Como Ser Alpha?

[cormaya]

  Em 31/07/2016 em 14:23, Faabs disse:

Aquecimento global não existe.

A terra também é plana, astrologia é uma ciencia e o homem nunca foi para a Lua.

Expandir  

kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk esse frangoecto é uma piada, moleque leva essa filosofia de reaça tão a sério que n enxerga que todo mundo que nega o aquecimento global são magnatas ligados a grandes indústrias que faturam bilhões com desmatamento e poluição.

exemplo é o retardado do trump, que nega o aquecimento global até a morte mas tá com obra em planejamento em area florestal ali em itajaí onde ninguém meteu o dedo até agora, a parte mais verde e linda da cidade.

 

  Em 31/07/2016 em 14:10, FSgtLima disse:

Me relacionei com uma testemunha de jeová.

Expandir  

já errou aí fera.

[FrangoEctomorfo]

Não é o assunto deste tópico, mas: 

Legalização da maconha no Uruguai é obra da Open Society, de George Soros. Não acredita? Então pesquise, ora!

Aquecimento global é um dos principais problemas mundiais, diz George Soros

 

Etanol... 

 

Como diz o Olavo: "o idiota útil, por definição, é idiota demais para saber que é útil e quem o utiliza".

 

Os hackers-ativistas já nos contaram a verdade: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

 

Voltamos ao como ser alpha.

Editado Julho 31, 2016 às 15:28 por FrangoEctomorfo

[cormaya]

fonte: veja, wikipedia, bem parana.

step1 pegue um caso isolado e generalize mais de uma década de pesquisa científica a um beneficiado com a prevenção de um acontecimento natural.

step2 tente ligar isso com o comunismo de alguma forma, de teu jeito   not suceed

step3 use isso pra fortalecer teus ideais reaças malucos

step4 pra finalizar: cite olavo de carvalho

 

 

[FrangoEctomorfo]

 

  Em 31/07/2016 em 16:09, cormaya disse:

 

Expandir  

 

Estude mais. O Climagate é considerado o maior escândalo científico da modernidade. Saiu em todos os jornais. O climagate tem 146 fontes só no wikipédia:

 

  Mostrar conteúdo oculto

1.  Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. Government Response to the House of Commons Science and Technology 8th Report of Session 2009–10: The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (PDF). The Stationery Office. ISBN 978-0-10-179342-1.
2. Jump up^ Chameides, Bill. "Climategate Redux." Scientific American, 30 August 2010. Retrieved 17 August 2011.
3. Jump up^ "Closing the Climategate." Nature. 18 November 2010. Retrieved 17 August 2011.
4. Jump up^ Pooley 2010, p. 425: "Climategate broke in November, when a cache of e-mails was hacked from a server at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia in Norwich, England." See: Pooley, Eric (2010). The Climate War: True Believers, Power Brokers, and the Fight to Save the Earth. Hyperion Books. ISBN 1-4013-2326-X; Karatzogianni 2010: "Most media representations of the Climategate hack linked the events to other incidents in the past, suggesting a consistent narrative frame which blames the attacks on Russian hackers...Although the Climategate material was uploaded on various servers in Turkey and Saudi Arabia before ending up in Tomsk in Siberia..." Extensive discussion about the media coverage of hacking and climategate in Karatzogianni, Athina. (2010). "Blame it on the Russians: Tracking the Portrayal of Russians During Cyber conflict Incidents".Digital Icons: Studies in Russian, Eurasian and Central European New Media. 4: 128–150. ISSN 2043-7633
5. ^ Jump up to:^a b c d Norfolk Constabulary (18 July 2012). "Police closes UEA investigation". Retrieved 18 July 2012.
6. ^ Jump up to:^a b c Leiserowitz et al., 2010, "Climategate, Public Opinion, and the Loss of Trust". Working Paper, Subject to Revision. Yale University.
7. ^ Jump up to:^a b Allchen 2010, p. 591: "James Delingpole, in a blog for England's Telegraph, promptly dubbed it "Climategate." See: Allchen, Douglas. (2010). "Sacred Bovines: The Nature of Science From Test Tubes to YouTube." American Biology Teacher. 72 (9):590–592.doi:10.1525/abt.2010.72.9.15; Booker 2009: "A week after my colleague James Delingpole , on his Telegraph blog, coined the term "Climategate" to describe the scandal revealed by the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, Google was showing that the word now appears across the internet more than nine million times." See: Booker, Christopher (2009) "Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation". The Telegraph. 28 November; For the original article see: Delingpole, James (2009). "Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?" The Telegraph. 20 November; Nine days after his original article, Delingpole clarified how he came up with the name. Although he has been given credit for coining and popularizing the term (Booker 2009; Allchin 2010, etc.) he got the original idea from an anonymous blogger named "Bulldust" on the Watts Up With That blog. See: Delingpole, James (2009). "Climategate: how the 'greatest scientific scandal of our generation' got its name". The Telegraph. 29 November; Delingpole told Dennis Miller, ""Climategate was the story that I helped to break..." See The Dennis Miller Show. (28 June 2011). "James Delingpole Interview". Event begins at 2:45.
8. ^ Jump up to:^{a b c d e} Hickman, Leo; Randerson, James (20 November 2009). "Climate sceptics claim leaked emails are evidence of collusion among scientists". The Guardian (UK). Retrieved27 July 2010.
9. Jump up^ Somaiya, Ravi (7 July 2010). "Third Inquiry Clears 'Climategate' Scientists of Serious Wrongdoing". Newsweek. Retrieved 15 May 2011. "For skeptics, the 1,000 or so e-mails and documents hacked last year from the Climactic [sic] Research Unit of the University of East Anglia (UEA), in England, establish that global warming is a scientific conspiracy...Climategate, now a firmly established "gate," will probably continue to be cited as evidence of a global-warming conspiracy";
   Efstathiou Jr., Jim; Alex Morales (2 December 2009). "UK climate scientist steps down after email flap". Bloomberg. LiveMint. Retrieved 15 May 2011. "The emails, dating back as far as 1996, have been cited by sceptics of man’s contribution to global warming as evidence of a conspiracy to manipulate data to support research...'They’re conspiring to keep papers out of published journals,” Marc Morano, a climate sceptic who is editor of a website on the issue, said referring to the emails in a 24 November interview. “You see them as nothing more than a bunch of activists manufacturing science for a political goal'"
10. Jump up^ Eilperin, Juliet (21 November 2009). "Hackers steal electronic data from top climate research center". The Washington Post.
11. Jump up^ Webster, Ben (21 November 2009). "Sceptics publish climate e-mails 'stolen from East Anglia University'". The Times (London).
12. ^ Jump up to:^a b Mooney & Kirshenbaum p. xi: "In the ensuing scandal after the e-mails became public, top climate scientists were accused of withholding information, suppressing dissent, manipulating data, and worse, particularly by right wing media and blogs. The controversy garnered dramatic press attention, especially on outlets like Fox News; and because Climategate occurred just before the critical United Nations climate conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, it knocked the whole event off rhythm in the media sphere." See: Mooney, Chris; Kirshenbaum, Sheril (2010) Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future. Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-01917-X; Boslough 2010: "As evidence for human-caused climate change has mounted, global warming denialists have responded by blaming the messengers. Climate researchers have endured abuse by bloggers, editorial writers, Fox News pundits, and radio talk show hosts who have called them liars and vilified them as frauds. The attacks had become increasingly vile as the past decade, the hottest in human history, came to an end. Angry activists have called for firings and criminal investigations, and some prominent scientists have received physical threats." Boslough, Mark (2010). "Mann bites dog: why 'climategate' was newsworthy". Skeptical Inquirer. March–April. 34 (2): 14; Goldenberg 2010: "Journalists at Fox News were under orders to cast doubt on any on-air mention of climate change, a leaked email obtained by a media monitoring group revealed today. According to the email, obtained by Media Matters, Fox News's Washington bureau chief, Bill Sammon, imposed an order to make time for climate sceptics within 15 minutes of the airing of a story about a scientific report showing that 2000–2009 was on track to be the hottest decade on record. Media Matters said the bureau chief's response to the report exhibited a pattern of bias by Fox News in its coverage of climate change. It also noted the timing of the directive. The email went out on 8 December last year, when the leaders of nearly 200 countries met in Copenhagen to try to reach a deal on climate change...In addition to the email, it said Fox had tried to delegitimise the work of climate scientists in its coverage of the hacked emails from the University of East Anglia. The network had displayed a pattern of trying to skew coverage in favour of the fringe minority which doubts the existence of climate change, Media Matters said." See Goldenberg, Suzanne. (15 December 2010). "Fox News chief enforced climate change scepticism – leaked email". guardian.co.uk. Guardian News and Media Limited; In addition to the 24/7 news coverage, Fox News created a 17 minute documentary starring climate sceptic Patrick J. Michaels. See: Baier, Bret. (2010) Fox News Reporting: Global Warming...or a lot of Hot Air? Fox News.
13. Jump up^ Winter, Brian (25 November 2009) "Scientist: Leaked climate e-mails a distraction".USA Today. Retrieved 12 May 2011. "A controversy over leaked e-mails exchanged among global warming scientists is part of a 'smear campaign' to derail next month's United Nations climate summit in Copenhagen, one of the scientists, meteorologist Michael Mann, said Tuesday...Climate change skeptics 'don't have the science on their side any more, so they've resorted to a smear campaign to distract the public from the reality of the problem and the need to confront it head-on in Copenhagen' said Mann"; Feldman, Stacy (25 November 2009). "Hacked climate emails called a "smear campaign". Reuters. Retrieved 15 May 2011. "Three leading scientists who on Tuesday released a report documenting the accelerating pace of climate change said the scandal that erupted last week over hacked emails from climate scientists is nothing more than a "smear campaign" aimed at sabotaging December climate talks in Copenhagen"; Carrington, Damian; Suzanne Goldenberg (4 December 2009). "Gordon Brown attacks 'flat-earth' climate change sceptics". guardian.co.uk. Retrieved 15 May 2011. "On the eve of the Copenhagen summit, Saudi Arabia and Republican members of the US Congress have used the emails to claim the need for urgent action to cut carbon emissions has been undermined...The concern for some of those attempting to drive through a global deal is that the sceptics will delay critical decisions by casting doubt over the science at a time when momentum has been gathering towards a historic agreement...'The sceptics have clearly seized upon this as an incident that they can use to their own ends in trying to disrupt the Copenhagen agreements,' said Bob Watson, Defra chief scientist and former head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change"; Fimrite, Peter (5 December 2009). "Hacked climate e-mail rebutted by scientists". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 12 May 2011. "A group of the nation's top scientists defended research on global climate change Friday against what they called a politically motivated smear campaign designed to foster public doubt about irrefutable scientific facts...'They have engaged in this 11th-hour smear campaign where they have stolen personal e-mails from scientists, mined them for single words or phrases that can be taken out of context to twist their words and I think this is rather telling,' Mann said"; Carrington, Damian (28 October 2010). "IPCC vice-chair: Attacks on climate science echo tobacco industry tactics". The Guardian. Retrieved 13 May 2011. "The attacks on climate science that were made ahead of the Copenhagen climate change summit were "organised" to undermine efforts to tackle global warming and mirror the earlier tactics of the tobacco industry, according to the vice-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)...'It is a very similar process to what the tobacco industry was doing 30 or 40 years ago, when they wanted to delay legislation, and that is the result of research – not my subjective evaluation – by Prof Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway.' Oreskes, a science historian at the University of California San Diego, told the Guardian she agreed with Van Ypersele's that the attacks on climate science were organised: 'Many of us were expecting something to happen in the run-up [to Copenhagen]. When it happened, the only thing that surprised me was that, compared with the events we documented in our book, the attacks had crossed the line into illegality.'
14. Jump up^ Henig, Jess (2009). "FactCheck: Climategate Doesn't Refute Global Warming".Newsweek. 11 December.
15. ^ Jump up to:^a b The eight major investigations covered by secondary sources include: House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (UK); Independent Climate Change Review (UK); International Science Assessment Panel (UK); Pennsylvania State University first panel and second panel (US); United States Environmental Protection Agency (US); Department of Commerce (US); National Science Foundation (US)
16. ^ Jump up to:^a b Venkatraman, Archana (September–October 2010). "Data Without the Doubts".Information World Review (Bizmedia Ltd.): 18–19.
17. ^ Jump up to:^a b Biello, David (Feb., 2010). "Negating 'Climategate'". Scientific American. (302):2. 16. ISSN 0036-8733. "In fact, nothing in the stolen material undermines the scientific consensus that climate change is happening and that humans are to blame"; See also: Lubchenco, Jane (2 December 2009) House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming (House Select Committee). "The Administration's View on the State of Climate Science". House Hearing, 111 Congress. U.S. Government Printing Office. "...the e-mails really do nothing to undermine the very strong scientific consensus and the independent scientific analyses of thousands of scientists around the world that tell us that the Earth is warming and that the warming is largely a result of human activities." As quoted in the report published by Office of Inspector General.
18. ^ Jump up to:^a b Eilperin, Juliet (21 November 2009). "Hackers steal electronic data from top climate research center". Washington Post.
19. Jump up^ Lowthorpe, Shaun (1 December 2009). "Scotland Yard call in to probe climate data leak from UEA in Norwich". Norwich Evening News.
20. ^ Jump up to:^{a b c d e} Revkin, Andrew C. (20 November 2009). "Hacked E-Mail Is New Fodder for Climate Dispute". The New York Times. Retrieved 27 July 2010.
21. ^ Jump up to:^a b c Arthur, Charles (5 February 2010). "Hacking into the mind of the CRU climate change hacker". The Guardian (UK). Retrieved 19 April 2011.
22. ^ Jump up to:^a b Arthur, Charles; Evans, Rob; Leigh, David; Pearce, Evans (4 February 2010)."Climate emails: were they really hacked or just sitting in cyberspace?". The Guardian(London). Archived from the original on 9 September 2013.
23. ^ Jump up to:^a b Stewart, Will; Delgado, Martin (6 December 2009). "Were Russian security services behind the leak of 'Climategate' emails?". Daily Mail (UK).
24. Jump up^ Webster, Ben (6 December 2009). "Climate e-mails were hijacked 'to sabotage summit'". The Times (UK). Archived from the original on 16 August 2011. Retrieved26 March 2010.
25. Jump up^ Webster, Ben (21 November 2009). "Sceptics publish climate emails 'stolen from East Anglia University'". The Times (UK). Archived from the original on 6 January 2010. Retrieved 27 July 2010. An anonymous statement accompanying the emails said: “We feel that climate science is too important to be kept under wraps. We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents. Hopefully it will give some insight into the science and the people behind it.”
26. Jump up^ Greaves, Tara (11 January 2010). "Extremism fears surround Norwich email theft".Norwich Evening News.
27. Jump up^ "Police extremist unit helps climate change email probe". BBC News. 11 January 2010.
28. Jump up^ Gardner, Timothy (23 November 2009). "Hacked climate emails awkward, not game changer". Green Business. Reuters. Retrieved 24 November 2009.
29. ^ Jump up to:^a b Flam, Faye (8 December 2009). "Penn State scientist at center of a storm". The Philadelphia Inquirer. Archived from the original on 30 December 2009.
30. Jump up^ Kevin Trenberth (2010). "CGD's Climate Analysis Section (CAS)". National Center for Atmospheric Research. Archived from the original on 11 June 2010. In my case, one cherry-picked email quote has gone viral and at last check it was featured in over 107,000 items (in Google). Here is the quote: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." It is amazing to see this particular quote lambasted so often. It stems from a paper I published this year bemoaning our inability to effectively monitor the energy flows associated with short-term climate variability. It is quite clear from the paper that I was not questioning the link between anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and warming, or even suggesting that recent temperatures are unusual in the context of short-term natural variability. The paper on this is available here...
31. Jump up^ "Denial of Petitions for Reconsideration of the Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act | Regulatory Initiatives | Climate Change". United States Environmental Protection Agency. 29 September 2010. pp. 1.2.2.2 Response (1–21). Retrieved 26 October 2010. Peabody Energy’s assertion that Trenberth was implying that the 'science is too uncertain to determine whether GHG reductions will produce a measurable climate response,' is a gross mischaracterization of the meaning and significance of both the quote and Trenberth's position. Trenberth was not implying or questioning the validity of climate models used for attribution and projections. He was identifying a gap in the Earth-observing system, which if filled, would improve our understanding of short-term variations in climate.
32. ^ Jump up to:^a b c Pearce, Fred (9 February 2010). "Part two: How the 'climategate' scandal is bogus and based on climate sceptics' lies". The Guardian (UK). Retrieved 20 March 2010.
33. ^ Jump up to:^a b Tierney, John. "E-Mail Fracas Shows Peril of Trying to Spin Science." The New York Times. 1 December 2009.
34. ^ Jump up to:^a b c Randerson, James (31 March 2010). "Climate researchers 'secrecy' criticised – but MPs say science remains intact". The Guardian (London). Retrieved 26 July 2010.
35. ^ Jump up to:^a b Foley, Henry C.; Scaroni, Alan W.; Yekel, Candice A. (3 February 2010). "RA-10 Inquiry Report: Concerning the Allegations of Research Misconduct Against Dr. Michael E. Mann, Department of Meteorology, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University" (PDF). The Pennsylvania State University. Retrieved7 February 2010.
36. Jump up^ "Denial of Petitions for Reconsideration of the Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act | Regulatory Initiatives | Climate Change". United States Environmental Protection Agency. 29 September 2010. pp. 1.1.4. Retrieved 26 October 2010.
37. Jump up^ Freedman, Andrew (23 November 2009). "Science historian reacts to hacked climate e-mails". The Washington Post. The theft and use of the emails does reveal something interesting about the social context. It's a symptom of something entirely new in the history of science: Aside from crackpots who complain that a conspiracy is suppressing their personal discoveries, we've never before seen a set of people accuse an entire community of scientists of deliberate deception and other professional malfeasance. Even the tobacco companies never tried to slander legitimate cancer researchers. In blogs, talk radio and other new media, we are told that the warnings about future global warming issued by the national science academies, scientific societies, and governments of all the leading nations are not only mistaken, but based on a hoax, indeed a conspiracy that must involve thousands of respected researchers. Extraordinary and, frankly, weird.
38. Jump up^ Zabarenko, Deborah (6 May 2010). "Scientists decry "assaults" on climate research". Reuters. For the original letter, see: Gleick, P. H.; et al. (7 May 2010). "Climate Change and the Integrity of Science". Science 328 (5979): 689–690.Bibcode:2010Sci...328..689G. doi:10.1126/science.328.5979.689.
39. ^ Jump up to:^a b Hickman, Leo (23 November 2009). "Climate change champion and sceptic both call for inquiry into leaked emails". The Guardian (London). Retrieved 25 November 2009.
40. Jump up^ "Inhofe declares victory in speech on global warming". Tulsa World. Retrieved 26 July2010.^{[dead link]}
41. Jump up^ Dempsey, Matt (23 November 2009). "Listen: Inhofe Says He Will Call for Investigation on "Climategate" on Washington Times Americas Morning Show". The Inhofe EPW Press Blog. U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Archived from the original on 24 November 2009. Retrieved 29 November 2009.
42. Jump up^ Borenstein, Seth (3 December 2009). "Business & Technology : Obama science advisers grilled over hacked e-mails". Seattle Times Newspaper. Retrieved 11 December 2012.
43. Jump up^ Pielke Jr., Roger. (2010). The Climate Fix: What Scientists and Politicians Won't Tell You About Global Warming. Basic Books. p. 194. ISBN 0-465-02052-6.
44. Jump up^ Fahrenthold, David A.; Eilperin, Juliet (5 December 2010). "In emails, science of warming is hot debate". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 9 April 2010. Retrieved 3 April 2010. For a few, however, the stolen files were confirmation that the climate establishment was trying to keep them out of the debate. These include the familiar kind of climate sceptics, those who think that the climate isn't changing or that it isn't a crisis. But they also include a handful of researchers who think climate change is happening, but–for various reasons–are sceptical that mainstream science fully understands the phenomenon.
45. Jump up^ Johnson, Keith (23 November 2009). "Climate Emails Stoke Debate". Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 9 April 2010. Retrieved 3 April 2010. The emails include discussions of apparent efforts to make sure that reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations group that monitors climate science, include their own views and exclude others. In addition, emails show that climate scientists declined to make their data available to scientists whose views they disagreed with.
46. Jump up^ "Climatologists under pressure". Nature 462 (7273): 545–200. 2009.Bibcode:2009Natur.462..545.. doi:10.1038/462545a. PMID 19956212.
47. Jump up^ Moore, Matthew (24 November 2009). "Climate change scientists face calls for public inquiry over data manipulation claims". The Daily Telegraph (UK). Archived from the original on 8 January 2010. Retrieved 8 January 2010. said Lord Lawson, Margaret Thatcher's former chancellor who has reinvented himself as a critic of climate change science. "They were talking about destroying various files in order to prevent data being revealed under the Freedom of Information Act and they were trying to prevent other dissenting scientists from having their articles published in learned journals. "It may be that there's an innocent explanation for all this... but there needs to be a fundamental independent inquiry to get at the truth."
48. Jump up^ "Climategate". FactCheck.org. 10 December 2009, corrected 22 December 2009. Retrieved 4 January 2010. Check date values in: |date= (help)
49. Jump up^ "Climategate: Science Not Faked, But Not Pretty". Associated Press. 3 December 2009. Retrieved 29 December 2009.
50. ^ Jump up to:^a b c d Ravillious, Kate (8 December 2009). "Hacked email climate scientists receive death threats". The Guardian (London).
51. Jump up^ Richard Girling "The leak was bad. Then came the death threats" The Sunday Times, 7 February 2010.
52. Jump up^ McCrae, Fiona (2 December 2009). "Professor in climate change scandal helps police with enquiries while researchers call for him to be banned". The Daily Mail (London).
53. Jump up^ "I passed [the threats] on to Norfolk police who said they didn’t fulfil the criteria for death threats." Interview published at Spalding (UK) Guardian, "Top climate professor in Spalding for talk", Thursday 3 February 2011. Archived copy available at Highbeam.com. Retrieved 9 May 2011, registration required.
54. ^ Jump up to:^a b O'Neill, Margot (8 December 2009). "The ugly side of climate politics". The Drum(ABC).
55. Jump up^ Jackman, Tom (18 September 2012). "U.Va. wins key ruling in Prince William global warming-FOIA case involving Michael Mann". The Washington Post. Retrieved18 September 2012.
56. Jump up^ Pretending the climate email leak isn't a crisis won't make it go away, by George Monbiot, The Guardian, 25 November 2009
57. Jump up^ Hickman, Leo; 'agencies' (24 November 2009). "Climate scientist at centre of leaked email row dismisses conspiracy claims". The Guardian (UK). Retrieved 27 July 2010.
58. Jump up^ "CRU Update 3". University of East Anglia – Communications Office. 1 December 2009. Archived from the original on 5 December 2009. Retrieved 5 December 2009.
59. Jump up^ Telegraph staff (1 December 2009). "Professor at centre of climate change email row stands down temporarily". The Daily Telegraph (UK). Archived from the original on 4 December 2009. Retrieved 1 December 2009. Professor Phil Jones, the director of a research unit at the centre of a row over climate change data, has said he will stand down from the post while an independent review takes place.
60. Jump up^ "Chair for climate email review", BBC News, 3 December 2009. Retrieved 5 December.
61. Jump up^ "The Independent Climate Change Email inquiry". Retrieved 17 October 2010.
62. ^ Jump up to:^a b c Oxburgh, Ron; Huw Davies; Kerry Emanuel; Lisa Graumlich; David Hand; Herbert Huppert; Michael Kelly (14 April 2010). "Report of the International Panel set up by the University of East Anglia to examine the research of the Climatic Research Unit" (PDF). University of East Anglia. Retrieved 27 April 2010. Submitted to the University 12 April 2010, with Addendum to report, 19 April 2010
63. ^ Jump up to:^a b Morello, Lauren (24 November 2009). "Stolen E-Mails Sharpen a Brawl Between Climate Scientists and Skeptics". The New York Times. Retrieved 25 November 2009.
64. Jump up^ "Scientist: Leak of climate e-mails appalling". Associated Press. 22 November 2009.
65. Jump up^ Collins, Antonette (8 December 2009). "Climate scientist receives death threats". Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
66. Jump up^ Feldman, Stacy (25 November 2009). "Hacked climate emails called a smear campaign". Reuters. Retrieved 26 November 2009.
67. Jump up^ Tollefson, Jeff (9 March 2010). "Attack sparks memories of McCarthy witch-hunt".Nature News (Nature Publishing Group) 464 (149): 149. doi:10.1038/464149a.
68. Jump up^ "James Hansen: Climate Change Evidence 'Overwhelming,' Hacked E-mails 'Indicate Poor Judgement' – The Human Condition Blog". Newsweek. Archived from the originalon 27 November 2009. Retrieved 26 November 2009.
69. Jump up^ Revkin, Andrew (22 November 2009). "Your Dot: On Science and ‘Cyber-Terrorism’".New York Times.
70. Jump up^ Gray, Sadie (9 December 2009). "Statement from the UK science community". The Times (UK). Retrieved 9 December 2009.
71. Jump up^ "Hans von Storch". coast.gkss.de. Archived from the original on 5 December 2009. Retrieved 28 November 2009.
72. Jump up^ Johnson, Keith (24 November 2009). "Lawmakers Probe Climate Emails". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 26 July 2010.
73. ^ Jump up to:^a b "CRU update 2". University of East Anglia (UEA). 24 November 2009. Retrieved23 December 2011.
74. Jump up^ "Statement by Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on stolen emails from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, United Kingdom" (PDF). IPCC. 4 December 2009. Retrieved 8 December 2009.
75. Jump up^ "IPCC Chairman statement on news reports regarding hacking of the East Anglia University email communications" (PDF). IPCC. 4 December 2009. Retrieved8 December 2009.
76. Jump up^ "Impact of CRU Hacking on the AMS Statement on Climate Change". American Meteorological Society. 25 November 2009. Archived from the original on 5 December 2009.
77. Jump up^ "AGU News: AGU Statement Regarding the Recent Release of E-mails". American Geophysical Union. 8 December 2009. Archived from the original on 18 Feb 2010. Retrieved 22 May 2010.
78. Jump up^ "AAAS Reaffirms Statements on Climate Change and Integrity". American Association for the Advancement of Science. 4 December 2009. Retrieved 8 December 2009.
79. ^ Jump up to:^a b Webster, Ben (5 December 2009). "Met Office to re-examine 160 years of climate data". The Times (UK). Retrieved 27 July 2010.
80. ^ Jump up to:^a b David Batty and agencies (5 December 2009). "Met Office to publish climate change data amid fraud claims". The Guardian (London). Retrieved 26 July 2010.
81. Jump up^ "Release of global-average temperature data, Met Office press release". metoffice.gov.uk. 5 December 2009. Archived from the original on 9 December 2009. Retrieved 26 July 2010.
82. Jump up^ "UK Met Office to publish climate record". CNN. 6 December 2009. Retrieved 26 July2010.
83. Jump up^ "UN body wants probe of climate email row". BBC. 4 December 2009. Archived fromthe original on 6 January 2010. Retrieved 6 January 2010. Dr Pachauri told BBC Radio 4's The Report programme that the claims were serious and he wants them investigated. "We will certainly go into the whole lot and then we will take a position on it," he said. "We certainly don't want to brush anything under the carpet. This is a serious issue and we will look into it in detail. [...] Saudi Arabia's lead climate negotiator has said the email row will have a "huge impact" on next week's UN climate summit in Copenhagen. [...] Mohammad Al-Sabban told BBC News that he expects it to derail the single biggest objective of the summit – to agree limitations on greenhouse gas emissions. [...] "It appears from the details of the scandal that there is no relationship whatsoever between human activities and climate change," he told BBC News."
84. Jump up^ Kaplun, Alex (5 March 2010). "E-Mails Show Scientists Planning Push-Back Against 'McCarthyite' Attacks on Climate Science". The New York Times. Retrieved 11 May 2010.
85. Jump up^ Reiner Grundmann 'Climategate” and The Scientific Ethos' April 23, 2012, doi: 10.1177/0162243911432318 Science Technology Human Values January 2013 vol. 38 no. 1 67-93
86. Jump up^ "Science and Technology Committee Announcement: The Disclosure of Climate Data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia". 22 January 2010. Archived from the original on 25 January 2010. Retrieved 22 January 2010.. See House of Commons' Science and Technology Select Committee announcement and Report on The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, released 31 March 2010.
87. Jump up^ "Science and Technology – Memoranda". House of Commons. Retrieved 27 February2010.
88. Jump up^ Official Shorthand Writers to the Houses of Parliament (31 March 2010). "House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee, Session 2009–10: Uncorrected oral evidence, 1 March 2010, "The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia," HC 387-i. Uploaded on 3 March 2010" (PDF). UK Parliament website. Retrieved 6 March 2010.
89. ^ Jump up to:^a b Satter, Raphael G. (30 March 2010). "'Climategate' inquiry largely clears scientists".Seattle Times (London). Associated Press. Retrieved 17 June 2010.
90. Jump up^ "The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia" (PDF). House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. Parliament of the United Kingdom. 31 March 2010. pp. 52–54. The committee's report was not unanimous; Labour MP Graham Stringer voted against several of its recommendations including an amendment by Evan Harris declaring that Dr Jones' scientific reputation remained intact.
91. Jump up^ Webster, Ben (31 March 2010). "Climate-row professor Phil Jones should return to work, say MPs". The Times (UK). Retrieved 26 July 2010.
92. ^ Jump up to:^a b Adams, David (14 April 2010). "Scientists cleared of malpractice in UEA's hacked emails inquiry". The Guardian (London). Retrieved 14 April 2010.
93. Jump up^ Louise Gray (14 April 2010). "'Climategate' scientists criticised for not using best statistical tools". London: The Telegraph. Retrieved 27 August 2010.
94. Jump up^ "'No malpractice' by climate unit". BBC News. 14 April 2010. Retrieved 14 April 2010.
95. Jump up^ Webster, Ben (14 April 2010). "Climate scientists at East Anglia University cleared by inquiry". The Times (UK). Retrieved 27 July 2010.
96. Jump up^ "Response by the University of East Anglia to the Report by Lord Oxburgh's Science Assessment Panel". University of East Anglia. 14 April 2010. Retrieved 14 April 2010.
97. Jump up^ "Third 'Climategate' inquiry to report, Today programme, BBC Radio 4, 7 July 2010". BBC News. 7 July 2010. Retrieved 27 July 2010.
98. Jump up^ Randerson, James (8 September 2010). "Oxburgh: UEA vice-chancellor was wrong to tell MPs he would investigate climate research". The Guardian (London).
99. Jump up^ Broder, John M. (1 December 2009). "Climatologist Leaves Post in Inquiry Over email Leaks". New York Times. Retrieved 27 July 2010.
100. Jump up^ "University Reviewing Recent Reports on Climate Information". College of Earth and Mineral Sciences, Pennsylvania State University. Archived from the original (PDF) on 6 December 2009. Retrieved 6 December 2009.
101. ^ Jump up to:^a b Genaro C. Armas, Associated Press (3 December 2009). "Penn St. prof. welcomes climate change scrutiny". Google. Archived from the original on 6 December 2009. Retrieved 6 December 2009.
102. Jump up^ Kintisch, Eli (3 February 2010). "Climate Scientist Mann Partially Absolved by Penn State - ScienceInsider". Science (journal). Retrieved 3 January 2012.
103. Jump up^ "Final Investigation Report Involving Dr. Michael E. Mann" (PDF). The Pennsylvania State University. 4 June 2010. Archived from the original (PDF) on 13 July 2010.
104. Jump up^ Kintisch, Eli (1 July 2010). "Michael Mann Exonerated as Penn State Inquiry Finds 'No Substance' To Allegations - ScienceInsider". Science (journal). Retrieved 3 January 2012.
105. Jump up^ Warner, Frank (3 January 2010). "Penn State climate professor: 'I'm a skeptic'". The Morning Call. Retrieved 28 March 2010.
106. Jump up^ The Independent Climate Change Email Review, an independent review funded by the UEA, chaired by Sir Muir Russell
107. ^ Jump up to:^a b Gillis, Justin (7 July 2010). "British Panel Clears Climate Scientists". The New York Times. Retrieved 27 July 2010.
108. ^ Jump up to:^a b Adam, David (7 July 2010). "'Climategate' review clears scientists of dishonesty over data". The Guardian (London). Retrieved 7 July 2010.
109. Jump up^ Adam, David (7 July 2010). "'Climategate' review clears scientists of dishonesty over data". The Guardian (UK). Retrieved 11 July 2010.
110. Jump up^ Climategate: No whitewash, but CRU scientists are far from squeaky clean, Fred Pearce, The Guardian 7 July 2010
111. Jump up^ "The Independent Climate Change Email Review" (PDF). 7 July 2010. Retrieved 7 July2010.
112. Jump up^ Geman, Ben (29 July 2010). "EPA rejects 'Climate-gate' bid to scuttle carbon rules - The Hill's E2-Wire". The Hill (newspaper). Retrieved 16 September 2011.
113. Jump up^ "Scientists' 'Climategate' e-mails 'just discussions'". BBC News. 6 August 2010. Retrieved 16 September 2011.
114. Jump up^ "07/29/2010: EPA Rejects Claims of Flawed Climate Science". EPA Newsroom. 29 July 2010. Retrieved 16 September 2011.
115. Jump up^ "Denial of Petitions for Reconsideration of the Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act / Regulatory Initiatives / Climate Change / U.S. EPA". Environmental Protection Agency. updated on 14 April 2011. Retrieved 16 September 2011. Check date values in: |date= (help)
116. Jump up^ "Myths vs. Facts: Denial of Petitions for Reconsideration of the Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act / Regulatory Initiatives / Climate Change / U.S. EPA". Environmental Protection Agency. updated on 14 April 2011. Retrieved 16 September 2011. Check date values in:|date= (help)
117. ^ Jump up to:^a b "U.S. scientists cleared in 'climategate' - Technology & Science". CBC News. 24 February 2011. Retrieved 3 January 2012.
118. Jump up^ Zinser, Todd J. (18 February 2011). "Examination of issues related to internet posting of emails from Climatic Research Unit" (PDF). Office of the Inspector General of theUnited States Department of Commerce. Archived from the original (pdf) on 30 March 2011. Retrieved 3 January 2012.
119. Jump up^ "Inspector General’s Review of Stolen Emails Confirms No Evidence of Wrong-Doing by NOAA Climate Scientists". National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 24 February 2011. Retrieved 3 January 2012.
120. Jump up^ National Science Foundation Office of Inspector General, Case Number: A09120086
121. Jump up^ Efstathiou Jr., Jim (22 August 2011). "Climate-Change Scientist Cleared in Closing of U.S. Data-Altering Inquiry". Bloomberg. Retrieved 3 January 2012.
122. Jump up^ "Climate scientist cleared of research misconduct". physicsworld.com, A website from the Institute of Physics. 30 August 2011. Retrieved 3 January 2012.
123. Jump up^ Press Association (25 February 2010). "University of East Anglia rejects lost climate data claims". The Guardian (UK). Retrieved 26 February 2010.
124. ^ Jump up to:^a b "Freedom of Information Act 2000 (Section 50) / Environmental Information Regulations 2004 Decision Notice, Reference: FER0238017" (PDF). Information Commissioner's Office. 7 July 2010. Retrieved 27 July 2010.
125. Jump up^ "The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia". House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. Parliament of the United Kingdom. 31 March 2010. pp. 28–31. We regret that the ICO made a statement to the press that went beyond that which it could substantiate and that it took over a month for the ICO properly to put the record straight. We recommend that the ICO develop procedures to ensure that its public comments are checked and that mechanisms exist to swiftly correct any mis-statements or misinterpretations of such statements.
126. Jump up^ Heffernan, O. (2009). "Climate data spat intensifies". Nature 460 (7257): 787–787.doi:10.1038/460787a.
     Heffernan, Olive (12 August 2009). "Climate Feedback: McIntyre versus Jones: climate data row escalates". Nature.com. Retrieved 2 August 2011.
     Pearce 2010, pp. 143–156
127. Jump up^ "CRU Data Availability". Climatic Research Unit. Archived from the original on 2009-08-16. Retrieved 2012-01-24. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data.
128. ^ Jump up to:^a b Black, Richard (27 July 2011). "Climate unit releases virtually all remaining data". BBC News. Retrieved 2 August 2011.
129. ^ Jump up to:^a b "Freedom of Information Act 2000 (Section 50) Environmental Information Regulations 2004 Decision Notice" (PDF). FER0282488. ICO. 23 June 2011. Retrieved15 August 2011. FOI request made 24 July 2009, refused by UEA 14 August 2009.
     "Freedom of Information Act 2000 (Section 50) Environmental Information Regulations 2004 Decision Notice" (PDF). FER0280033. ICO. 23 June 2011. Retrieved 15 August2011. FOI request made 14 August 2009, refused by UEA 11 September 2009.
130. Jump up^ "Climate data released – University of East Anglia (UEA)". Retrieved 4 August 2011.
131. Jump up^ "ICO issues FoI guidance for universities : Guardian Government Computing : Guardian Professional". The Guardian. 26 September 2011. Retrieved 26 June 2014.
132. Jump up^ "A Climate Change Corrective". The New York Times. 7 November 2010. Retrieved11 July 2010.
133. Jump up^ "Newspapers retract Climategate claims but damage still done". Newsweek. The Gaggle blog. 25 June 2010.
134. Jump up^ Carrington, Damian (28 October 2010). "IPCC vice-chair: Attacks on climate science echo tobacco industry tactics". guardian.co.uk. Retrieved 27 July 2011.
135. Jump up^ Conway, Erik. Oreskes, Naomi (1 June 2010). "Climate change denial: a history". New Statesman'. Print version published 31 May 2010. p. 34.
136. Jump up^ Häne, Justin; Etienne Strebel (19 July 2010). "Climate scientists still trying to restore trust". swissinfo.ch
137. Jump up^ Brainard, Curtis (7 July 2010). "Wanted: Climate Front-Pager: Reviews vindicating scientists get strong blog coverage, but more high-profile stories are needed". Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved 27 July 2010.
138. Jump up^ Brainard, Curtis (13 July 2010). "I'll Have the Climate Coverage, Please: Kurtz wants some; so does the Times, though it doesn't deliver". Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved 27 July 2010.
139. Jump up^ Some scientists misread poll data on global warming controversy, 9 March 2010, Dan Vergano, USA Today
140. Jump up^ Jonsson, Patrik (7 July 2010). "* Climate scientists exonerated in 'climategate' but public trust damaged". Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 12 July 2010.
141. Jump up^ Krugman, Paul (25 July 2010). "Who Cooked the Planet?". The New York Times. Retrieved 27 July 2010.
142. Jump up^ Climategate: Anatomy of A Public Relations Disaster by Fred Pearce, Environment 360at Yale University, 10 December 2009.
143. Jump up^ Climategate (Part II) by Steven F. Hayward, The Weekly Standard, 11 December 2011.
144. ^ Jump up to:^a b "A poor sequel". Nature 480 (7375): 6. December 2011.Bibcode:2011Natur.480....6.. doi:10.1038/480006a. PMID 22129685.
145. ^ Jump up to:^a b Jowit, Juliette (23 November 2011). "Climate scientists defend work in wake of new leak of hacked emails". London: guardian.co.uk. Retrieved 2 December 2011.
146. Jump up^ Lean, Geoffrey (25 November 2011). "Climategate II: the scientists fight back". The Daily Telegraph (London). Retrieved 2 December 2011.

 

A parte "idiota" do idiota útil é que mesmo quando outra pessoa mostra que ele foi enganado, ele nega. É como um corno que mesmo com provas físicas da traição nega que foi traído. 

 

Ser idiota é pior que ser burro. Pq o burro apenas não conhece enquanto o idiota não quer conhecer. O corno que nega as provas físicas não é burro, é idiota.

[FSgtLima]

  Em 31/07/2016 em 14:39, cormaya disse:

kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk esse frangoecto é uma piada, moleque leva essa filosofia de reaça tão a sério que n enxerga que todo mundo que nega o aquecimento global são magnatas ligados a grandes indústrias que faturam bilhões com desmatamento e poluição.

exemplo é o retardado do trump, que nega o aquecimento global até a morte mas tá com obra em planejamento em area florestal ali em itajaí onde ninguém meteu o dedo até agora, a parte mais verde e linda da cidade.

 

já errou aí fera.

Expandir  

 kkkkkkkkkkkkkkk

[Norton]

  Em 31/07/2016 em 14:39, cormaya disse:

kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk esse frangoecto é uma piada, moleque leva essa filosofia de reaça tão a sério que n enxerga que todo mundo que nega o aquecimento global são magnatas ligados a grandes indústrias que faturam bilhões com desmatamento e poluição.

exemplo é o retardado do trump, que nega o aquecimento global até a morte mas tá com obra em planejamento em area florestal ali em itajaí onde ninguém meteu o dedo até agora, a parte mais verde e linda da cidade.

 

já errou aí fera.

Expandir  

 

No caso do xisto foi a mesma coisa, ainda tentaram vender como energia limpa. Agora as cidades onde há exploração estão lutando(e perdendo por sinal) para barrar a indústria. Polui o solo, contamina a água com benzeno inviabilizando o abastecimento de regiões inteiras e ainda suprime leis como de propriedade privada. Oh uma beleza!

 

"O idiota útil é sempre idiota demais para saber a quem é útil."

 

 

Editado Julho 31, 2016 às 17:20 por Norton

[Visitante]

  Em 31/07/2016 em 14:10, FSgtLima disse:

Acabei de terminar meu relacionamento.

Me relacionei com uma testemunha de jeová. De início, parecia aquela mina de boa, namorável. Até que descubro algumas mentiras( já fez oral em um cara..não tenho nada contra, mas por que não contou antes?). Bom, e isso me lembrou que pode resultar numa cascata, onde pode ter outras mentiras além dessas.

Bom, é um relato onde estou 'vivendo' o luto do término. Vou focar mais em mim agora, focar no concurso que vou prestar em outubro e lembrar que a nossa geração feminina tá foda, aceitando as teorias do planeta sobre as mulheres atuais onde estão se acabando. 

Pra quem tem sua amada, aproveite-a, não a deixe escapar. Muito provavelmente vocês não acharam outra igual.

Vamos viver!

Expandir  

 

Quanto tempo de namoro?

Você é o Caique lá do grupo do whatsapp né?

[Faabs]

Sim, somos idiotas úteis...

 

Extraordinária explicação sobre o aquecimento global:

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

2 Textos do Fábio "Lugar" sobre o assunto (EXCELENTES):
http://migre.me/gjF1U
http://migre.me/gjF0R

Skeptical Science (refutações mastigadas aos argumentos dos negadores):
http://www.skepticalscience.com/

Subida dos oceanos: http://migre.me/rtjej
Derretimento (e congelamento) desigual da Antártica:
http://migre.me/rtjfc
http://migre.me/rtjfz
http://migre.me/rtjgg
Organização que monitora diariamente o gelo Ártico: http://nsidc.org/
Sobre a anomalia no Ártico em 2013: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Origem do nome Groenlândia:
http://migre.me/gkBy8
http://migre.me/gkByT
http://migre.me/gkBz8
Explicações sobre o efeito estufa (não há um artigo científico que demonstre a existência do efeito estufa, porque isso é tão básico que é como esperar um artigo que demonstre a gravidade):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080131/full/news.2008.545.html

Experimento que demonstra que o CO2 é um gás estufa:

Composição da atmosfera: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth

História da composição da atmosfera terrestre: http://www.eolss.net/Sample-Chapters/C01/E4-03-08-02.pdf

Ozônio e a recente redução do buraco, como previsto: http://www.livescience.com/27049-ozone-hole-shrinks-record-low.html

Serviço que monitora o buraco da ozonosfera: http://www.gmes-stratosphere.eu/
Artigo que descobriu que os CFCs prejudicavam a formação do ozônio: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v249/n5460/abs/249810a0.html

Junho foi (de novo) o mais quente da história:

http://www.observatoriodoclima.eco.br/junho-foi-de-novo-o-mais-quente-da-historia/

Amazônia influencia o clima:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10533-011-9580-4

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2011JCLI4189.1

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/14/4397/2014/acp-14-4397-2014-discussion.html

Bactérias em nuvens:

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/12/5677/2012/acp-12-5677-2012.html

Página do INPE: http://www.inpe.br/
Site da Organização Meteorológica Mundial: http://www.wmo.int/pages/index_en.html
Site do IPCC: http://www.ipcc.ch/
Isótopo de carbono dos combustíveis fósseis é detectável na atmosfera e nos oceanos:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JD089iD07p11731/abstract

http://www.tellusb.net/index.php/tellusb/article/view/16269

Sobre o Sol:

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117705004631

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch1s1-4-3.html

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00165465

http://www.apolo11.com/atividade_solar.php

Algumas das revisões independentes feitas sobre os emails do "climategate" concluindo que não houve manipulação de dados:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/228975/7934.pdf

http://www.uea.ac.uk/documents/3154295/7847337/SAP.pdf/a6f591fc-fc6e-4a70-9648-8b943d84782b

http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL REPORT.pdf

Relações entre o Criacionismo e o movimento de negação do AG:

https://ncse.com/news/2012/06/ncses-newton-creationism-climate-change-denial-007457

http://io9.gizmodo.com/creationists-help-climate-change-deniers-attack-scienc-1603554406

http://www.earthmagazine.org/article/voices-defending-science-link-between-creationism-and-climate-change

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/05/bill-that-encouraged-crea_n_2624341.html

Guia prático: como negar teorias científicas e criar conspirações:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/A_comparative_guide_to_science_denial

Lista: maiores companhias do mundo:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_companies_by_revenue

 

Vídeos:

  Mostrar conteúdo oculto

 

 

Editado Julho 31, 2016 às 17:18 por Faabs

[Born4Run]

Estamos longe ainda do que era.

  Mostrar conteúdo oculto

Clima continua agradável.

Editado Julho 31, 2016 às 17:23 por Born4Run

[Torf]

  Em 31/07/2016 em 05:25, FrangoEctomorfo disse:

 

Mas não existe aquecimento global. kkk

Expandir  

Diz isso para o pessoal que vive em ilhas do pacífico que estäo desaparecendo. Mas diga logo antes que desaparecam de vez!!!