Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Bluesky Facebook LinkedIn Mastodon MeWe

Twitter YouTube RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Recent Comments

Prev  1063  1064  1065  1066  1067  1068  1069  1070  1071  1072  1073  1074  1075  1076  1077  1078  Next

Comments 53501 to 53550:

  1. Record Arctic Sea-ice minimum 2012 declared - it's the Silly Season!
    Just to expand on what happened with Ian's first hand clarification on WUWT..... Anthony posted in reponse "you kids don't know what you are talking about". Says it all really I'm afraid. Anthony also gave me a new perspective and meaning of the phrase "All science is either physics or stamp collecting"
  2. 2012 SkS Weekly News Round-Up #2
    He's a link to the decision: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2012/09/21/09-17490.pdf
  3. 2012 SkS Weekly News Round-Up #2
    rpauli @8 Thanks for the heads up ... Wiki hasn't even updated yet. Not sure if I agree with your interpretation ... the attempt by the village to address global warming, and assign responsibility to energy companies, on the basis of calling it a common law public nuisance, was quite a stretch. I am not sure they would have succeeded even in front of the whole Ninth Circus en banc.
  4. 2012 SkS Weekly News Round-Up #2
    Sorry about the continuation of the all-States, all the time news, but I think this does rate a mention, and I have not noticed it being posted anywhere on SkS before. My apologies in advance if it has been. From July: Monthly coal- and natural gas-fired generation equal for first time in April 2012 http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=6990 From August: King Natural Gas Will cheap natural gas give us an opportunity to reduce ­emissions while inventing new technologies? Or will we simply become addicted to another fossil fuel? http://m.technologyreview.com/energy/41067/ ""Cheap natural gas has taken a big bite out of coal very quickly," says David Victor, an energy expert at University of California, San Diego. "And there's going to be a bloodbath in wind power as well." For investors and technologists hoping to make renewable energy, such as wind and solar power, cost-competitive with fossil fuels, reaching so-called grid parity has suddenly gotten much tougher. Arguably, it's impossible to reach with existing technologies. The United States is saving about 400 ­million metric tons of ­carbon ­emissions annually in the recent switch to natural gas from coal. That's roughly twice as much progress 
as the European Union has made in complying with the Kyoto Protocol through 
policy efforts." We have, in fact, reduced our per capita carbon emissions to levels last seen in 1961. Dana has stated that everything he has read points to current low prices of natural gas to be unsustainable. It is possible that he might want to read more widely. For one thing, a gas pipeline to the Bkken Shale formation will be completed next year. To date, they have been flaring the gas produced at the wellhead, for want of anything better to do with it. For another, according to another EIA report from last year http://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/usshalegas/ by far the largest shale play in the lower 48 is the Monterey Shale, a pickle shaped formation that runs several hundred miles along the western San Joaquin Valley. It is estimated to contain four and a half Bakkens worth of unconventional oil and gas, and they have hardly begun working it. As little as five years ago, I would have bet my life that energy prices would rise, or at the very least would stay stable. Recent developments have me stunned (much like the Norwegian Blue, garden pests stun easily). In any event, the news is very mixed ... while current progress is nice to have, it makes further progress look much more difficult. Best wishes, Mole
  5. Record Arctic Sea-ice minimum 2012 declared - it's the Silly Season!
    @34... That's a howler!!!! Not only moving the goal posts- but totally imaginary goal posts.
  6. Record Arctic Sea-ice minimum 2012 declared - it's the Silly Season!
    Here's another, and it's not from Denial Depot - it's from ClimateRealists, and it's in earnest!: Arctic IcePack to be back to normal in December
  7. 2012 SkS Weekly News Round-Up #2
    We might want a category for Legal aspects... i.e. the 9th Court just shot down the lawsuit Kivalina v Exxon - which means the courts decided that the EPA and Congress must decide what to do about CO2.
  8. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #38
    ".. big week for SkS .." You guys pretty much rock - and it's noted. ;-) "What say you!" I like it. Nice to have the media (gibberish) beside the real stuff.
  9. 2012 SkS Weekly News Round-Up #2
    I found that the presentation - colourization and categorization - made it easy to skim the list and focus on areas that particularly interest me. Thanks!
  10. Record Arctic Sea-ice minimum 2012 declared - it's the Silly Season!
    Would certainly be good for readers to post any other daft Arctic sea-ice arguments they have encountered in this thread. I've today come across someone posting 'that' graph of sea ice area anomaly where the scale of the Y-axis is shrunk so as to show there's nothing happening! Have lost count of the number of times Tamino has debunked that one!
  11. Record Arctic Sea-ice minimum 2012 declared - it's the Silly Season!
    Chris- When I wrote the note @ 18, I had no idea that someone was actually using the meme...I was simply trying to add a perception of the memes that were possible to John Manson's list. I read the last two sentences as well, but all of us are all too familiar with selective quotations and decontextualization of quotations. Thanks for sharing that the meme is actually in use. Perhaps you and John can add some text to the article, and it can be included in a 'myth buster' index.
  12. How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
    I see, Sph. Apparently, I didn't know Jack's . . .
  13. 2012 SkS Weekly News Round-Up #2
    @Paul D #3 About one-half of the articles listed in this week's round-up are US-focused becasue the PBS-Watts interview garnered one heck of a lot of attention. This was an anamoly. As an SkS author residing in the UK, you certainly have ample opportunity during the course of a week to provide links to articles that you would like to see included in the Digest.
  14. 2012 SkS Weekly News Round-Up #2
    @Paul D #3: In the ideal world, science should drive environmental policy. In the real world, the relationship is messy as illustrated in the articles under the Public Polciy heading. I believe that the majority of SkS readers are interested in keeping their finger on the policy deveopment pulse as well as the "pure" science.
  15. Record Arctic Sea-ice minimum 2012 declared - it's the Silly Season!
    Dave123 @18, If Matt Ridley was realy influenced by what he read in Hansen 2003 (possible), then, he managed to read just the first two sentences of the abstract! The last sentence of Hansen 2003 abstract sais:
    However, soot contributions to climate change do not alter the conclusion that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been the main cause of recent global warming and will be the predominant climate forcing in the future
    which Matt probably failed to understand, or rejected it as the unexplainable contradiction of his pre-conception of "all-mighty Chinese soot"! In WSJ, they have a strong incentive to blame everything on China.
  16. 2012 SkS Weekly News Round-Up #2
    Peter Wadhams is saying he predicted arctic ice collapse in 2016 "few years ago". I know Wieslaw Maslowski predicted the same in 2006 (before 2007 record melt). I'd like to know the source of Wadhams' prediction. It'd be interesting to compare these predictions. Those two guys have their results matched very closely, although to my knowledge they don't collaborate...
    Moderator Response:

    [DB] Maslowski's 2006 prediction (from his NAME model, discussed here) was based on data through 2005, and is still tracking today.

    Wadham's original comment was based on his unique access to classified submarine data and to Maslowski's model results.

    Note that it is only for the most severe (for the state of the remaining ice) model runs results does even Maslowski's model track what is actually occurring in the Arctic.

  17. 2012 SkS Weekly News Round-Up #2
    Out of the 27 articles 13 are about American issues. And all the public policy articles are on US issues. I agree that the list represents what JH thinks is important. One should remember that science is driving environmental policy, without securing the truth in science, you have no environmental policies, you just have ideology, whether that is on the left or right.
  18. SkS: testimony to the potential of social media and the passion of volunteers
    JSAM @9 "I'm very annoyed with SkS. You've been running a conspiracy and yet I have not been invited to partake. Harrumph. (Insert sarccy smiley about here.) " Your annoyed JSAM? Some of us have been members of the SKS Author Forum for a couple of years. If SKS has all this secret funding, how come we ain't seen any of it? And if the funders have an agenda they are 'buying', how come we all get to right what we think? Including not being able to spell. 'write'.
  19. Record Arctic Sea-ice minimum 2012 declared - it's the Silly Season!
    #28 - the same could be said for NSIDC & JAXA Arctic sea-ice plots: however, within a few more years the aforementioned organisations, plus Dana, creator of The Escalator, are 'all gonna need a bigger graph'!
  20. Record Arctic Sea-ice minimum 2012 declared - it's the Silly Season!
    "Now then. If I were to melt a whole ice-cube in 2011 and then melt a half ice-cube in 2012 then I'd have melted less ice in 2012 but still have ended up with nothing. Fail." This reminds me about the joke about the man who thinks he is winning because his hair has stopped falling out, failing to realize that he has become completely bald.
  21. How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
    Okay Jack, I do support nuclear energy. I think it will have to part of the solution for some countries. I would also say that I earn my living substantially in petroleum, coal, and energy and I get no grants for climate science. From a substantial study of the science (I have physics as well as geology background), I concluded that the sooner the world can find a way to kill my area (especially coal), the better. I would conclude from your comments that you are substantially ill-informed on the science but fortunately, you have reached a good site to remedy that. Please dont confuse scientists with greenpeace activists.
  22. Record Arctic Sea-ice minimum 2012 declared - it's the Silly Season!
    A small criticism of the 'Artic Sea Ice Extent' and 'How "Skeptics" View Artic Sea Ice Decline" graphs. Both graphs could have there Y axis start at zero, the ice extent starts at 2 million km2 and the skeptic view at 3 million km2. I know graph makers are probably trained to avoid the "wavy line a the top" effect but it smacks of graphing tricks to emphasize your point. We shouldn't need to resort to graphing 'tricks'.
  23. How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
    DSL, The key word is "rhetoric." There is nothing else there. Nada. Zilch. Search for "Jack Fate" on the Internet and look for his opinions on creationism, Obama, etc. There is no rational discussion to be had here. Only "rhetoric."
  24. How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
    Jack, you used the phrase "climate science complex," an allusion to "military-industrial complex." That use strongly suggests that you think there is some organized extra-scientific effort that controls climate science. In other words, you don't think the actual science warrants action, so there must be a conspiracy to prop up a weak science in order to achieve political goals (one world government? Marxism-Leninism? HAARP?) that go well beyond the science. If that's true--and it may not be, but the evidence so far leads me there--then you have two problems. One, you've yet to show that the science is weak, and I've asked you. Two, you've yet to give evidence that SkS supports the "climate science complex." If you'd look around a little, you'd notice that the site does not advocate for any one solution. Solar and individual "at-home" responses come closest to having universal appeal among the dozens of regular posters. That's where my analysis of your comments is so far. I'll be quite happy to have more data to work with, as long as it doesn't confirm the suspicions I outline above. Further, if you are serious about engaging in an exchange of ideas (in other words, if you think your ideas are worth a _____), then you'd be much more effective by removing the accusatory tone and foregone conclusion from your rhetoric. Your comments thusfar contain very little information useful to an on-topic discussion. They strongly suggest that you're here to teach everyone a lesson. Maybe I'm wrong, but the problem is at least half yours: you chose the words and their order.
  25. 2012 SkS Weekly News Round-Up #2
    @Tristan #1: The articles listed in the weekly round-up are simply those I find to be of particular importance and relevance to our readers. The SkS author team does not vet this list before it is posted. Thus the articles are not "SkS endorsed."
  26. Record Arctic Sea-ice minimum 2012 declared - it's the Silly Season!
    "And if, as these denialists on Wattsupia are saying "It's the storm what done it, guv!" ..." Remember that Goddard claimed that the storm (as it was happening) signaled an extraordinarily end to the melt season. That wasn't ... quite ... correct, as it turns out.
  27. CO2 lags temperature
    barry - If you want some fun, take that graph, remove the isolate, normalize to get on the same scale (fractional temperature changes and ~380ppm have different scales), and you get this graph of the relative trends (I took out the CO2 yearly averaging as well, to clarify what we are looking at). That's the real data, the actual information hidden by the rather (IMO) deceptive graph you were shown. There are in fact a few people at WUWT who seem to specialize in those misleading graphs, such as Smokey, as discussed at Tamino's blog.
    Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed 2nd link per request.
  28. 2012 SkS Weekly News Round-Up #2
    Does this edition contain too many articles? Too few? About right? The more the merrier in my opinion. I think SkS should aim to be a one-stop shop and linking to "SkS endorsed articles" is an efficient way to do so.
  29. CO2 lags temperature
    Thanks both.
  30. CO2 lags temperature
    barry - I've seen that graph too, mostly at WUWT. As Bob Loblaw noted, it's due to short term ENSO variations. That particular graph has had all long term trend removed (the 'Isolate' command), and has a total range of -0.15 to +0.25 ppm - whereas annual growth of CO2 concentrations is ~2.07 ppm currently, or roughly an order of magnitude greater than these small variations. In other words, it's a graph of noise. Whoever created it was (IMO) on a search for something to confirm their preconceptions, or to mislead others. It's right up there with plotting recent temperature changes on a scale of Kelvin degrees starting at zero - visually convincing of 'skeptic' points, but once you get a good look at the dimensions, well, it's nothing to speak of...
  31. CO2 lags temperature
    barry: short-term variations in CO2 and T are affected by factors other than long-term trends. The short answer is El Nino, and the longer answer is easily found over at RealClimate: El Nino's Effect on CO2 Causes Confusion
  32. CO2 lags temperature
    Wonder if anyone has seen this kind of graph purporting to show CO2 lagging temps on interannual timescales in the modern age. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/isolate:60/mean:12/scale:0.25/plot/hadcrut3vgl/isolate:60/mean:12/from:1958 I see that the 5 year trends have been removed, but don't know how to interpret this. CO2 lags temps in the modern day?
  33. How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
    JackFate. I hope that you've completed the rehash of Lewandowsky's survey that Watts is hosting. Please inform us that you have. You've very conspicuously proved Lewandowsky's original point, and I am curious to see how well the 'repeat' will demonstrate this... or whether folk such as yourself reply otherwise, in order to disguise what's really fulminating just beneath the surface.
  34. How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
    (-snip-)
    Moderator Response: [DB] Moderation complaints snipped.
  35. How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
    Jack, this is a climate science website. You seem to equate environmental groups (i.e. Greenpeace) with climate scientists. It's not our place to criticize Greepeace, or criticize the media for failing to criticize Greenpeace, because as far as I'm aware that group has not made any major incorrect arguments regarding climate science. You also claim
    "This piece laments that you can't get through with your message"
    That is not at all what this post says. The post is talking about balance - the fact that the 3% minority of climate contrarians get a disproportionate amount of media coverage.
  36. Record Arctic Sea-ice minimum 2012 declared - it's the Silly Season!
    vrooomie @24 Too true. But prior to shuffling off this mortal coil, joining the choir invisible, and becoming an ex-canary, he was better at detecting the danger of greenhouse gas accumulations (in this case, methane) than Mr. Watts apparently is. I'd pine too.
  37. How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
    (continuing after a power surge - thank god) And in the author's post - this is the key paragraph: "The climate disinformation campaign has been very effective on this issue. Despite the overwhelming consensus amongst climate experts that humans are causing global warming, only 53% of Americans believe humans are the primary cause, and only 58% believe that most scientists agree that global warming is even occurring." Scientists are generally poor communicators, and communicators (journalists) are generally poor scientists. My original post makes no overt claim that I deny global warming exists, or that it is not man-made. You infer that is what I believe because I am challenging how you handle the non-scientific issues that you must deal with - but fail to grasp. You mention it in your own post: "...those who dismiss claims made here don't actually look at the arguments but instead choose to dismiss them for extra-scientific reasons." Right! That is my point. You have to effectively deal with the non-scientific stuff and, so far, (-snip-). (-snip-).
    Moderator Response: [DB] Projection and off-topic snipped. Please ensure that all comments are formulated to comply with the Comments Policy. Specifics about baseload energy belong on another thread, such as Renewables can't provide baseload power.
  38. How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
    JackFate,
    your "scientific arguments."
    That you put this in quotes demonstrates your own ignorance combined with a preset opinion.
    so much self-interest (i.e. grants, funding etc.).
    This is complete nonsense, and that you believe it and espouse it demonstrates how out of touch you are with reality. You are a lost cause, because you have no independent thought and no interest in discovering the truth, just self-satisfying, smug indignation.
    I don't believe YOU (i.e. the climate science complex)
    So you won't trust experts. Instead you trust... what? Weatherman-bloggers and disgruntled, self-important right-wing nutjobs? Good for you. I'm sorry, but your position is basically that you dismiss the truth because you don't understand it and don't want to. With a position such as that, you are the one who needs dismissing. You have no place here, because this site is about facts and truth, and you are all about spin and nonsense.
  39. How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
    I see, JackFate. Well, I eagerly await Dana's response. I think I know about half of what he's going to say. However, I am a bit confused. You say in your response to Robert Murphy that "you" is the "climate science complex." Science, Jack, doesn't give 100% certainty on anything. If you want that, go to a priest. All science can do is narrow the range of probability for a given proposition. After all, it's still possible that aliens are creating the illusion that the Earth revolves around the sun. When you talk about journalists not talking about the remaining uncertainty, there's a good reason for it. In the case of climate science, and in particular the basic theory of anthropogenic global warming, the uncertainty is systematic. We have directly measured the greenhouse effect -- many times -- from both surface and space. However, it's possible that the various instruments have all failed in exactly the same way each time. It's highly improbable, but it's still possible. It could also be aliens jacking with our instrumentation. Do you want every journalist to go through all the different ways something could be wrong when the likelihood of the dominant theory is 99%+? I know: "where do you get off claiming 99%+?" That's where you have to be conversant with the science. Can you, for example, articulate how the greenhouse gas effect works?
  40. How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
    And you, sir, have made mine.
  41. How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
    Jack, you make my point: "Going by the rest of your post one answer would be those who dismiss claims made here don't actually look at the arguments but instead choose to dismiss them for extra-scientific reasons."
  42. How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
    @RobertMurphy "Are they 100% right all the time? Of course not." "And of course nobody said they were." You agree, then. Good. So where are all the articles from the environmental journalists pointing out where they fall short? See the point? Why should I believe your numbers and data if I don't believe (-SNIP-) (i.e. -snip-)? See the point? This piece laments that you can't get through with your message, even though you have all this (-snip-) You use two great words: argument and theory. Arguments presuppose there is another side, theories can be proven wrong. And I appreciate your avoiding the "straw man" of nuclear energy. Are you a supporter? --) (-snip-) @DSL This is a response to the piece that was posted, hence the "Your" would refer to the author of said post and the points he makes therein.
    Moderator Response: [DB] Snipped: All-caps, sloganeering, inflammatory tone, off-topic.
  43. How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
    JackFate @55: "There must be a reason so many people still don't buy your "scientific arguments."" Going by the rest of your post one answer would be those who dismiss claims made here don't actually look at the arguments but instead choose to dismiss them for extra-scientific reasons. "Are they 100% right all the time? Of course not." And of course nobody said they were. "If you are willing to do that, why should we believe EVERYTHING you say?" Who said you should believe everything anybody says? I don't recall anybody associated with this website promoting that. If you would stop spending your time creating straw-men to knock down and instead spent it looking at the scientific arguments proposed here, you'd be a lot better off, and a lot better prepared to make an informed critique of something claimed here.
  44. How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
    Jack, just out of curiosity, where does the theory fail for you? Oh, and before anyone else asks it, let me be the first: who is "you"?
  45. How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
    There must be a reason so many people still don't buy your "scientific arguments." (-snip). (-snip-). Your misunderstanding of journalism is another sore spot. "Environmental journalism" is a license to preach a one-sided argument. How many articles have you seen on the downsides of what the Sierra Club, Greenpeace et. al. have done? Are they 100% right all the time? Of course not. But they appear to be beyond reproach, and that strikes reasonable people as odd. If you were truly concerned about the climate, you would be shouting from the roof-tops that we need more nuclear energy, which is carbon-free. (-snip-). If you are willing to do that, why should we believe (-SNIP-) you say? What you fail to realize is that in your zeal to get (-SNIP-) to believe you, you have created a climate of skepticism. Ironic, isn't it?
    Moderator Response: [DB] Snipped: Inflammatory, political, accusation of dishonesty, all-caps, all caps. Please read the Comments Policy.
  46. Arctic sea ice reaches lowest extent for the year and the satellite record
    Here is an article that recounts some observations about the state of the remaining Arctic ice- the headline says it all, the ice is 'rotten to the core' http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Arctic+Rotten+North+Pole+scientist+says/7279382/story.html
  47. SkS: testimony to the potential of social media and the passion of volunteers
    Old Mole: Thanks for your comment. I came across Timmer's post while looking for the source of the "$75 BILLION" figure. He was responding to Jo Nova's tu quoque calumny that climate scientists who support the consensus are only in it for the gold. I agree that his analysis of how that G$75 is spent could have been more thorough. He did show that climate research accounts for a small fraction of the total, and he affirmed that none of it goes to line the pockets of the scientists, who thus have no incentive to distort their findings. A case in point is provided by Scott Mandia: a detailed accounting of how he would spend a $437,233 grant, and why it would have no effect on his personal income. Countering denier claims, it's easy to show there's a lot of money potentially available for research that supports denial. It's a little harder to show that particular scientists are getting any of it. I'm aware that Willie Soon, for example, has received more than $1 million in funding from fossil fuel interests. I'm not aware that Soon spent any of that money on himself, rather than on his research. Soon also gets funding from sources like NASA, incidentally contradicting the denier claim that government funding is unavailable to "skeptical" researchers. Mandias provides more counter-examples. You concluded Timmer "doesn't know any actual scientists" because he didn't point out that "they do what they do because they love doing it and couldn't imagine doing anything else." While he didn't do so explicitly in that post, he did in a previous one:
    It's tempting to respond with indignation; after all, researchers generally are doing something they love without a focus on compensation.
    You and I understand that very well. The average non-scientist may need convincing, unfortunately.
  48. Record Arctic Sea-ice minimum 2012 declared - it's the Silly Season!
    The post points out that summer Arctic storms of this strength are uncommon but not unknown. However, the trend is for more Arctic storms whatever the season according to 'Sea ice drift in the Arctic since the 1950s.' Hakkinen et al 2008. who say "The study finds that both parameters (ice drift and wind stress) show gradual acceleration over last 50 years. Significant positive trends are present in both winter and summer data.The major cause of observed positive trends is increasing Arctic storm activity over the Transpolar Drift Stream caused by a shift of storm tracks toward higher latitudes." And if, as these denialists on Wattsupia are saying "It's the storm what done it, guv!" can the massive impact of the storm be seen? This graph of Arctic Ice Area (usually two clicks to 'download your attachment') starts from the beginning of August. The storm struck on the 5th, not that you'd notice from the graph. The graph as I type is up-to-date & so does show the first few days of the freeze which will be worthy of monitoring in coming weeks to see if the severe melt will impact the following freeze.
  49. Record Arctic Sea-ice minimum 2012 declared - it's the Silly Season!
    John Mason@12: It's just pining for the fjords!...;)
  50. citizenschallenge at 00:12 AM on 23 September 2012
    PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Thank you for that informative article Dana. Thought I should let you know I couldn't resist reposting at my little blogspot. What's Up With That Watts.blogspot Keep up the great work !

Prev  1063  1064  1065  1066  1067  1068  1069  1070  1071  1072  1073  1074  1075  1076  1077  1078  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2024 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us