Notices
Results 1 to 27 of 27

Thread: New theory - Electromagnetic pollution causes global warming!

  1. #1 New theory - Electromagnetic pollution causes global warming! 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    7
    The basic premise of this article is that human generated electromagnetic radiation is contributing to global warming. It may do so by diverting an energy force termed KELEA (kinetic energy limiting electrostatic attraction) from its presumed association with cosmic rays. Cosmic ray delivered KELEA is viewed as normally participating in the formation of cloud condensation nuclei (CCN). It may do so by transforming electrostatically inert particles into electrostatic aerosols capable of acting as CCN. The resulting clouds act as a reflective barrier to some of the infrared radiation from the sun and, thereby, reduce the earth’s heat. This article proposes that increasing levels of electromagnetic radiation in the atmosphere is reducing the capacity of cosmic rays to deliver adequate KELEA to maintain climate stability through optimal cloud formation. Specifically, the fluctuating electrical fields accompanying electromagnetic radiation may do so by competitively withdrawing some of the KELEA from the incoming cosmic rays. Previously described studies by Dr. Wilhelm Reich attributed to an energy force termed orgone, are consistent with weather activity being inducible using a device that likely delivers KELEA to the atmosphere. In addition to the foregoing consideration, there are many agricultural and industrial applications of KELEA activated fluids that can reduce carbon emissions. It is important that the scope of climate science be broadened to include a detailed understanding of KELEA and of its many potential practical applications in addressing global warming.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Cooking Something Good MacGyver1968's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    2,051
    Paragraphs are your friends.


    Fixin' shit that ain't broke.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,651
    Quote Originally Posted by BorisBoris View Post
    The basic premise of this article is that human generated electromagnetic radiation is contributing to global warming.
    Evidence?

    It may do so by diverting an energy force termed KELEA (kinetic energy limiting electrostatic attraction) from its presumed association with cosmic rays.
    Evidence?

    Previously described studies by Dr. Wilhelm Reich attributed to an energy force termed orgone
    Reich was, to put it mildly, something of a nutcase. And "orgone" is a nonsense.

    ...are consistent with weather activity being inducible using a device that likely delivers KELEA to the atmosphere.
    So what you're saying is: a made up "energy force" (KELEA) with a presumed (but not shown) association with cosmic rays has "effects consistent" with a non-existent "force" invented by someone eminently unqualified to expound on the subject?

    there are many agricultural and industrial applications of KELEA activated fluids that can reduce carbon emissions.
    How can there be applications for something that - as yet - hasn't been shown to exist?

    It is important that the scope of climate science be broadened to include a detailed understanding of KELEA and of its many potential practical applications in addressing global warming.
    But it's far more important that "KELEA" be shown to exist1 so that science2 can take a look at it.

    1 "KELEA"is, apparently, the proposal of yet another person working outside the bounds of his qualifications (and, equally apparently, something of a crank within that remit).
    2 A discipline that works only on things that have evidence for them.

    Moved to Personal Theories.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    7
    Hi, i'm from Europe and i'm looking for some theories about this. There is a strong correlation between climate changes and radars, radio and TV transmitters... and especially with cell towers and satelites.

    Radiation has very important non-termal effects on water, so i think it can change reflectivity of clouds. 2% changed reflectivity of clouds is enough to comensate complete emission of CO2 in the atmosphere.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,651
    Quote Originally Posted by BorisBoris View Post
    There is a strong correlation between climate changes and radars, radio and TV transmitters... and especially with cell towers and satelites.

    Evidence?

    Radiation has very important non-termal effects on water
    Such as?

    so i think it can change reflectivity of clouds.

    Why do you think this?

    2% changed reflectivity of clouds is enough to comensate complete emission of CO2 in the atmosphere.
    Please show the maths behind this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by BorisBoris View Post
    There is a strong correlation between climate changes and radars, radio and TV transmitters... and especially with cell towers and satelites.
    Evidence?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Cooking Something Good MacGyver1968's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    2,051
    That only shows the change in temperature. How does that prove a correlation between EM and climate change? You know what else increased at about the same rate in the last 100 years? The number of puppies. Your graph proves that climate change was caused by puppies as much as it was caused by EM.
    Fixin' shit that ain't broke.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,651
    Where - EXACTLY - does that graph refer to "radars, radio and TV transmitters... and especially with cell towers and satelites"?
    So far as I can see all it does is plot temperature against time.
    And the top left-hand caption indicates that your claim is somewhat flawed in that the 1998-2014 rate is slightly less than the overall (1880-2014) rate yet surely there's more radars, radio & TV towers and cell towers, satellites as time advances...
    "
    Since the year 2000, the number of radars being used is rapidly increasing." - this isn't reflected at all by that figure.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,306
    Who gives a crap...it's very obvious that "radars, radio and TV transmitters... and especially with cell towers and satellites" are on the rise. Stop badgering the poster.

    Now Poster....why do you think that this correlation has anything to do with causation? Anything that's on the rise (e.g. amounts of the landfill, piracy, organic foods are grown, the number of lithium battery fires, Sear store closures etc are all correlated--it means nothing without some connecting causal argument.

    I'd also remind anyone that climate is typically defined in 30 years trends, though less than that should be viewed with deep skepticism.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Cooking Something Good MacGyver1968's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    2,051
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Stop badgering the poster.
    You know what else is on the rise? Badgers. Badgers cause climate change.

    Badgers? BADGERS? We don't need no stinking badgers!
    Fixin' shit that ain't broke.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,561

    (SORRY COULDN'T RESIST)
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,969
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Who gives a crap...it's very obvious that "radars, radio and TV transmitters... and especially with cell towers and satellites" are on the rise.
    While that is true, the overall EM POWER being transmitted by each is going down as receivers become more sensitive, more communications move to satellite and new standards (CDMA vs GSM/AMPS) are implemented. So it's not at all clear that even the magnitude of EM radiation has gone up.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,637
    Quote Originally Posted by BorisBoris View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by BorisBoris View Post
    There is a strong correlation between climate changes and radars, radio and TV transmitters... and especially with cell towers and satelites.
    Evidence?
    Don't confuse correlation with causation. Correlations are everywhere. See, for example, Pastafarian Sparrowism

    If we were to interpret that correlation as causation, then a simple solution to global warming would be to grow the number of pirates.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by BorisBoris View Post
    2% changed reflectivity of clouds is enough to comensate complete emission of CO2 in the atmosphere.
    So, to grasp your hypothesis we must believe small changes in albedo (Earth's reflectivity) significantly affect warming. That's difficult when our attention is fixated on greenhouse gasses.

    I share your point of view BorisBoris. Anecdotally I can tell you that a forecasted "deadly heatwave" for coastal BC was cancelled due to forest-fire smoke - the smoke apparently reflected much sunlight. Obviously normal clouds will do even more. Yet clouds are local and fickle so climatologists understandably rather discount them as "weather". Accepted climatology would rather focus on the CO2 produced by forest fire combustion, and conclude that fires cause warming.

    Unfortunately for you, historic data on cloud-cover & air clarity is sparse. Partial data comes from airports, and better: weather satellite photos. Therefore we can only guess speculative correlations to your graph, after about 1960.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,306
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong View Post
    I share your point of view BorisBoris. Anecdotally I can tell you that a forecasted "deadly heatwave" for coastal BC was cancelled due to forest-fire smoke - the smoke apparently reflected much sunlight. .
    In most cases, it's not so much reflection as absorption well above the surface instead of at the surface--this lowers the surface temperature. There's also a complex relationship between the decreased temperature lapse rate, clouds and the smoke.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    I agree fire smoke also absorbs solar energy...

    Hypothetically replace the smoke with a canopy of black plastic that reflects nothing. I guess we'd ultimately have increased heat at the surface?
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    874
    I blame Indian cooking fires.

    World
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    7
    And what do u think about this? Learnmore

    Welcome to a revolutionary perspective on climate change where

    we take a fresh look at how broadcast effects our environment and look at the facts with a clear mind and a new perspective. Within this website we consider how broadcast energy interacts electrically with the ionosphere, which translates to a chemical reaction resulting in

    the depletion of global and polar ozone.

    Broadcast Theory compiles scientific data going back over 30 years and traces the path of energy from the broadcast transmitter to its effects on ozone depletion through electron precipitation. It takes into consideration the most recent studies that different frequencies have on electron precipitation and combines the physics of this process with historic broadcast and weather records to show how broadcast frequencies may contribute to climate change though ozone depletion.

    Dear Colleagues,

    The Swedish Institute of Space Physics have already proven that radio waves stimulate a known ozone depletion mechanism and warned that global broadcast is a major public concern.

    Broadcast Theory reveals that there is indeed a connection between our historic use of broadcast frequencies and the global climate.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,651
    Quote Originally Posted by BorisBoris View Post
    The Swedish Institute of Space Physics have already proven that radio waves stimulate a known ozone depletion mechanism and warned that global broadcast is a major public concern.
    Then perhaps you could link to this "proof" and the "warning" since
    A) there's nothing comes up from a Google search (apart from crank sites pushing this "theory"), and
    B) there's nothing on their website.
    I.e. an unsupported claim on a crank site doesn't cut it.


    I'm STILL waiting for the evidence to support your claim "There is a strong correlation between climate changes and radars, radio and TV transmitters... and especially with cell towers and satelites."
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,480
    Quote Originally Posted by BorisBoris View Post
    And what do u think about this?[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/B][/SIZE]
    [/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR]
    Complete and utter crackpottery. To put it politely.

    You need to learn how to identify a reliable source of information. There is no real short cut for this; it really means actually studying the relevant science. I know this is hard work and it is much easier to just make up stories that sound like they make sense. But that is just wasting everyone's time (including your own).

    In the meantime, there are some clues:

    • Garish website design and text in multiple colours and sizes.
    • Use of words like "prove"
    • The "theory" is only available in a book, website or, worst of all, YouToob
    • No proper references to sources
    • Claims that everyone else is wrong and only their "revolutionary" theory is right
    • Statements about how long they have been wasting time working on the idea
    • Statements about how important it is
    • Quoting sources out of context (cherry picking) and misrepresenting what was said
    • Outright lies


    More here: Crackpot index
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    B) there's nothing on their website.
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    You need to learn how to identify a reliable source of information. There is no real short cut for this; it really means actually studying the relevant science.
    I have found some reliable informations using key words from that and other websites. Here is something interesting about interaction between EM pollution and ionosphere:

    ftp://ftp.ingv.it/pro/terrasol/ADS_C..._P&CE_2015.pdf
    4.1.

    Perturbations from Power LinesPLHR’s (Power Line Harmonic Radiation) are the ELF and VLF waves emitted by the power linesat the harmonics of 50 Hz (or 60 Hz in USA). But these lines are not alone to radiate harmonics.Direct observations of PLHR by satellites are rather rare (Parrot, 1995) and shown in few papers(indirect effects are more often reported). Non linear interactions between electrons and PLHR canparticipate in the precipitation of electrons from the slot region in the radiation belts, on the otherhand, main part of the PLHR energy dissipates in the lower ionosphere and modifies theionospheric currents. This problem now requires serious attention because the electrical powerconsumption is always increasing in the world.A systematic research on PLHR’s has been performed using all burst DEMETER data. From VLFspectrograms, it is easy to find at the satellite altitude, the spectral lines separated by 50 Hz in 17Europe and by 60 Hz in USA (Němec et al., 2007 and references therein). Examples of PLHR’shave been published by Parrot and Němec (2009) and the Fig. 8 shows one of these events.4.2. Perturbations from VLF TransmittersAt VLF frequencies between 10 and 20 kHz, the ground based transmitters are used for radionavigation and communications. Their ionospheric perturbations include: the triggering of newwaves, ionospheric heating, wave electron interactions, and particle precipitation. At HFfrequencies, the broadcasting stations utilize powerful transmitters which can heat the ionosphereand change the temperature and the density. All these wave dissipations in the ionosphere couldparticipate to the global warming of the Earth because the change in global temperature increasesthe number of natural lightning discharges in the atmosphere. Then the supplementary lightningdischarges produce more magnetospheric whistlers which, in turn, could produce heating andionization in the lower ionosphere.The ground-based VLF transmitters are mainly used for communications by the army. They emit atfixed frequencies and their waves are propagated and bouncing in the Earth-ionosphere waveguide.But the ionosphere is not regular and these waves can also cross the ionosphere and be observed bya satellite. DEMETER has shown that the most powerful transmitter NWC in Australia can perturband heat the ionosphere on a vast scale. The Fig. 9 shows an example of these ionosphericmodifications which are observed at the satellite altitude. The waves, which cross the ionosphereand propagate in the opposite hemisphere, can also perturb the particles of the radiation belts due towave-particle interaction as it has been studied by Sauvaud et al. (2008).Furthermore, there is a potential feedback mechanism because two different processes could beinvolved. First, lightning is a source of NOx, and NOx affects the concentration of ozone in theatmosphere which contributes to the greenhouse effect. Second, precipitation of energetic electrons 18by man-made waves may trigger other lightning discharges. It explains the importance of the studyof such man-made waves (Parrot and Zaslavski, 1996).It must be also noted that anomalous propagation of the navigation VLF transmitters' signals hasbeen detected before the occurrence of earthquakes when the epicenter is located between thetransmitter and the receiver (see for example, Molchanov et al. 2006 and Rozhnoi et al., 2009), aswell as unexpected anomalous pre-seismic transmission resulted in VHF radio waves (Fujiwara etal., 2004; Moriya et al. 2010).

    Short explanation:

    Website Joris Everaert

    The DEMETER satellite project (partly) from the Laboratoire de Physique et Chimie de l'Environnement (LPCE) at the french National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) has the objective to investigate the ionospheric perturbations due to the seismic activity, and the global study of the Earth electromagnetic environment. Dr. Michel Parrot, the principal investigator of the DEMETER project, and others, have studied and published about the ionospheric effects of anthropogenic low frequency electromagnetic radiation from power lines and transmitters, and high frequency broadcasting stations (to some MHz frequencies). All the observations indicate that Power Line Harmonic Radiation (PLHR) influences the atmosphere-ionosphere-magnetosphere coupling. On one hand, non linear interactions between electrons and PLHR can participate in the precipitation of electrons from the slot region in the radiation belts, on the other hand, main part of the PLHR energy dissipates in the lower ionosphere and modifies the ionospheric currents. This problem now requires serious attention because the electrical power consumption is always increasing in the world. It was also found that the very low frequency fields from ground-based transmitters (used for radio-navigation and communications) can also have an influence. Their ionospheric perturbations include: the triggering of new waves, ionospheric heating, wave-electron interactions, and particle precipitation. At high frequencies (to some MHz but not in the GHz range), broadcasting stations utilise powerful transmitters which can also heat the ionosphere and change the temperature and the density. According to Dr. Parrot, all these wave dissipations in the ionosphere could participate to the global warming of the Earth because the change in global temperature increases the number of natural lightning discharges in the atmosphere. Then the supplementary lightning discharges produce more magnetospheric whistlers which could produce heating and ionization in the lower ionosphere. Furthermore, it is a feedback mechanism because two different processes could be involved. First, lightning is a source of NOx, and NOx affects the concentration of ozone in the atmosphere which contributes to the greenhouse effect. Second, precipitation of energetic electrons by man-made waves may trigger other lightning discharges. It explains the importance of the study of such man-made waves (see the links below for more information).
    The higher frequency radiation (900 MHz and more) from cell phone use and cell phone transmission base stations, cannot directly interact with the ionosphere. But maybe this radiation could also result in higher global temperatures due to other effects/interactions in the atmosphere ? There was a news item claiming that a group of fifty scientists in Columbia have revealed that the explosive application of mobile phones (and other man-made electromagnetic sources) can contribute to global warming, but I haven't seen confirmation of that news item.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,651
    Quote Originally Posted by BorisBoris View Post
    I have found some reliable informations using key words from that and other websites.
    So where's the link from/ quote from that website?
    The first is Italian not Swedish and it actually says (in the part you quoted) "All these wave dissipations in the ionosphere could participate to the global warming". Not confirmed and so not a "strong correlation".
    The second is from a Belgian biologist who
    1) quotes the same (Italian) report - so not actually an addition,
    2) surprise surprise, refers to the site you linked to - so again, nothing further than what you've already said. Oh, and, incidentally he subscribes to (at least) two other woo claims.

    Edit (you wrote this) "radiation (900 MHz and more) from cell phone use and cell phone transmission base stations, cannot directly interact with the ionosphere. But maybe [my emphasis] this radiation could also result in higher global temperatures". So we've gone from "strong correlation (still waiting for that evidence...) to "maybe".
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,480
    Quote Originally Posted by BorisBoris View Post
    The higher frequency radiation (900 MHz and more) from cell phone use and cell phone transmission base stations, cannot directly interact with the ionosphere. But maybe this radiation could also result in higher global temperatures due to other effects/interactions in the atmosphere ?
    As you have provided zero evidence for this and there is, as you rightly state, no mechanism, I think we can safely say no.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    7
    It seems there is no obvious mechanism for high frequencies, but 900 MHz is usually modulated to 8 or 16Hz i think. Maybe that makes a connection?
    I will try now to find a report from Swedish institute, so we will know more about this...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,480
    Quote Originally Posted by BorisBoris View Post
    I will try now to find a report from swedish institute, so we will know more about this...
    Bet it has nothing to do with global warming ...
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,969
    Quote Originally Posted by BorisBoris View Post
    It seems there is no obvious mechanism for high frequencies, but 900 MHz is usually modulated to 8 or 16Hz i think.
    What are you talking about? Are you talking about the 26th frame usually being idle for GSM transmissions? (which presents as a loss of signal 8 times a second) If so, that's not intentional modulation; it's just a side effect of their framing system. Also, not many people are using GSM any more anyway; they are using CDMA.

    And what would that matter, anyway?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Bet it has nothing to do with global warming ...
    But it has to do with ozone depletion, and that is maybe worse problem than global warming itself:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_precipitation
    Electron precipitation is regularly linked to ozone depletion.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL054437/pdf
    Ground based Very Low Frequency (VLF, 3–30 kHz)
    radio transmitters play a role in precipitation of energetic
    Van Allen electrons.

    Here is also something that supports KELEA theory: https://phys.org/news/2016-08-solar-...rth-cloud.html

    The solar eruptions are known to shield Earth's atmosphere from cosmic rays. However the new study, published in Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, shows that the global cloud cover is simultaneously reduced, supporting the idea that cosmic rays are important for cloud formation. The eruptions cause a reduction in cloud fraction of about 2 percent corresponding to roughly a billion tonnes of liquid water disappearing from the atmosphere.
    Since clouds are known to affect global temperatures on longer timescales, the present investigation represents an important step in the understanding of clouds and climate variability.
    Last edited by BorisBoris; September 4th, 2017 at 07:43 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Global Warming Impact: Global Starvation and Societal Collapse
    By seregate in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: April 5th, 2013, 09:27 PM
  2. Replies: 13
    Last Post: October 8th, 2012, 07:43 PM
  3. Global Pollution
    By pringle in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 64
    Last Post: September 3rd, 2012, 01:12 PM
  4. Another theory on global warming
    By dark explorer in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: November 26th, 2009, 09:34 AM
  5. Global Warming, Ice Ages??, Pollution...
    By Lee W in forum Earth Sciences
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: February 22nd, 2007, 05:48 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •