BB4 on Climate Change (updated 26jul13)

July 2013
S	M	T	W	T	F	S
	1	2	3	4	5	6
7	8	9	10	11	12	13
14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27
28	29	30	31

OUR LINKS

YubaNet
White House Blog
Watts Up With That?
The Union
Sierra Thread
RL “Bob” Crabb
Barry Pruett Blog

BB4 on Climate Change (updated 26jul13)

07 July 2013

George Rebane

Breaking Bread Edition #4 on Climate Change will be recorded this Monday at the NCTV studios. The issues discussion program will be hosted by Eric Tombs and I will be one of Eric’s guests. Climate change is, of course, today’s more acceptable term for global warming, specifically man-made or anthropogenic GW, specifically correctable AGW, and specifically ‘We just gotta do SOMETHING!!!’ AGW. We had a pre-taping session the other day during which the strong argument of the true believers was again presented – consensus science. When it was pointed out that 1) there is no consensus science on AGW, and 2) consensus science should send up red flags and wailing sirens whenever it is cited, things got a little heated.

What really nudged me to post on this was Matt Ridley’s Mind and Matter column in the 6jul13 WSJ titled ‘Science is about Evidence NOT Consensus’. (Sadly, this is Dr Ridley’s last regular column for the WSJ. The distinguished author and member of the House of Lords is returning to his many other pursuits. I shall miss him.) Ridley uses climate change as his example to teach how scientific propositions should be evaluated. RR readers are well aware of his arguments which have made not a dent in some commenters beliefs on the matter.

Well, at our BB4 meeting it became clear that ‘Consensus Über Alles’ will be the one and only redoubt from which the adherents of climate change will sally forth. The format of BB properly prohibits participants launching ad homonyms against their opposite numbers. It is a forum where ideas are explained, and where ideas may then contend on their own merits. However, today this topic is so asymmetrically supported by reason that it was suggested there should be no attempt to discredit consensus science if that is all one could muster to support energetic public policies to combat AGW. The short of it was that opinions based on warm fuzzies should weigh equally with those more formidably armed – after all, are we not all equal? But not to worry dear reader, the proposal did not carry.

Matt Ridley’s swansong admonitions are worthy recounting as we prepare for the 2,047,619th ‘discussion’ on climate change.

…the "consensus" about climate change only extends to the propositions that it has been happening and is partly man-made, both of which I readily agree with. Forecasts show huge uncertainty.

…science does not respect consensus. There was once widespread agreement about phlogiston (a nonexistent element said to be a crucial part of combustion), eugenics, the impossibility of continental drift, the idea that genes were made of protein (not DNA) and stomach ulcers were caused by stress, and so forth—all of which proved false. Science, Richard Feynman once said, is "the belief in the ignorance of experts."

So, yes, it is the evidence that persuades me whether a theory is right or wrong, and no, I could not care less what the "consensus" says.

The article is too short, but well worth the read.

[11jul13 update] We taped BB4 last Monday (8jul13) evening at NCTV, and apparently it has already been aired, and will be again. For the next showings please visit NCTV here. It will soon be available for online viewing on the Breaking Bread website.

[19jul13 update] Remaining BB4 broadcast from NCTV are:

Thursday 7/18/2013, 6:00 PM, Channel 11

Sunday 7/21/2013, 5:00 PM, Channel 11

Monday 7/22/2013, 9:30 AM, Channel 11

No word yet on when it will appear on line.

[26jul13 update] The video of BB4 is archived and can be found on this page of the NCTV website filed under 18 July programs – or you can simply search the page (Ctrl F) with 'Breaking Bread'.

Posted in Critical Thinking & Numeracy, Happenings, Nevada County, Our World, We the iSheeple

103 responses to “BB4 on Climate Change (updated 26jul13)”

Ben Emery

08 July 2013

Steve,
You can give every detail and Juvinall is going to say you didn’t give him enough. It is a very childish game but I wouldn’t expect anything different from him.

LikeLike
stevenfrisch

08 July 2013

Posted by: Gregory | 08 July 2013 at 05:45 PM
“I suggest Steve ‘meet his maker’ and talk to my late wife to get the details on that one, assuming he gets a similar final address.”
You know Gregory we cut you a lot of slack. I don’t really care to know about your personal life….I can only assume that you spend a lot of time in darkened rooms….but I suggest we nor bring any other members of the ‘family’ into this conversation. I don’t really mind if you wish me dead….but saying it is over the line.

LikeLike
stevenfrisch

08 July 2013

Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 08 July 2013 at 05:55 PM
Posted by: Ben Emery | 08 July 2013 at 06:06 PM
Yes Ben, it is as though Todd is just about the densest person I have ever met. I prove him wrong; any reader can go to the instructions and look it up; and still he acts like he knows something. What a complete moron. It is like Todd is cartoon of a 1960’s Nevada County kid who took off on a motorcycle instead of going to Vietnam one day, and stopped growing. Sad really, if we still lived in the 40’s he would be Li’l Abner.

LikeLike
Gregory

08 July 2013

Ben, 6:02, it ain’t rocket science. Cars, motorcycles, airplanes are all reasonably simple machinery that obey the same laws of physics that everything else does.
BTW I worked on rockets for a year, too, fresh out of college, but I’m sure you saw that one coming.

LikeLike
Gregory

08 July 2013

Show Topic: Dealing with Global Warming
DISCUSSION POINTS:
What we can do as individuals and as a society about a rapidly warming planet?
Eric Tombs – TOMES in Grass Valley, Show Host: Eric Tomb
Eric’s Guests:
Steve Baker, Sharon Delgado, George Rebane and Al Stahler
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Note that it doesn’t start with any doubt… it’s “a rapidly warming planet” that just hasn’t been warming for about 20 years. The global lower atmospheric temperature anomaly from the average since 1979 for May is a scorching 0.07 degree C (about an eighth of a degree Fahrenheit, but that’s just “weather”. June’s will be released any day now.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
Solar cycle 24 continued its lower path in July, and some very reputable scientists are expecting 25 to be even weaker.
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/sunspot.gif

LikeLike
Todd Juvinall

08 July 2013

I always know when BenE and SteveF are lying. They go personal. What a hoot! Lil Abner! Yep, ya’ll got me good. But I get Daisy Mae and you two get a poodle.

LikeLike
Gregory

08 July 2013

“You know Gregory we cut you a lot of slack.”
I love the Imperial “we”, even if it is totally misplaced, not to mention a bizarre view of your actual words over the years. That must be a usage of the word “slack” of which I was previously unaware. Or maybe you are aware of the falsity and it is actually one of those “lies” you are so fond of.
“I don’t really care to know about your personal life….I can only assume that you spend a lot of time in darkened rooms”
Not at all, Steve. Lots of sunlight, especially recently, as I’m rushing to finish a deck reconstruction before a deadline.
“….but I suggest we nor bring any other members of the ‘family’ into this conversation. I don’t really mind if you wish me dead….but saying it is over the line.”
There you go again, reading more into what is written than what is written. The timing is up to you but you will be assuming room temperature eventually, and I can wait. Please, feel free to go first.

LikeLike
stevenfrisch

08 July 2013

Posted by: Gregory | 08 July 2013 at 05:45 PM
“I suggest Steve ‘meet his maker’ and talk to my late wife to get the details on that one, assuming he gets a similar final address.”

LikeLike
George Rebane

08 July 2013

More resurrected ‘spam’ – dear people, I dug out more comments from my spam folder and published them. Please holler (short comment) when you don’t see your comment post right away.

LikeLike
Gregory

08 July 2013

Frisch, 8:07
We might note there was no suggestion as to when, how or why.

LikeLike
Todd Juvinall

08 July 2013

So SteveF, why are you not giving us the list of your 990 form government grants totalling 700k or so??

LikeLike
Bill Tozer

08 July 2013

Gregory | 08 July 2013 at 05:45 PM
Mr. Gregory. I bought a Geo Prism (Corolla) from a co-worker a few years ago. Paid $450 for it and drove it for a few years. That car had some major pick up and go. I would blow off 50k cars all day long over the summit and never once did it not start in a millisecond, rain or shine. It had a lot of miles on it but ran like a champ. Finally sold it to some kid for 100 dollars when I found another deal (steal). That kid one night became airborne in the Prism, smashed into a tree 30 feet off the road, and walked away. He claims he was only going 35mph, lol. I always wondered it them old airbags worked. He found out they did.
The real point is later I was reading a list of the best 10 cars made. I was pleasantly surprised that the 90-94? Geo Prism was on the list. Yes, parts were cheaper that the Geo Metro and was born to run with dependability.

LikeLike
Joe Koyote

08 July 2013

The wording “fact based” versus “consensus based” implies that one side is factual and the other is not, which is misleading. If you are not a climatologist doing active research, then whenever you provide “facts” in a discussion about climate change, you are passing on secondary information. In other words, you have no personal experience or knowledge about the subject and really don’t know what the hell you are talking about. You are simply passing on your opinion (or gas as the case may be) based upon information you got from a media source. The real issue then becomes how credible or biased are your sources of information. Dr. Matt (the 5th Viscount) Ridley is a zoologist by training and a writer by trade giving his opinion about consensus in climate science in the WSJ opinion pages. These are his opinions not facts. WSJ is owned by Rupert Murdoch whose penchant for sensationalism, distortion and bias is legendary. Even before Murdoch bought the WSJ, its editorial pages were well known for their corporate bias, as one would expect.
If your opinions are based on information from Heritage, American Enterprise, or other oil industry and billionaire funded think tanks and “research” facilities, which (surprise! Surprise!) generate practically all of the denial “science”, your opinions could be based on facts and conclusions that are questionable at best and would be better described as industry propaganda. Denial science sells books and lectures and delays action that could harm corporate profits while people argue over its validity. The primary goal in damage control is to delay any potential harmful action as long as possible. That is the purpose of denial science. It is a public relations ploy. How long did the cancer and tobacco debate go on? Yes, I know that a flat Earth was once the consensus, but that was before information traveled around the world at the speed of light. Personally, I’m going with the consensus and putting my money behind the climatologists. How can that many people be wrong and so few be right. It doesn’t make sense.

LikeLike
Michael Anderson

08 July 2013

This is like a nice Car Talk column, and then Mephistopheles enters stage right from the Vomitorium and all hell breaks loose.
I love it. Because as you know, I love the comedy.
BTW Todd, there are now both Kickstarter and Ingiegogo campaigns for “The Juvinall” art project at Burning Man this year. Send me a private email if you would like the links. You are being immortalized.
On Twitter, #Gasbagtinynuts

LikeLike
fish

09 July 2013

If your opinions are based on information from Heritage, American Enterprise, or other oil industry and billionaire funded think tanks and “research” facilities, which (surprise! Surprise!) generate practically all of the denial “science”, your opinions could be based on facts and conclusions that are questionable at best and would be better described as industry propaganda. Denial science sells books and lectures and delays action that could harm corporate profits while people argue over its validity.
Rest assured Joe that “climate change” is a trope to generate revenue…nothing more! Those valiant non-biased, non-“industry” propaganda-free scientists (government/academia) they bark like trained seals for grant money and grant money is always political.

LikeLike
Bill Tozer

09 July 2013

M fish, You stole my thunder. I was about to answer Mr. J Koyote’s last question with 3 words: Money and Ego.

LikeLike
Todd Juvinall

09 July 2013

MichaelA, I would think your attendance at the Burning Man would suffice for your perversions. I am uninterested in you as you seem to be a Todd “wannabee” and that just creeps me ut. You have a mental issue which needs attendance. Please seek help. You have health insurance, use it. What a hoot!

LikeLike
Russ Steele

09 July 2013

JoeK@09:27PM
From the Urban Dictionary: Grant Whore [Warmer Climatologists]
A mediocre academic whose one career accomplishment is that he/she knows how to write successful research grants but has no idea how to focus that research for any pratical results.
Dr. Patterson is a rotten teacher but he has tenure because he’s such a grant whore. He brings in 25 million a year for his research into the boxers vs breifs question.
In the Climate Change case, warmer climatologist bring in millions a year in grants to solve a non-existing problem — climate change is a natural cycle that has been going on for millions if not billions of years, humans in all their hubris cannot change that cycle.

LikeLike
Ken Jones

09 July 2013

Russ @ 8:12 am
From the Urban Dictionary:
Denial Silence is the curious form of cognitive dissonance that masquerades as real science, and that is exhibited by those people who claim that there is no human influence on the current trend in global warming/climate change.
The ‘Silence’ portion of the term ‘Denial Silence’ is also a reference to the ‘Silence’ in Dr Who – a race of aliens able to edit from a human’s mind any memory of ever having seen, heard or encountered these aliens, as soon as the humans are no longer able to see them. Similarly, deniers of anthropogenic global warming appear to edit from their minds any knowledge/understanding of real science as soon as they hear, read, or are otherwise informed of actual climatological/physical fact.

LikeLike
George Rebane

09 July 2013

Well, I see that the climate change has again found its blind alley that ends in an eternal roundabout.

LikeLike
fish

09 July 2013

Similarly, deniers of anthropogenic global warming appear to edit from their minds any knowledge/understanding of real science as soon as they hear, read, or are otherwise informed of actual climatological/physical fact.
I’m not a denier Ken….I’m just not convinced. Given all the questionable actions on both sides of the issue I think that this is not an unreasonable position. But go ahead take the proponents side….on faith.

LikeLike
Ken Jones

09 July 2013

Fish just playing the game that Russ initiated. You assume I take the proponents side as well. I tend to believe the experts from NASA, NOAA, the EPA and other respected science. Science trumps faith Fish. But I can’t say I am 100% convinced, yet. I believe it better to be proactive than reactive.

LikeLike
Gregory

09 July 2013

JK 9:27PM
“The wording “fact based” versus “consensus based” implies that one side is factual and the other is not, which is misleading. If you are not a climatologist doing active research, then whenever you provide “facts” in a discussion about climate change, you are passing on secondary information. In other words, you have no personal experience or knowledge about the subject and really don’t know what the hell you are talking about.”
While I don’t use that particular dichotomy, JK, you do a good job of unwittingly illustrating it. You have passed on actually understanding the facts as being impossible for anyone but experts in the very narrow field of climate science to understand, and one therefore who is not a climate scientist must defer to the overwhelming majority of climate scientists who publish their papers in journals that don’t accept papers that don’t follow the politically correct conclusions, and have what is not so politely referred to as “pal review” to unsure even weak papers that get the ‘right’ result find a home.
You don’t have to be a bona fide climate scientist to read papers in climate science. Anyone who has enough of a science background to wade through any issue of Scientific American cover to cover without getting lost or bored can probably do so. Reading and a basic understanding takes different skills than producing, and papers in peer reviewed journals have already passed a smell test, limited that may be be for a pal reviewed journal.
There is a large body of research that has called into question some of the key assumptions about clouds and aerosols used by all of the computer models, all of which have severely overestimated warming. This is true for the models used by James Hansen (phd in physics, originally an astronomer and astrophysicist) to start the ball rolling at NASA, and all of the models accepted by the last IPCC report, all of which have overshot the actual temperatures by a wide enough margin to falsify the models themselves.
Claims of settled science are false; at the moment, everyone agrees CO2 itself will cause a little more than 1C warming for a doubling, but neither the magnitude or the sign of the climate’s response has been determined. A number of physicists looking at real data believe the feedback is either negative or weakly positive, both of which are stable, and the falsified models from ‘climate science’ all indicate moderate to severe positive feedback responses, all of which are unstable.
Then there’s an over 500 million year record (Shaviv & Veizer 2003) of the world’s average ocean temps varying nicely about 7C peak to peak, no signs of instability, varying by our location as our solar system revolves around the Milky Way center, passing though arms of our galaxy every 160 million years or so. The major ice ages are all when we’re surrounded by other stars, the major hothouses are all when we’re between spiral arms, with a very strong correlation between high energy cosmic rays and temps.
I assure you, all of what I’ve written above is from peer reviewed science that petrochemical money had nothing to do with; that’s BS thrown out by alarmists who need a bogeyman to be the cause of their opposition.

LikeLike
Russ Steele

09 July 2013

Gregory@01:43PM
Well said! How we can all wander into the garden and listen to the crickets.

LikeLike
Gerry Fedor

10 July 2013

love it when people who actually know “nothing” try to tell me about solar power as here’s the financials from someone who actually spent the money (out of my own pocket with no help from the California Government).
I bought a 7.5kw system 3 years ago (grid tied) as I wanted a system that would pay for all of the power we use, but I should have bought a 2.2kw system for $@38K.
I could now buy this same system for @$21K as the price of panels has significantly come down in price.
We are considered a “generation station” and have a yearly due power bill…..
This was the first year that we have gotten a check, rather than a credit, but this year our check for the excessive power we produced was $5,535.00. We still have a credit on our bill for $9,800 that we’re trying to figure out how to use?
Next year we make have a Christmas lighting display that will rival some of the TV shows you’d see on “Really Stupid Christmas Displays that Blacked Out Los Angeles” to use up this credit…
If we continue to use the power that we have been in the past year, we will be expecting to get a check every year (for a minimum of 25 years) @$5,400.
That’s a @6 year ROI (Return On Investment) then it’s free power.
I wish all of my investments had this type of return, but in a real world you have some people that will try to tell us that it’ll never pay for itself, but others of us are much smarter and laugh everytime we hear stories such as that nonsense!

LikeLike
stevenfrisch

10 July 2013

Thanks for the personal testimonial Gerry.

LikeLike
Todd Juvinall

10 July 2013

I would suggest there is no way a small system like Fedors could generate as much dollars as he stated. It is not physically possible. But if he believes it I guess that is all it takes.

LikeLike
Ben Emery

10 July 2013

Gary,
Where I work we put in 72 panels about 4 years ago. We are ahead of schedule for them to pay themselves off. After that all the energy will then in essence be captured from the sun for free, at least in the dollars and cents aspect anyway. There are other ways of doing things but the accumulated wealth/ power of what we now call conventional energy have such a strong stranglehold on our government and the energy market we will not see alternatives be released until these companies can corner the market first. Then we will do the whole energy dance once again through regulation.

LikeLike
Joe Koyote

10 July 2013

Some new information about climate change from Stanford.
http://yubanet.com/scitech/Stanford-climate-scientist-addresses-misconceptions-about-climate-change.php#.Ud2WHK6vcw8

LikeLike
Gregory

10 July 2013

Enjoy cheap solar panels while they last, China can sell them for below cost for only so long.
The economics of solar panels in California would be different were electrical power not one-third more expensive than the average state, and twice that of a number of other states similarly rich with fossil fuels, nuclear and hydroelectric generation wealth.
It still tickles me that the new supercomputer complex being built to run the climate models to see how bad CO2 driven cAGW might be is located in Wyoming so they can use cheap coal generated power to run the thing.

LikeLike
Gregory

10 July 2013

JK 10:20
That “climate scientist”, Chris Field, is a professor of biology (BA Harvard, PhD Stanford) whose job has been to determine how much that nasty warming will do to the ecosphere. In short, he’s one of those guys who has no knowledge about whether or not the science behind cAGW is solid and is just “passing on secondary information”(indeed, one alarmist PhD biologist in town here has declared she can’t remember ever taking one class in physics from high school forward) but is happy to tell you how bad the effect of it might be on the things he does think he understands.

LikeLike
MikeL

10 July 2013

Gerry,
I am intrigued as to how you are able to produce such a monetary windfall with your 7.5KW solar system. I was curious how much power (KW-hr) your system is producing per year and how much they are paying you per KW-hr. just for kicks your system is producing power for 6 hrs per day 364 days per year at 7.5 KW.. this gives 16380 KW-hrs per year. If you are using half of this power that leaves 8190 KW-hrs for sale. $5535 divide by 8190 KW-hrs gives 67 1/2 cents a kilowatt. Wow… last time I looked juice at peak was around 23 cents.
I am sincere in wanting to know how you are doing this.

LikeLike
fish

11 July 2013

George,
I was going to send you this directly so you could choose if you wanted to throw another log on the fire. Sorry couldn’t find an e-mail address hidden on the blog.
http://fabiusmaximus.com/2013/07/11/climate-trends-52362/

LikeLike
Todd Juvinall

11 July 2013

MikeL, good analysis on Fedor made up numbers. I have been quite familiar with the cost and returns of these solar panels and it is usually never paid back when you place all the costs into the mix. Without those taxpayer credits or grants they never pay back. Also, to generate as much power as he says he would need a lot of square footage of panels. The left just makes it up.

LikeLike
George Rebane

11 July 2013

fish 739am – thanks for that link, even though its content is a bit self-contradictory – e.g. the recent temperature record/predictions are almost completely unreliable, but let’s keep following the lead of the IPCC. Use gjrebane@gmail.com to contact me about RR matters.

LikeLike
fish

11 July 2013

They are agnostic on the matter it seems. It does deal with the issue I mentioned up thread that parties on either side of the issue are guilty of “cherry picking” the data and evangelism in furtherance of their respective position.

LikeLike
Gregory

11 July 2013

“The wording “fact based” versus “consensus based” implies that one side is factual and the other is not, which is misleading.” -JK
Well, the crickets were out in force after my 09 July 2013 at 01:43 PM, so I think the “fact based” and “consensus based” arguments have been made.
In short, if all you can do is count proponents and defer to authority, you’re not making a factual argument. Consensus is politics, science isn’t.

LikeLike
Gregory

11 July 2013

BTW George, how did it go Monday? It’s still not online and I gather it’s set to start airing next Monday.
http://breakingbreadtv.com/july-2013-globalwarming-eric-tomb/
I hope you weren’t taking political or systems engineering tacks; especially with a (let me guess) 4:1 house, I’d not expect those to sway anyone. They certainly don’t sway me and I generally agree with you.

LikeLike
George Rebane

11 July 2013

Gregory 141pm – Hmmm…, apparently my updates are not all that attention getting.
The systems engineering tack was forsaken. I had my Venn diagram ready to show, but the direction of the talk and time remaining didn’t allow discussing the nesting of factors. But the consensous side took their usual position. Laymen in science have a brick wall when it comes to talking about facts/results from science, they don’t dare believe anyone who doesn’t have an appropriate label – e.g. climatologist – behind their name. But with the label, you can spew politically correct bullshit, and it’s lapped up with gratitude. I’ll have more to say about that in a future post. Some of your previous comments have also talked to that point.

LikeLike
Gregory

11 July 2013

Your update wasn’t there the last time I had been to the top! Cable doesn’t serve my part of Nirvana County so I have to wait until the streaming starts.
How did Heinlein put it… ‘Any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic’? Some of our neighbors are more magical than others, and are more comfortable citing authorities as if they were high priests revealing a magnum mysterium to be remembered and recited… like a canned K-12 science lesson.

LikeLike
Bill Tozer

11 July 2013

Not related to electric golf cars, but differently related to energy:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23241896
Heck, maybe not even related to anything, but I thought Mr. Steele might find it interesting.

LikeLike
Bill Tozer

11 July 2013

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/11/california-regulators-look-to-curb-beach-bonfires-citing-climate-change/
Dam eco-wacos ruin everythig that is fun. What a glum lot our regulators are.

LikeLike
George Rebane

12 July 2013

The attempt to ban humans from most existing beaches would not be a surprise. Our stack and pack future is pursued on many fronts.

LikeLike
Bill Tozer

15 July 2013

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/07/15/there_is_no_scientific_consensus_on_sealevel_rise_say_scientists/
Think there is a growing consensus that there may not be a consensus

LikeLike
George Rebane

16 July 2013

BillT 945pm – Thanks for that link Mr Tozer.

LikeLike
Gerry Fedor

17 July 2013

Sorry guys but your wrong as we are producing power right now from @6:15 am until @7:30 pm so this 6 hours a day is not quite accurate.
Todd, I have a belief that with your past history (with number crunching) that you are not the guy we should trust with economics and figuring out viability of economic investments!
It’s pretty obvious that your ideas on economics have never really worked out that well…..

LikeLike
Gregory

18 July 2013

BB4 is still not online! George, any idea what’s holding it up?
http://breakingbreadtv.com/july-2013-globalwarming-eric-tomb/

LikeLike
Gregory

18 July 2013

“Sorry guys but your [sic] wrong as we are producing power right now from @6:15 am until @7:30 pm so this 6 hours a day is not quite accurate.”
How much of the day are your arrays producing 50% peak power, or better?

LikeLike
George Rebane

18 July 2013

Gregory 839am – Thanks for the heads up. I couldn’t find it either on the NCTV site. Am checking into it and will post an update when I find out.

LikeLike
Gregory

26 July 2013

First snow in Buenos Aires in 95 years
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6286484.stm
BTW, that’s just “weather”.
George, the Global Warming breaking bread episode is still not online which leads me to think you may have done a better job than I was hoping for 🙂
http://breakingbreadtv.com/july-2013-globalwarming-eric-tomb/

LikeLike