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  1064  1065  1066  1067  1068  1069  1070  1071  1072  1073  1074  1075  1076  1077  1078  1079  Next

Comments 53551 to 53600:

  1. 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.
  2. 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."
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. CO2 lags temperature
    Thanks both.
  7. 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...
  8. 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
  9. 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?
  10. 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.
  11. How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
    (-snip-)
    Moderator Response: [DB] Moderation complaints snipped.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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?
  17. How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
    And you, sir, have made mine.
  18. 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."
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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"?
  22. 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.
  23. 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
  24. 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.
  25. 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.
  26. Record Arctic Sea-ice minimum 2012 declared - it's the Silly Season!
    John Mason@12: It's just pining for the fjords!...;)
  27. 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 !
  28. Record Arctic Sea-ice minimum 2012 declared - it's the Silly Season!
    Edit for #21 - link changed. There are links to the sources on that page at Neven's.
  29. Record Arctic Sea-ice minimum 2012 declared - it's the Silly Season!
    John... Just trying to keep the information available up to date... We know what certain people will do with certain information. But yes, it is a really neat animation. I just wish they'd linked back to the original NASA sources so that we didn't need to trust their interpretation.
  30. Record Arctic Sea-ice minimum 2012 declared - it's the Silly Season!
    Thanks #20 - the correct link is the one just above in the text, pointing to Neven's blog where its context is described.
  31. Record Arctic Sea-ice minimum 2012 declared - it's the Silly Season!
    The 'You are here'-graph of 2012 is linked to the 2011-graph, you might want to fix it.
  32. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    I still hope that those guys at PBS will reconsider and issue some sequel of even an appology, if presented with the evidence of their bad journalism. Their programs were such an educational inspiration for me when I was living in US and learning English (my fourth language), i.e. from WTTW "Window To The World" station in Chicago, IL... Now, I realise Hartland is also located in Chicago, and that Heartland has reccomended Watts as "a balance in this debate". I feel so shamefully disappointed... Is it just one freaky mishap, or is the quality of PBS going bankrupt?
  33. Record Arctic Sea-ice minimum 2012 declared - it's the Silly Season!
    Dave #17, That's a neat animation of the winds. From the accompanying text: "Weather data collected by NASA suggests that this summer's record Arctic ice melt may have been partially due to a powerful cyclone..." I don't think anyone's claiming that it had no role, but it was not the overall cause.
  34. Record Arctic Sea-ice minimum 2012 declared - it's the Silly Season!
    Hm...I think there's a meme left off the list: It's really more due to soot from the Chinese coal burning than it is due to Global Warming- after all Jim Hansen himself has said soot has twice the impact of CO2: Hansen 2003
  35. Record Arctic Sea-ice minimum 2012 declared - it's the Silly Season!
    Reuters reports that un-named NASA sources are blaming the cyclone: Reuters Video hosted at CNN in the meantime, well known climate change squirrel Rush Limbaugh hasn't gotten around to blaming "Feminazi's" for the shrinking ice...he's focused on matters closer to home More important that sea ice shrinking
  36. Record Arctic Sea-ice minimum 2012 declared - it's the Silly Season!
    John Mason: We have to find a way to get the PBS News Hour folk to read your article. It prooves beyond any reasonable doubt why their recent interview of Anthony Watts was such a farce.
  37. Record Arctic Sea-ice minimum 2012 declared - it's the Silly Season!
    John Mason: Brilliant! John Stewart and Sephen Colbert had best start looking over their shoulders.
  38. Record Arctic Sea-ice minimum 2012 declared - it's the Silly Season!
    Excellent write up there John - and that last graph really sums it up well. Also now linked on my blog.
  39. Record Arctic Sea-ice minimum 2012 declared - it's the Silly Season!
    Skywatcher - thanks for spotting that! Have edited the text with date of edit flagged. It was a last-minute addition that I got from eyeballing the NSIDC Antarctic graph. Next time I shall take my time with such alterations!
  40. Record Arctic Sea-ice minimum 2012 declared - it's the Silly Season!
    Estiben #10, Well spotted! I was enquiring after the health of said canary - Anthony assured me that it was "just resting". I have since taken the liberty of examining it properly, and I discovered that the only reason it was sitting on its perch in the first place was because it had been nailed there!
  41. Record Arctic Sea-ice minimum 2012 declared - it's the Silly Season!
    Number watching... The last two Arctic sea ice news posts at WUWT have been pushing the turning point of the big refreeze. The first one asked if the late season melt had "turned the corner" yet. No, it hadn't. A couple of days ago the agenda was a bit starker, headlining with 2012 Arctic sea ice minimum reached, it’s all gain from here WUWT must downplay this in every way possible. Latest daily extent from MASIE, which Anthony Watts himself gave the gold seal of approval, has the lowest extent for the year. 3529012.32 3452809.48 3398785.21 3520791.45 3544682.16 [WUWT: "It's all gain from here"] 3438433.28 3368882.08 It's not that WUWT was wrong, it's that Watts, who should know so much better considering the amount of text devoted to emphasising weather influence on September minimum at WUWT, needs so desperately to control the narrative he sets himself up for the gaffe. I should be a bit careful myself - that last value could be adjusted upwards tomorrow, but not by enough to mar the point.
  42. SkS: testimony to the potential of social media and the passion of volunteers
    Mal Adapted @34 A couple of the things that the Ars Technica article didn't point out was that since the OMB reports on climate change expenditures were produced by the Executive Office of the President, items like research into improved nuclear power plants and "clean coal" technology were included in the accounting. This can be verified through a Congressional Budget Office report from 2010 and a General Accountability Office report from last year: http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/112xx/doc11224/03-26-climatechange.pdf http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-317 That isn't the main thing that bothers me about his comment, though. First, he wants to compare an input {lobbying contributions) with an output (climate funding) and treat them as somehow equivalent, which seems odd to me. He might be better served to look at output vs. output, in terms of the subsidies provided to the fossil fuel industry, mainly permanently via quirks in the tax code, vs. the subsidies provided to green energy, which mostly sunset too quickly to count on. The Environmental Law Institute did a good paper on comparative subsidies between 2002-2008 http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/112xx/doc11224/03-26-climatechange.pdf which found that out of slightly over $100 billion in subsidies, the fossil fuel industry got $72 billion and renewables got $29 billion, nearly half of which went to corn-based ethanol subsidies ... hardly a climate scientist's wet dream. Worst of all, I am pretty sure this guy doesn't know any actual scientists. If anybody with the mental horsepower to get a hard-science PhD was that motivated by the money, they could have gone into medicine, law or Wall Street and made ten times the money for half the effort. Mostly they do what they do because they love doing it and couldn't imagine doing anything else. This may seem counter=intuitive to most people, but the more scientists you meet, the clearer the evidence becomes. Best wishes, Mole
  43. Record Arctic Sea-ice minimum 2012 declared - it's the Silly Season!
    Great article, John, and some of the links in the comments have me giggling, too. Only one complaint, your canary metaphor is a little muddled. If there is something wrong in the mine, the canary doesn't tweet louder, it keels over. I'm afraid one of the canaries is dead.
  44. Record Arctic Sea-ice minimum 2012 declared - it's the Silly Season!
    Nice article John. But a wee correction required for the Antarctic ice minimum, which is much lower than 12million sq km (depending on area/extent measure, probably 1.5-5 million sq km).
  45. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    "The journalist conditioning to which Rob painting so validly refers is partly a response to the fact that controversy sells." Bernard J, it was *ALL* predicted, uncannily, or at least summed up nicely, here. This tendency has been going on, since time immemorial, and how to combat it, I'm clueless. However, as said above, we *must* try.
  46. Record Arctic Sea-ice minimum 2012 declared - it's the Silly Season!
    Thank you for a wonderful article, John. I've linked to it on the ASI blog.
  47. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Yes - obviously difficult because the mainstream audience must be given some serious contextualization in order to be even close to a position to start sorting bad eggs from good eggs. It's like being James Bond as the timer on the bomb ticks down, and in order to understand how to defuse it, one either guesses which wire to cut based on which looks prettier or which color has traditionally meant X (red bad! cut it!), or one uses the last few minutes to read the 3700-page manual (and an additional 84 supplements and updates). Watts offers a glossy pamphlet with the title "Don't worry about it. It's not even a bomb." Boom.
  48. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    The journalist conditioning to which Rob painting so validly refers is partly a response to the fact that controversy sells. If there was a widespread and organised campaign to tell PBS that they have permanently turned audience members away, especially if such a campaign accumulates Facebook, Twitter, or other counts, PBS might start wondering whether they're losing more than they're gaining. Controversy sells, but when more customers are lost than gained because they want to buy the truth rather than fallacious propaganda, it might not be worth selling that controversy...
  49. Record Arctic Sea-ice minimum 2012 declared - it's the Silly Season!
    An article by Matt Ridley in the WSJ is right up there in the silliness stakes. It appears that in a effort to play down the impact of the loss of Arctic ice, Ridley is quite happy to make a complete fool of himself. Here is an example. "Although an entirely ice-free Arctic Ocean during at least one week a year is still several decades away at this rate, we are halfway there after just three decades." After numerous distractions involving arctic foxes and amphipod crustaceans, he gets to his main point. "But is the current rapid retreat caused only by warming? At least some of it might be caused by soot from dirty, coal-fired power stations. Some scientists have noticed that the decline in Arctic sea ice correlates better with the rapid growth of coal consumption in China than it does with global temperature. As the argument goes: Soot falling on white ice darkens it, which results in faster melting in summer sun. Correlation does not always mean causation, but if soot is contributing to sea-ice melt, then it is moderately good news, because cleaning up soot emissions from power stations could be both cheaper and quicker than cutting carbon-dioxide emissions." That is why he has a column in the WSJ.
  50. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Yes, responded with more false balance in the comments section. Sheesh! I think it is extraordinarily difficult to break this journalistic "conditioning" of false balance. But we must try anyway.

Prev  1064  1065  1066  1067  1068  1069  1070  1071  1072  1073  1074  1075  1076  1077  1078  1079  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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