering this dream to make us think our power stations can survive their emissions trading scheme, when state governments warn they may not. In every case the Indians are pragmatic where Rudd and Garnaut are having delusions -- delusions about an apocalypse, about cutting gases without going nuclear, about saving power stations they'll instead drive broke. And there's that delusion on which their whole plan is built -- that India and China will follow our sacrifice by cutting their throats, too. So psychiatrists are treating a 17-year-old tipped over the edge by global warming fear mongers? Pray that their next patients will be two men whose own delusions threaten to drive our whole economy over the edge as well.
Join Andrew on blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt
Copyright 2008, The Herald Sun
ANDREW BOLT: DOOMED TO A FATAL DELUSION OVER CLIMATE CHANGE
The Herald Sun, 9 July 2008
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23991257-25717,00.html
PSYCHIATRISTS have detected the first case of "climate change delusion"- and they haven't even yet got to Kevin Rudd and his global warming guru.Writing in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, Joshua Wolf and Robert Salo of our Royal Children's Hospital say this delusion was a "previously unreported phenomenon". "A 17-year-old man was referred to the inpatient psychiatric unit at Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne with an eight-month history of depressed mood . . . He also . . . had visions of apocalyptic events."(So have Alarmist of the Year Tim Flannery, Profit of Doom Al Gore and Sir Richard Bra(n)zen, but I digress.)
"The patient had also developed the belief that, due to climate change, his own water consumption could lead within days to the deaths of millions of people through exhaustion of water supplies." But never mind the poor boy, who became too terrified even to drink. What's scarier is that people in charge of our Government seem to suffer from this "climate change delusion", too.
Here is Prime Minister Kevin Rudd yesterday, with his own apocalyptic vision: "If we do not begin reducing the nation's levels of carbon pollution, Australia's economy will face more frequent and severe droughts, less water, reduced food production and devastation of areas such as the Great Barrier Reef and Kakadu wetlands."
And here is a senior Sydney Morning Herald journalist aghast at the horrors described in the report on global warming released on Friday by Rudd's guru, Professor Ross Garnaut: "Australians must pay more forpetrol, food and energy or ultimately face a rising death toll . . ." Wow. Pay more for food or die. Is that Rudd's next campaign slogan?
Of course, we can laugh at this -- and must -- but the price for such folly may soon be your job, or at least your cash. Rudd and Garnaut want to scare you into backing their plan to force people who produce everything from petrol to coal-fired electricity, from steel to soft drinks, to pay for licences to emit carbon dioxide --the gas they think is heating the world to hell. The cost of those licences, totalling in the billions, will then be passed on to you through higher bills for petrol, power, food, housing,air travel and anything else that uses lots of gassy power. In some countries they're even planning to tax farting cows, so there's no end to the ways you can be stung.
Rudd hopes this pain will make you switch to expensive but less gassy alternatives, and -- hey presto -- the world's temperature will then fall, just like it's actually done since the day Al Gore released An Inconvenient Truth. But you'll have spotted already the big flaw in Rudd's mad plan -- one that confirms he and Garnaut really do have delusions. The truth is Australia on its own emits less than 1.5 per cent of the world's carbon dioxide. Any savings we make will make no real difference, given that China (now the biggest emitter) and India (the fourth) are booming so fast that they alone will pump out 42 per cent of the world's greenhouse gases by 2030.
Indeed, so fast are the world's emissions growing -- by 3.1 per cent a year thanks mostly to these two giants -- that the 20 per cent cuts Rudd demands of Australians by 2020 would be swallowed up in just 28 days. That's how little our multi-billions of dollars in sacrifices will matter. And that's why Rudd's claim that we'll be ruined if we don't cut Australia's gases is a lie. To be blunt.
Ask Rudd's guru. Garnaut on Friday admitted any cuts we make will be useless unless they inspire other countries to do the same -- especially China and India: "Only a global agreement has any prospect of reducing risks of dangerous climate change to acceptable levels." So almost everything depends on China and India copying us. But the chances of that? A big, round zero.
A year ago China released its own global warming strategy -- its own Garnaut report -- which bluntly refused to cut its total emissions. Said Ma Kai, head of China's powerful State Council: "China does not commit to any quantified emissions-reduction commitments . . . our efforts to fight climate change must not come at the expense of economic growth." In fact, we had to get used to more gas from China, not less: "It is quite inevitable that during this (industrialisation) stage, China's energy consumption and CO2 emissions will be quite high."
Last month, India likewise issued its National Action Plan on Climate Change, and also rejected Rudd-style cuts. The plan's authors, the Prime Minister's Council on Climate Change, said India would rather save its people from poverty than global warming, and would not cut growth to cut gases. "It is obvious that India needs to substantially increase its per capita energy consumption to provide a minimally acceptable level of well being to its people." The plan's only real promise was in fact a threat: "India is determined that its per capita greenhouse gas emissions will at no point exceed that of developed countries." Gee, thanks.
That, of course, means India won't stop its per capita emissions (now at 1.02 tonnes) from growing until they match those of countries such as the US (now 20 tonnes). Given it has one billion people, that's a promise to gas the world like it's never been gassed before. So is this our death warrant? Should this news have you seeing apocalyptic visions, too? Well, no. What makes the Indian report so interesting is that unlike our Ross Garnaut, who just accepted the word of those scientists wailing we faced doom, the Indian experts went to the trouble to check what the climate was actually doing and why.
Their conclusion? They couldn't actually find anything bad in India that was caused by man-made warming: "No firm link between the documented (climate) changes described below and warming due to anthropogenic climate change has yet been established." In fact, they couldn't find much change in the climate at all. Yes, India's surface temperature over a century had inched up by 0.4 degrees, but there had been no change in trends for large-scale droughts and floods, or rain: "The observed monsoon rainfall at the all-India level does not show any significant trend . . ." It even dismissed the panic Al Gore helped to whip up about melting Himalayan glaciers: "While recession of some glaciers has occurred in some Himalayan regions in recent years, the trend is not consistent across the entire mountain chain. It is, accordingly, too early to establish long-term trends, or their causation, in respect of which there are several hypotheses."
Nor was that the only sign that India's Council on Climate Change had kept its cool while our Rudd and Garnaut lost theirs. For example, the Indians rightly insisted nuclear power had to be part of any real plan to cut emissions. Rudd and Garnaut won't even discuss it. The Indians also pointed out that no feasible technology to trap and bury the gasses of coal-fired power stations had yet been developed "and there are serious questions about the cost as well (as) permanence of the CO2 storage repositories".
Rudd and Garnaut, however, keep offering this dream to make us think our power stations can survive their emissions trading scheme, when state governments warn they may not. In every case the Indians are pragmatic where Rudd and Garnaut are having delusions -- delusions about an apocalypse, about cutting gases without going nuclear, about saving power stations they'll instead drive broke. And there's that delusion on which their whole plan is built -- that India and China will follow our sacrifice by cutting their throats, too. So psychiatrists are treating a 17-year-old tipped over the edge by global warming fear mongers? Pray that their next patients will be two men whose own delusions threaten to drive our whole economy over the edge as well.
Join Andrew on blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt
Copyright 2008, The Herald Sun
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Another Brave Scientist Tells The Truth About Global Warming.....
The following statement by another geologist (this time from New Zealand) is a well-said summary of the distortions of reality the public is being told concerning global warming. The best statement in this short article is:
"Few scientists are willing to put their head above the parapet, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that, to paraphrase Voltaire, it is dangerous to be right when the authorities are wrong."
This explains why so few scientists are willing to publicly dispute the idea that man is causing global warming and climate change. They are afraid. Political correctness is a powerful influence on peoples behavior. But we are now seeing more and more scientists willing to voice the truth.
Peter
(From the New Zealand Herald)
Chris de Freitas: Don't blame me for the heat
(Dr Chris de Freitas is an associate professor in the School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland)
Greenpeace spokeswoman Susannah Bailey's attack on branches of the New Zealand business sector, which she accuses of continuing to plead grey on global warming, misses the key point. Political action on climate change is not a game to be played and won or lost, and Greenpeace does us a disservice by encouraging that view. Little does the public realise the debate over climate change usually conflates issues of science and politics.
The robustness (validity) or otherwise of the science underpinning the role of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is the key to assessing the risk from human induced climate change issue. But seldom if ever are the uncertainties of the science discussed. Seldom if ever is the question asked: Where is the evidence for catastrophic climate change from human action?
Rather than search for the evidence, groups like Greenpeace defer to authorities, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a political entity which appears to have a monopoly on wisdom in global warming matters.
Rather than debate the issues, they attack those who disagree, using defamatory labels. Yet the opposite of scepticism is gullibility. The fanatical name calling and personal attacks expose the strong ideological elements that drive global warming alarmist thinking. It's as if the depth of passion is overcompensation for doubt and uncertainty. Why else would environmentalists squander so much effort trying to discredit individuals and organisations who disagree?
Few scientists are willing to put their head above the parapet, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that, to paraphrase Voltaire, it is dangerous to be right when the authorities are wrong.
Moreover, vote counting is a risky way to discover scientific truth. Scientific validity is not determined by a show of hands. Pronouncements from Greenpeace or the IPCC do not and cannot change the facts. No one doubts humans affect climate. The debate is whether the effects are "dangerous". There is no hard evidence that increases in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere put there by human activities are causing or will cause dangerous change to global climate.
The Earth's surface has warmed slightly over the last 150 years, but research shows that floods, droughts, hurricanes and tornadoes have not increased in frequency. The climate facts are well established and well recorded, but often ignored when it comes to global warming catastrophism:*
There have been four periods of global warming in the past 1500 years.* Data clearly show the Earth cooled during a recent 35-year period despite the continuing rise of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.* In recent times, global temperature has been steady since 1998, despite the continuing rise of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.* Average global sea level rise has shown no acceleration over the past 300 years.*
And it is an uncontroversial fact that all climate models are unreliable, so their output is not evidence of anything.
Recent climate change is within natural variation, and although this in no way confirms that it is due to natural variation, climate history clearly demonstrates that natural variation can explain the moderate climate change we have seen up until 1998. One could argue that we should take the observed net 0.6C warming trend over the past 100 years seriously, but by itself it looks rather benign, and may even be beneficial.
Even if the signatories to the Kyoto protocol meet their commitment, the climate science community is unanimous on the view that its impact on global warming would be imperceptible.
The fact is that the Kyoto targets are not based on science. Taking into account the economic costs, the Kyoto Protocol could be worse than doing nothing. It fails to establish long-term goals based on science, it poses serious and unnecessary risks to national economies, and it is ineffective in addressing climate change because it excludes major parts of the world. There is a desperate need for balanced reporting to redress widespread misunderstanding of climate change and the role of human activities.
Source
"Few scientists are willing to put their head above the parapet, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that, to paraphrase Voltaire, it is dangerous to be right when the authorities are wrong."
This explains why so few scientists are willing to publicly dispute the idea that man is causing global warming and climate change. They are afraid. Political correctness is a powerful influence on peoples behavior. But we are now seeing more and more scientists willing to voice the truth.
Peter
(From the New Zealand Herald)
Chris de Freitas: Don't blame me for the heat
(Dr Chris de Freitas is an associate professor in the School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland)
Greenpeace spokeswoman Susannah Bailey's attack on branches of the New Zealand business sector, which she accuses of continuing to plead grey on global warming, misses the key point. Political action on climate change is not a game to be played and won or lost, and Greenpeace does us a disservice by encouraging that view. Little does the public realise the debate over climate change usually conflates issues of science and politics.
The robustness (validity) or otherwise of the science underpinning the role of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is the key to assessing the risk from human induced climate change issue. But seldom if ever are the uncertainties of the science discussed. Seldom if ever is the question asked: Where is the evidence for catastrophic climate change from human action?
Rather than search for the evidence, groups like Greenpeace defer to authorities, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a political entity which appears to have a monopoly on wisdom in global warming matters.
Rather than debate the issues, they attack those who disagree, using defamatory labels. Yet the opposite of scepticism is gullibility. The fanatical name calling and personal attacks expose the strong ideological elements that drive global warming alarmist thinking. It's as if the depth of passion is overcompensation for doubt and uncertainty. Why else would environmentalists squander so much effort trying to discredit individuals and organisations who disagree?
Few scientists are willing to put their head above the parapet, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that, to paraphrase Voltaire, it is dangerous to be right when the authorities are wrong.
Moreover, vote counting is a risky way to discover scientific truth. Scientific validity is not determined by a show of hands. Pronouncements from Greenpeace or the IPCC do not and cannot change the facts. No one doubts humans affect climate. The debate is whether the effects are "dangerous". There is no hard evidence that increases in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere put there by human activities are causing or will cause dangerous change to global climate.
The Earth's surface has warmed slightly over the last 150 years, but research shows that floods, droughts, hurricanes and tornadoes have not increased in frequency. The climate facts are well established and well recorded, but often ignored when it comes to global warming catastrophism:*
There have been four periods of global warming in the past 1500 years.* Data clearly show the Earth cooled during a recent 35-year period despite the continuing rise of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.* In recent times, global temperature has been steady since 1998, despite the continuing rise of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.* Average global sea level rise has shown no acceleration over the past 300 years.*
And it is an uncontroversial fact that all climate models are unreliable, so their output is not evidence of anything.
Recent climate change is within natural variation, and although this in no way confirms that it is due to natural variation, climate history clearly demonstrates that natural variation can explain the moderate climate change we have seen up until 1998. One could argue that we should take the observed net 0.6C warming trend over the past 100 years seriously, but by itself it looks rather benign, and may even be beneficial.
Even if the signatories to the Kyoto protocol meet their commitment, the climate science community is unanimous on the view that its impact on global warming would be imperceptible.
The fact is that the Kyoto targets are not based on science. Taking into account the economic costs, the Kyoto Protocol could be worse than doing nothing. It fails to establish long-term goals based on science, it poses serious and unnecessary risks to national economies, and it is ineffective in addressing climate change because it excludes major parts of the world. There is a desperate need for balanced reporting to redress widespread misunderstanding of climate change and the role of human activities.
Source
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)