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  1105  1106  1107  1108  1109  1110  1111  1112  1113  1114  1115  1116  1117  1118  1119  1120  Next

Comments 55601 to 55650:

  1. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    At this point I think we've established that Pielke's problem is with Field even mentioning the word "disaster" in his testimony. So let's look at the context of each example and see if there is any ambiguity: 1) "As the US copes with the aftermath of last year’s record-breaking series of 14 billion-dollar climate-related disasters and this year’s massive wildfires and storms, it is critical to understand that the link between climate change and the kinds of extremes that lead to disasters is clear." I don't see any problems here. Clearly the types of disasters being discussed (e.g. hurricanes) are climate-related, and there is indeed a link between climate change and many types of extreme weather. 2) "The US experienced 14 billion-dollar disasters in 2011...The 2011 disasters included a blizzard, tornadoes...." That's obviously correct. 3) "For several of these categories of disasters, the strength of any linkage to climate change, if there is one, is not known." I know Pielke wouldn't have a problem with that statement. 4) "The evidence pointing to the driving force behind the extra risk (either the climate change of the excess speed) can be strong, but it is still difficult to predict exactly when and where disaster might occur." No issues there I presume. Climate change is certainly one driving force behind extreme weather-related risk. 5) "And just as many factors influence the risk of a car accident, the risk of a weather-related disaster is strongly influenced by disaster preparations, early warning, and the integrity of local infrastructure like buildings, roads, and the electricity grid." That's certainly true - a point Tom Curtis has made here. 6) "There is also no doubt that a changing climate changes the risk of extremes, including extremes that can lead to disaster." Very clearly and accurately stated. That's it. I'm left concluding that Pielke thinks that even mentioning the word "disaster" or monetary value losses is impermissable when discussing the link between climate change and extreme weather, even if the speaker does not link disasters and losses to climate change, which Field clearly did not.
  2. Christy Once Again Misinforms Congress
    Richard Lindzen coughs again in the WSJ citing John Christy's Senate Testimony in: 'Climate Consensus' Data Need a More Careful Look
  3. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    Roger wrote: "I agree with your interpretation of what Field testified to. I disagree that it is scientifically supportable." Which part do you believe isn't scientifically supportable? "climate change is increasing the severity of certain kinds of disasters" or "disasters have economic impacts"? I have not previously seen you deny the first, and the second falls under the category of blindingly obvious. Are you really saying that a scientific case cannot be made for climate change having caused an increased incidence of heat waves (for example)? Or, in the even less plausible alternative, that heat waves have no economic impact?
  4. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    Roger #110 - on (a) I see nothing in Field's testimony that contradicts the point that we cannot yet with strong confidence link the disasters referenced directly to climate change (which is not, of course, the same as saying there is no link between them). On (b) clearly he was making such a link, though moderated appropriately as I noted. I note in your quote from Field that your ellipses have the effect of disguising the distinction between 'disasters' and 'climate and weather extremes'. The second set of ...'s includes a paragraph break, which I think is significant when reading his testimony. I don't see how you can realistically expect us to "agree to disagree" when you have made such strong statements as "What Field says the IPCC says is blantantly wrong, often 180 degrees wrong" and "Field's testimony today completely and unambiguously misrepresented IPCC findings to the Senate". If you are prepared to moderate this language and accept that it was unjustified then I might be prepared to agree to disagree.
  5. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    Pielke Jr @104 pretends to ignorance of the basic terminology of his own field as a debate tactic. The term "hazard" is a standard technical term in disaster management, and is defined by the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR) as follows:
    "Hazard A dangerous phenomenon, substance, human activity or condition that may cause loss of life, injury or other health impacts, property damage, loss of livelihoods and services, social and economic disruption, or environmental damage. Comment: The hazards of concern to disaster risk reduction as stated in footnote 3 of the Hyogo Framework are “… hazards of natural origin and related environmental and technological hazards and risks.” Such hazards arise from a variety of geological, meteorological, hydrological, oceanic, biological, and technological sources, sometimes acting in combination. In technical settings, hazards are described quantitatively by the likely frequency of occurrence of different intensities for different areas, as determined from historical data or scientific analysis. See other hazard-related terms in the Terminology: Biological hazard; Geological hazard; Hydrometeorological hazard; Natural hazard; Socio-natural hazard; Technological hazard. 30 Aug 2007"
    A "natural hazard" is further defined as:
    "Natural hazard Natural process or phenomenon that may cause loss of life, injury or other health impacts, property damage, loss of livelihoods and services, social and economic disruption, or environmental damage. Comment: Natural hazards are a sub-set of all hazards. The term is used to describe actual hazard events as well as the latent hazard conditions that may give rise to future events. Natural hazard events can be characterized by their magnitude or intensity, speed of onset, duration, and area of extent. For example, earthquakes have short durations and usually affect a relatively small region, whereas droughts are slow to develop and fade away and often affect large regions. In some cases hazards may be coupled, as in the flood caused by a hurricane or the tsunami that is created by an earthquake. 30 Aug 2007"
    A "Disaster" is defined as:
    "Disaster A serious disruption of the functioning of a community or a society involving widespread human, material, economic or environmental losses and impacts, which exceeds the ability of the affected community or society to cope using its own resources. Comment: Disasters are often described as a result of the combination of: the exposure to a hazard; the conditions of vulnerability that are present; and insufficient capacity or measures to reduce or cope with the potential negative consequences. Disaster impacts may include loss of life, injury, disease and other negative effects on human physical, mental and social well-being, together with damage to property, destruction of assets, loss of services, social and economic disruption and environmental degradation. 30 Aug 2007"
    Following this terminology, a hurricane is a hazard. If it remains at sea, far from any shipping, it is a hazard, but will not cause a disaster because nobody is exposed to it. That introduces the new important term, "exposure":
    "Exposure People, property, systems, or other elements present in hazard zones that are thereby subject to potential losses. Comment: Measures of exposure can include the number of people or types of assets in an area. These can be combined with the specific vulnerability of the exposed elements to any particular hazard to estimate the quantitative risks associated with that hazard in the area of interest. 23 Jan 2009"
    Should that hurricane strike the shore near a settlement, it may still not cause a disaster even though people are now exposed to the hazard. That is because their houses may be robust enough, and their sea walls high enough to protect them from wind and storm surge. They would not be vulnerable:
    "Vulnerability The characteristics and circumstances of a community, system or asset that make it susceptible to the damaging effects of a hazard. Comment: There are many aspects of vulnerability, arising from various physical, social, economic, and environmental factors. Examples may include poor design and construction of buildings, inadequate protection of assets, lack of public information and awareness, limited official recognition of risks and preparedness measures, and disregard for wise environmental management. Vulnerability varies significantly within a community and over time. This definition identifies vulnerability as a characteristic of the element of interest (community, system or asset) which is independent of its exposure. However, in common use the word is often used more broadly to include the element’s exposure. 30 Aug 2007"
    If, however, the people have poor building standards, or live in low lying areas. When people who are vulnerable are exposed to a hazard, then you have a disaster. Now, given that we now all know the meanings of the words involved consider Field's phrase, "extreme events that can lead to disasters". Given that Field is talking about extreme events, he is not talking about disasters per se, ie, about the serious disruption of a community etc. Rather, and very clearly, he is talking about natural hazards. The type of extreme events that can lead to disasters are hazards, by definition of the term hazard. Now, consider Pielke's position. He purports that any talk about "the kind of extreme events that can lead to disasters" is talk about disasters only, and not about hazards at all. In defense of his claim, he points out that Field does not use the term "hazard". That argument is akin to the argument that somebody who mentions "the organ that focuses and detects light" is really only talking about light, not eyes, for he mentions light but does not mention eyes by name. Bizarrely, given his profession, Pielke is in the position of an ophtamologist who makes that argument. His position really is that stupid.
  6. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    -108-OPatrick Thanks, if you believe that (a) Field was not linking climate change to disasters that have occurred in the past (only into the future), or (b) that he was not linking climate change to disasters at all, then clearly we will disagree on his statements. I do note that Field clarifies the phenomena that he is referring to explicitly in his testimony: "The 2011 disasters included a blizzard, tornadoes, floods, severe weather, a hurricane, a tropical storm, drought and heat wave, and wildfires. . . For several of these categories of disasters, the strength of any linkage to climate change, if there is one, is not known . . . For other categories of climate and weather extremes, the pattern is increasingly clear." He then goes on to discuss several of these "categories of disasters" in detail. I don't see much ambiguity, but accept that others read it differently. Fine. Seeing as we are well into the area of textual exegesis I do not see any point in further repetition, and we simply accept that we agree to disagree. That is OK by me, I appreciate the chance to present my views and your listening to them. Thanks!
  7. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    (my last comment now currently refers to #105, not #109)
  8. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    Roger #109 - I can't see that either your comment #72 or your original blog post give a clear answer to my question. In your comment #72 the closest I can see is "I critiqued Field's testimony on 5 points: 1. Linking human-caused climate change to economic disasters via extremes ... 3. Citing the NOAA billion-dollar disasters....", but these criticisms refer to supposed over-statements about the influence of climate change on currently observed 'disasters', whereas Field's point 3 is about increasing risk of extreme events, which can then lead to disasters - this seems to be more about future projections. In your blog post you say "Field's assertion that the link between climate change and disasters "is clear,"" - and it is clear, but that clarity comes from his moderation of the link via the words "...kinds of extremes that lead to...".
  9. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    -106-CBDunkerson Apologies, let me be more precise. You wrote: "From my reading, Field limited his testimony to issues which are scientifically supportable... climate change is increasing the severity of certain kinds of disasters and those disasters have economic impacts." I agree with your interpretation of what Field testified to. I disagree that it is scientifically supportable. I hope this is more clear. Thanks.
  10. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    RogerPielkeJr wrote: "I note that in -101-CBDunkerson is now making the ... case ... that Field was indeed linking climate change and disasters ($$) and such a linkage is supportable. Here we are in agreement on how to interpret Field's testimony." Ummmmm... that is not what I said and I specifically stated that I did not agree with your interpretation of Field's testimony. Seriously. When you can read something and come to a conclusion exactly the opposite of what the author stated it is time to take a step back and examine what has gone wrong in your thinking... and that applies equally to your 'reading' of Field's testimony.
  11. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    -103-OPatrick My objections are summarized in #72 above and detailed in my original blog post. Rather that replow plowed ground I simply point you there. I note that in -101-CBDunkerson is now making the opposite case from OPatrick and several others -- specifically that Field was indeed linking climate change and disasters ($$) and such a linkage is supportable. Here we are in agreement on how to interpret Field's testimony. Thanks!
  12. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    Let me try that again, looks like my comment disappeared. On Neumayer and Barthel, they conclude: "What the results tell us is that, based on historical data, there is no evidence so far that climate change has increased the normalized economic loss from natural disasters." Discussed here: http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/11/new-peer-reviewed-paper-on-global.html On the claim that Field references "hazards" not ""disasters" -- the word "hazards" does not appear in his testimony, "disaster(s)" appears 12 times. Thanks!
  13. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    Roger #99 - can I clarify, which part of 3 do you object to? Is it that 'climate change leads to changes in the risks of extreme events' or that 'such extreme events can lead to disasters'? Also can I remind you that your case is that "What Field says the IPCC says is blantantly wrong, often 180 degrees wrong. It is one thing to disagree about scientific questions, but it is altogether different to fundamentally misrepresent an IPCC report to the US Congress. Below are five instances in which Field's testimony today completely and unambiguously misrepresented IPCC findings to the Senate." Is this the case you are resting?
  14. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    -100-Tom Curtis While I assume that much of your comment will be taken away by the moderators, let me respond to the science. Neumayer and Barthel write of their study: "What the results tell us is that, based on historical data, there is no evidence so far that climate change has increased the normalized economic loss from natural disasters." Discussed here: http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/11/new-peer-reviewed-paper-on-global.html The word "hazards" does not appear in Field's testimony. Thanks!
  15. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    Logically, it would seem that if there is a clear link between climate change and an increase in certain kinds of disasters (e.g. heat waves) and a clear link between disasters of those kinds and economic impacts (e.g. loss of crops) then surely there must be a link between climate change and increased economic losses from those kinds of disasters... we just can't precisely differentiate between increased losses due to climate change and increased losses due to growing population and wealth. Whether climate change as a whole, rather than just in reference to specific kinds of disasters it is known to exacerbate, has had a positive or negative effect on economics thus far is even more difficult to sort out. From my reading, Field limited his testimony to issues which are scientifically supportable... climate change is increasing the severity of certain kinds of disasters and those disasters have economic impacts. He did not say that we can determine how much of the economic impact from those events is due to climate change vs other factors nor that we can determine what the net economic impact of climate change overall has been thus far. RogerPielkeJr's position thus appears to me a radical interpretation of the text. The contention that because Field mentioned economic impacts in the same sentence where he first mentions disasters must mean that the 'frequent' (actually only about a dozen times total) subsequent uses of the word must all be taken to be in the context of economics is unsupportable. Field's testimony was not some sort of legal contract where he was 'defining' how the word "disasters" would be used subsequently in the text as Pielke claims. Rather, Field was using plain English and each of his uses of "disasters" should be evaluated within the context of the sentence where it appears.
  16. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    Pielke Jr @94 attempts to spin my 88 as,
    "Commenters here are beginning to identify a basic problem with Field's testimony."
    and
    "Consequently, assertions of trends in extremes should not be conflated with patterns of disasters in any way without applying methods such as those in Neumayer and Barthel or our similar work (perfectly consistent with each other, BTW). Such conflation should certainly not appear in a single sentence a la Field's issue #1 that I listed above."
    Does he think nobody actually read my comment? His gall is beyond belief. However, let me make this quite clear for him: 1) Roger, I am appalled by your persistent attempts to spin this case, and to ignore fundamental distinctions central to your profession; 2) There is nothing wrong with Field's testimony. Contrary to your claim, he does not conflate hazards with disasters. Rather, you do by persistently treating him as talking about losses from disasters when he talks about hazards; 3) Your desperation in misrepresenting Field shows only that you are incapable of arguing against his testimony on its merits;
    Moderator Response: Inflammatory snipped
  17. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    -97-OPatrick I do not object o 1 or 2, 3 yes, obviously. The words "disaster," "billion-dollar" and "income" had no place in Field's testimony unless he were to discuss the science associated with economic losses, which he did not. -98-JasonB If we are reduced to discussing the effects of a comma, then I rest my case. As well, Field repeatedly uses the word "disasters" in his piece, after defining it the first time. I am in agreement with this commenter at my blog: http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2012/08/ipcc-lead-author-misleads-us-congress.html?showComment=1343917020804#c5632425002505277530 Thanks!
  18. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    OPatrick #95, I think even "not unambiguous" is too strong -- it takes special effort to read the sentence as Roger wishes to. Punctuation matters. A comma may seem like a silly thing to be arguing about, but the only reason we're arguing about it is because Roger wants to ignore the structure of a sentence and what it actually says in order to construct his strawman. Now I can accept that initially it was an honest mistake -- goodness knows that there are hot-button issues for me that I often imagine someone to be talking about because they made the mistake of uttering the keywords I'm on the lookout for in the same sentence -- but I don't understand how, once the misunderstanding was pointed out, someone would persist, and even attempt to mischaracterise the point as arguing about the placement of a comma, rather than accepting that the real point is that Field was actually talking about the link between climate change and extremes (as he plainly stated). Scientific writing abounds with comments that "set the stage" for the work in question; if we started going through every paper's introductory paragraph and removed punctuation willy-nilly I'm sure we'd come up with all sorts of absurdities to waste time arguing about. Maybe even accuse people of "fundamentally misrepresenting" the scientific knowledge. But I see communication as fundamentally an attempt to convey information from one mind to another and prefer to look at what is actually written. All that sentence is saying is that there is a clear link between climate change and certain kinds of extremes -- the kind of extremes that lead to disasters. If he intended to say that there was a clear link between climate change and disasters or climate change and economic impacts he could have actually said that. He didn't.
  19. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    Roger #96 - where else in his testimony does Field use "disasters" in a way that you would object to? And do you object to anything in Field's own summary of his testimony: 1) Overwhelming evidence establishes that climate change is real 2) Strong evidence indicates that some kinds of climate extremes are already changing 3) Climate change leads to changes in the risk of extreme events that can lead to disasters ?
  20. Hansen's New Climate Dice - Hot, Loaded, and Misunderstood
    Thanks Dana good post. It is interesting that the mean is shifting a lot and the curve is flattening, a similiar thing has been noticed in the Indian Monsoon details. Is this pattern sort of a choatic shift pattern? As in when a choatic system approaches a shift in regime its variance increases and its self similiarity increases, which sort seems to be happening in several systems, e.g. Arctic Sea Ice melt time series. And therefore with the mean already shifted could all increasing weather extreme's (keeping in mind a 3SD cold event is know a 4SD cold event, so a 2SD cold event is a 3SD cold event), be a prelude to a regime shift? A shift to a Pliocene climate? Surely any chaotic energetic system will try and equalise itself in the quickest way possible? Just speculating, and things are bad enough already, but it does look more and more like a summer ice free Arctic is closer and closer, (2012 none optimum weather for melt, but record melting occuring), so does anyone have a low down on what an ice free Arcitc in summer might mean for the world's weather systems? Not to mention and expanding tropics and poleward shifting jetstreams?
  21. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    -95-OPatrick Field defines "billion-dollar climate-related disasters" in his first paragraph (as you excerpted) -- clearly and unambiguously associating "disaster" with economic impacts. The word "disaster(s)" subsequently appears on average once per paragraph in his his short 12 paragraph testimony. The alternative, that Field was not referring to economic impacts when freqeuntly mentioning "disasters" I find implausible (others may disagree). Thanks!
  22. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    RogerPielkeJr #94 - can I clarify that when you say "Consequently, assertions of trends in extremes should not be conflated with patterns of disasters in any way without applying methods such as those in Neumayer and Barthel or our similar work (perfectly consistent with each other, BTW). Such conflation should certainly not appear in a single sentence a la Field's issue #1 that I listed above." you are referring to this sentence in Field's testimony: As the US copes with the aftermath of last year’s record-breaking series of 14 billion-dollar climate-related disasters and this year’s massive wildfires and storms, it is critical to understand that the link between climate change and the kinds of extremes that lead to disasters is clear.? If so then I question your use of terms such as 'unambigously misrepresented' and '180 degrees wrong'. My reading of this sentence is that the first part 'sets the scene' by reminding senators of the practical importance of understanding the science on the impacts of climate change, the level of human and economic costs that could be involved, whilst the second part talks of links between climate change and extreme events that lead to such disasters without any necessary implications that these events are already occuring as a result of climate change. At the very least it is not unambiguous.
  23. Students sprout creative communications on climate change Inside the Greenhouse
    Dude in the first video sure smokes a lot.
  24. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    Commenters here are beginning to identify a basic problem with Field's testimony. It is not scientifically sound to use data/trends in economic impacts ("disasters") to say anything about trends (or lack thereof) in related climate phenomena ("extreme events") -- until such data has been properly "normalized." Hence, in my work I and my colleagues carefully explain that if you are looking for trends in climate variables, then look at climate variables, not data on societal impacts. Consequently, assertions of trends in extremes should not be conflated with patterns of disasters in any way without applying methods such as those in Neumayer and Barthel or our similar work (perfectly consistent with each other, BTW). Such conflation should certainly not appear in a single sentence a la Field's issue #1 that I listed above. The citing economic impacts or disasters in Field's testimony at all is problematic. Thanks!
  25. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    OPatrick @92, Pielke Jr is correct that this is not a particularly nuanced issue. The distinction between natural events that cause a risk of losses to humans (hazards) and the losses actually caused is not difficult to make, and is a fundamental distinction in Pielke's area of expertise. So fundamental, in fact, that the SREX devotes its entire first chapter to making plain the distinction between hazards and disasters, and clarifying the related concepts. Nor is the distinction between the United States and Central North America (as shown on the map above) a particularly nuanced one. For those having difficulty distinguishing between the two, the former includes California and Florida. The later does not. Yet these distinctions which are part of Pielke's area of expertise seem beyond him when admitting them leaves him with no basis for criticizing Field's testimony. It must be very handy to have beliefs so adaptable to the rhetorical needs of the moment.
  26. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    Bob Loblaw #90 - it's worth repeating a quote from RPjr's post criticising Field's testimony: This is not a particularly nuanced or complex issue. What Field says the IPCC says is blantantly wrong, often 180 degrees wrong. It is one thing to disagree about scientific questions, but it is altogether different to fundamentally misrepresent an IPCC report to the US Congress. Below are five instances in which Field's testimony today completely and unambiguously misrepresented IPCC findings to the Senate. I don't think his original intention, at least, was to leave enough ambiguity such that people can hear what they want.
  27. The Continuing Denial of the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
    Steve Forbes gets info from his buddy George Gilder (or his daughter). Gilder got it from Art Robinson. See first few minutes of this video. So, no surprise.
  28. Students sprout creative communications on climate change Inside the Greenhouse
    "Students sprout creative communications on climate change Inside the Greenhouse" I see someone has put Joe Romms book into action ;)
  29. The Continuing Denial of the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
    Forbes has really become a mouthpiece for Heartland Institute climate misinformation. If you see a climate-related article on Forbes, odds are very good that it's written by somebody with zero climate expertise, whose salary is paid by the fossil fuel industry, and that the content of the article is entirely wrong.
  30. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    So after all this, we still seem to have Roger Pielke Jr blurring the distinction between temperature and precipitation events and associated losses. Four of his five points in #77 refer to losses and not events, the fifth is a cherry pick and is eviscerated as the SREX talks about change in the global pattern of droughts and not just one region of the US (see Tom's #89). I would like to repeat the question I put to Dr Pielke in #19, which is straightforward and demands a straight answer:
    In the light of evidence presented above that you have often blurred the distinction between extreme events and extreme losses, and being critically mindful of the distinction between the two ... Do you agree with the IPCC SREX report's assessment of the increase in extremes of temperature and precipitation?
    I wonder if Dr Pielke is willing to answer that question?
  31. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    It is odd to see Roger Pielke Jr. (I'll abbreviate that as RPjr) finish his "agree to disagree" comment with a statement like "It is always a good political strategy in Congressional testimony to leave enough ambiguity such that people can hear what they want ;-) (That last comment is tongue-in-cheek)", as it seems that a good deal of his argument depends on attempting to imply ambiguity in others' statements that isn't there,while at the same time employing ambiguity in his own statements so that he can shift goalposts as needed. Any written language is imperfect, and words can have different meanings in different contexts. It is best to attempt to be precise, and precision often takes more words that imprecise language. For example, Field's testimony (quoted in the original post above) uses the phrase:
    "the link between climate change and the kinds of extremes that lead to disasters is clear."
    As has been pointed out in the post (and reinforced in the subsequent comments), "Pielke Jr. misrepresents it as a claim about financial losses". Can we read Field's statement this way? What if he quoted Field as saying:
    "the link between climate change and ... disasters is clear."
    ??? This would be a pretty clear statement claiming what RPjr seems to want to believe Field said, but is the part left out (the ellipsis) important? Yes, it is. After all, why would Field put it in, if he could state the link explicitly in fewer words? What we have is a situation where Field is saying "we have a clear link from A to B, and B one of a group of things that can lead to C". RPjr is trying to pretend that it is a claim of a clear link directly from A to C. Is Field being deliberately vague? No. Is RPjr just misunderstanding, or is he attempting to play up something that takes advantage of what he hopes is something that we'll not read properly? Only he knows. Contrast this with RPjr's writing in his comments here. In #57, he said:
    "the fact that Field's testimony is at variance with the IPCC SREX is trivial to show"
    Keep a close watch on what happens to the word "variance". That can have a number of meanings, but to the casual reader it likely means one of disagreement or discord. And RPjr's use of this in an attempt to imply that Field's testimony was inaccurate also suggests that this is the meaning he intended. Later, though. RPjr (in response to dana's quotes from the LinkIn Climate Policy site that RPjr pointed to) goes and says:
    "Obviously, there is no doubt that Field's testimony "goes beyond" what the IPCC SREX reported"
    (Emphasis by bolding is mine, but quote are in RPjr's original comment.) Now, what is the difference between "at variance with", and "goes beyond"? In one context, perhaps the same thing - i.e., that the two are not exactly the same. In another context, they can mean entirely different things. "Goes beyond" could mean that there is disagreement or discord, but it can also mean that it expands on (without disagreeing), adds to, or improves upon the original. If RPjr means the latter, and does not mean to imply that Field's testimony was in discord with the IPCC SREX, then I could probably agree with him. RPjr's attack on Field's testimony is only consistent if you read "goes beyond" as "is in discord with", though, and right now I think the SkS post has a lot more credibility than RPjr. It may be that RPjr has just been sloppy in changing from "at variance with" to "goes beyond". It may be that his intention is "to leave enough ambiguity such that people can hear what they want". Or, perhaps it is just another example of bait and switch. Or, perhaps he is hoping that someone will agree with "goes beyond" based on the second meaning (adds to), and then RPjr will treat that as if he got agreement on "goes beyond" as if it meant the former (in discord with). I'm tempted to say again that only he knows, but it is possible that even he doesn't realize what he's doing. Whatever it is RPjr is selling, I'm not buying.
  32. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    2) What the SREX says:
    "Nonetheless, there is some agreement between studies over the different time frames (i.e.,since 1950 versus 1970) and using different drought indicators regarding increasing drought occurrence in some regions (e.g., southern Europe, West Africa; see below and Table 3-2), although other regions also indicate opposite trends (e.g., central North America, northwestern Australia; see below and Table 3-2)."
    What Field said:
    "The report identified some areas where droughts have become longer and more intense (including southern Europe and West Africa), but others where droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter."
    (My emphasis) What Pielke Jnr says:
    "The US has seen a long-term decline in (midwestern) drought"
    (My emphasis) What I say: Pielke Jnr is absolutely correct. There has been a trend to less drought in the US midwest. It is worthwhile noting why he restricts this claim to the midwest, and not the the USA as a whole. Below are the annual average precipitation trends for the US (1958-2008; first graph) and the drought trend for the same period (1958-2007; second graph). Both are from the Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States report of 2009. As can be clearly seen, there is a trend to reduced drought in the mid-west. But there is also a trend to increased drought in the south east, and in the west. Had Pielke Jnr not included his discrete little qualifier in brackets, his claim would have been dubious at best, and possibly false. Given that, it is worthwhile reviewing what Pielke Jnr said about Field's testimony.
    "Field conveniently neglected in his testimony to mention that one place where droughts have gotten less frequent, less intense or shorter is ... the United States. Why did he fail to mention this region, surely of interest to US Senators, but did include Europe and West Africa? "
    So, Pielke Jnr roundly condemns Field for not making a claim to Congress that he cannot bring himself to make on a blog comment where he might actually be pulled up for inaccuracy. Of course, his defense for that condemnation is not that what Field said was true or false, but that it did not accurately reflect what was said by the SREX. There is only one problem with that defense. The SREX does not mention the United States, but Central North America. Central North America is a very specific location in the SREX, whose position is shown in figure 3.2, of which a (slightly modified) detail is shown below: As can be clearly seen, Central North America is approximately the US midwest. So Pielke Jnr is condemning Field for not inaccurately calling the midwest the entire US, and for not attributing to the entire US facts asserted in the SREX only of the midwest.
  33. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    1) What Pielke Jr says:
    "Linking human-caused climate change to economic disasters via extremes is not scientifically supportable" What Field said in his testimony: Nothing on this topic. What the SREX actually says:
    Economic losses from weather- and climate-related disasters have increased, but with large spatial and interannual variability (high confidence, based on high agreement, medium evidence). ... Economic, including insured, disaster losses associated with weather, climate, and geophysical events are higher in developed countries. Fatality rates and economic losses expressed as a proportion of gross domestic product (GDP) are higher in developing countries (high confidence). ... Increasing exposure of people and economic assets has been the major cause of long-term increases in economic losses from weather- and climate-related disasters (high confidence). Long-term trends in economic disaster losses adjusted for wealth and population increases have not been attributed to climate change, but a role for climate change has not been excluded (high agreement, medium evidence). These conclusions are subject to a number of limitations in studies to date. Vulnerability is a key factor in disaster losses, yet it is not well accounted for. Other limitations are: (i) data availability, as most data are available for standard economic sectors in developed countries; and (ii) type of hazards studied, as most studies focus on cyclones, where confidence in observed trends and attribution of changes to human influence is low. The second conclusion is subject to additional limitations: (iii) the processes used to adjust loss data over time, and (iv) record length. [4.5.3]"
    (Original bold, my underlining) What I say: Pielke Jnr's claim is a very strong one, implying, not that the evidence of a link between extreme events and increased losses is inconclusive, but that such links have been conclusively disproved. Not unsupported, but unsupportable. Given that losses due to climate related disasters have increased sharply, and at a significantly faster rate than losses due to geophysical activity, Pielke Jnr's claim is odd, and very strong. Of course, that fast rise in climate related losses is not conclusive because studies with normalized losses have shown slightly rising, or slightly falling losses from climate related disasters: (Fig 3 from Neumayer and Barthel, 2011. The essential difference between the conventional approach (attributed to Pielke Jnr) and the alternative approach is suggested by Neumayer and Barthel is that the former must average over state or national data levels, while the later normalizes based on a 1 degree by 1 degree gris of economic data (see paper for details).) However, as Neumayer and Barthel warn:
    "Due to our inability to control for defensive mitigation measures, one cannot infer from our analysis that there have definitely not been more frequent and/or more intensive weather-related natural hazards over the study period already."
    The SREX also warns:
    "Another general area of uncertainty comes from confounding factors that can be identified but are difficult to quantify, and relates to the usual assumption of constant vulnerability in studies of loss trends. These include factors that would be expected to increase resilience (Chapters 2 and 5 of this report) and thereby mask the influence of climate change, and those that could act to increase the impact of climate change. Those that could mask the effects of change include gradual improvements in warnings and emergency management (Adger et al., 2005), building regulations (Crichton, 2007), and changing lifestyles (such as the use of air conditioning), and the almost instant media coverage of any major weather extreme that may help reduce losses. In the other direction are changes that may be increasing risk, such as the movement of people in many countries to coastal areas prone to cyclones (Pompe and Rinehart, 2008) and sea level rise."
    (My emphasis) Note that the assumption of constant vulnerability is known to be false. Modern houses are more resistant to wind damage than older houses. Areas vulnerable to flood or drought in the past are now less so because of the construction of dams, and so on. Because the total impact of these measures is hard to quantify, it is not known whether normalized losses if adjusted for changes in vulnerability would be rising or falling; and it is certainly not known with any statistical confidence which direction the trend is. What that means is that it is still a matter of scientific debate whether overall losses have increased in part due to global warming. That is, however, a far cry from Pielke Jnr's attempt to close out the debate. (Note: There have been several recent extreme events which resulted in very large losses and in which the extremity of the events is clearly attributable to global warming. However, it is also possible that events causing losses have been reduced in impact or frequency by global warming so that overall global warming has had no net impact, or has reduced losses. Therefore I do not consider those events germaine to assessing Pielke Jnr's claim as such - although he could easily be interpreted as denying even the existence of those events, or the scientific attribution of their intensity to global warming.)
  34. Philippe Chantreau at 09:14 AM on 16 August 2012
    Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    Lots of hooplah for very little subtance, really: Field's testimony is consistent wth the existing litterature, including the SREX report. Dr Pielke Jr's representation of field's testimony is inaccurate. Christy's testimony is not consistent with the existing scientific litterature. No evidence has been brought to contradict any of these points in the OP.
  35. Students sprout creative communications on climate change Inside the Greenhouse
    As a native Coloradan, with family ties to UC-B that date to the turn of the 20th century, I'm proud of the work UC-B has done, and is doing in support of this critical issue. I've followed along, best I can (with my "inside contacts up at UC-B!) and I'm ~thrilled~ to read of your work. good luck, and I hope to see lots more of your posts on SkS!
  36. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    -83-rojimboo Thanks for your interest in The Climate Fix ... a few replies on your comments: (-Snip-) Thanks!
    Moderator Response: [DB] Off-topic response to off-topic snipped.
  37. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    dana1981 @84 - You are correct. I should not have assumed so. The alternative just seemed so improbable.
  38. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    rojimboo @83 - while I agree that the confusion seems to boil down to an issue of reading comprehension, I don't think it's fair to accuse Pielke Jr. of "intentionally misunderstanding" Field's testimony. It's entirely possible that the misunderstanding boils down to careless reading - seeing the monetary value, seeing the reference to climate change and disasters, and incorrectly assuming the latter are being linked to the former. Regardless of the reason, the point stands that Pielke is misreading/misinterpreting Field's comments, which as we have noted many times now, are consistent with the body of scientific literature.
  39. Book review: Language Intelligence by Joe Romm
    I just would like to say a word or two from a layperson's view. But before I start. First, you, scientists can not compromise science when you talk science and explain. We do know and expect scientists talk weired. I agree 100% with KevinC "Beyond that, it gets messy. The problem with communicating in metaphor is that metaphors can only be pushed so far. If you give your audience a partial understanding of a system based on a metaphor, you also give them the tools to reach wrong conclusions on the basis of that incomplete understanding. That's a tough problem. I'm not saying don't use metaphor (indeed arguably all of science is an exercise in metaphor), but that doing requires care - it can backfire." Thus my original idea of cultivate more sarogates in the public here. However, I must add that 'metaphors' are not an explaination. It is actually asking you to acknowledge the obious. It just makes it easier for us or me to (mis)understand it. I tend to use analogies in my life around me to see what becasue this science things are not easy or familier thing to understand it. So I have to resort to everday analogy even though I'd know it's not exactly the same. What else should I do? Would I have to take a lesson on the net? That is why they use it. What you have to understand is 'why' and 'how' do they use their metaphors and rhetorics, their basic premisses and logic for them, misunderstandings. For example, they say "Why greenland is called Greenland?". What they mean is that it was warm before even Greenland was green once. But if you relpy by saying "Oh, it was a viking named Rick the red once named it so becasue .... " But, but that's not gonna do it. It just becomes he says and you say. Both are not on the same premise nor logic. they apeal to my intuition and you apeal to my understanding of history. What if I don't remember? They'd just keep repeating it. I'd say "Why Iceland is called Iceland, then?". Now both are on the same illogical premise and would give the 3rd party, the public to rethink their basic logic and hopefully would be willing to listen to real scientific explainations. By the way the 3rd party, the majory of the public is the one you'd have to explain not the sceptics. One more thing about 'rhetric' and 'metaphore' or using big words is that they prey on people's vanity, pride, fear of embarassment(and lack of knowledge). They always dance around it. Idea is they don't give you a chance to think for ourselves. We'd rather keep our pride, vanity. My point is that you don't have to or necessary to use it but you should understand why and how we, I tend to fall into their rhetrics and metaphores. You could explain it if you understood how we, I misunderstood it. Oh, one more thing, you'd have to be careful when you use everyday words like, "warm water from equator is cooled when it reaches the poles" or "Heat is lost (or leaked) when ... " something like that. I tend to hink "lost" "leak" "cooled" mean heat is gone, gone for ever. Then I ask myself "Huh?", am utterly confused after I read some of your stuff. As for Lady Gaga, I don't care for her, I'm too old but I think she speaks young people's language. I don't think it's something to do with rhetrics. Just my 2 cents.
  40. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    At the risk of repetition, I really believe this a simple exercise in reading comprehension, exemplified by Roger Pielke Jr's first point on his blog regarding Field's testimony: "1. On the economic costs of disasters: Field: "As the US copes with the aftermath of last year’s record-breaking series of 14 billion-dollar climate-related disasters and this year’s massive wildfires and storms, it is critical to understand that the link between climate change and the kinds of extremes that lead to disasters is clear." What the IPCC actually said: "There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change" Field's assertion that the link between climate change and disasters "is clear," which he supported with reference to US "billion dollar" economic losses, is in reality scientifically unsupported by the IPCC. " Either one believes Field is using his monetary example to support an assertation that there is a link between financial loss and climate change (which he never asserts, so I assume we must somehow infer this, because they happen to be in the same sentence), or he sets the contemporary scene in terms of recent events and the resulting financial loss, and then explains there is evidence of climate change and extreme events. I have to say, based on point 1 alone, it is clear that the blogger must be (Snip-) Field's testimony, and as a consequence throw the rest of his analysis into question as it is very clear Field NEVER asserts the first position that RPjr accuses him of. You may possibly accuse Field of misleading the public with such a statement, if the public in question is quick to jump to conclusions and infer things the speaker does not say. (-Snip-)
    Moderator Response: [DB] Off-topic snipped. Caution is given regarding speculated intent (cf Comments Policy), which was also snipped.
  41. The Continuing Denial of the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
    Another one is American Institute of Professional Geologists, whose tagline is "competence, integrity, ethics." Read pp.78-81 of the PDF @ Fake science, .... basically, a subgroup got their information from Heartland, synthesized it, passed it to legislators. The effort's leader got an award from the national organization.
  42. Hansen's New Climate Dice - Hot, Loaded, and Misunderstood
    Followup on Tamino hypothesis: The increase in variation is even more apparent, if you look at the seasonal records, as was done in the first graph by Hansen. The NH mid-latitudes have cooled appreciably in the last 22 years in the NH winters. The cooling appears to be due to prolonged cold spells due to blocking events in the jet stream. If you remove the NH mid-latitude winter cooling from the records, the warming over the rest of the globe over the rest of the year, climbs over 0.20 deg C per decade, and the NH mid-latitude lands (where a lot of people live) are heated up by over 0.60 deg C per decade since 1979. In fact, the 3-season heating in the mid-latitude lands was so strong, it pushed the entire NH heating rate to about 0.40 deg C per decade during the spring, summer, and fall (See Cohen et. al. 2012, "Asymmetric seasonal temperature trends", Figure 3). The models have been spot on predicting the warming trend in the NH for these seasons, but blown the winter prediction (Figure 4). This information quite effectively silences much of the "lukewarming" promoters. The problem with lukewarming is illustrated by a comment of mine on another site: …
    Notice that even when we dilute the heat waves and cold waves across the entire NH mid-latitudes, the seasonal trends still show up. Only the NH winter mid-latitudes are heating less than forecast from the climate models. (and there seems to be a very good reason for that… think Arctic ice pack and NH snow cover). Now, most people would say, winters are currently getting colder with lots of cold spells, and summers are getting hotter with lots of heat waves, that ain't good! But not this site. Nah! That's just Lukewarming! (psst… wanna buy a mug?) After all, the chances the heating trend observed in the US over the last 13 months was a whopping 1 in 10, (oops, or maybe 1 in a 100,000… but not to worry, its clearly not one in a million or so!) Now most people who have one arm in a freezer, and their legs and other arm in an oven, would think there is a problem. But nope. According to this site, their average temperature is only rising 0.13 deg C per decade, instead of 0.20 deg C per decade, so its just Lukewarming! And the Midwestern farmers watch their fields die in the heat and drought. What can we tell them? You know: Its just Lukewarming! The uneven heating and variation is hiding a lot of useful, and worrying, information.
    Moderator Response: [Sph] <blockquote> added for clarity.
  43. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    Okay, so there you have it from Roger Pielke, Jr. himself. He misrepresented (as clearly evidenced by the original post) what Field said in Congressional testimony, and now he is unable/unwilling to defend his own statements in that regard. If anyone is able to find any quote from Field's testimony that gives some insight as to how Dr. Pielke might have so misunderstood what was said as to publicly charge him with malfeasance in Congressional testimony, I'd certainly be interested in seeing it. [I'm sorry, but to me this -- the public admonishment of a professional giving testimony before Congress -- is not an area where we should "agree to disagree." That is an unacceptable outcome to the discussion, and I am very disappointed that it is merely being left where it stands -- unresolved, but clearly a poor reflection on Dr. Pielke's interpretation of events.]
  44. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    -8-dana1981 Thanks, on the science we appear to agree. We shall simply have to agree to disagree on Field's representation of the science in his testimony. It is always a good political strategy in Congressional testimony to leave enough ambiguity such that people can hear what they want ;-) (That last comment is tongue-in-cheek) Until next time ...
  45. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    Essentially repeating the content of the above post (and I agree with Sphaerica @79): Linking climate-induced extreme weather to changes in economic losses is a difficult proposition, and as I understand we cannot yet definitively make that link. I'm not sure how this is relevant, since Field did not claim otherwise. However, as Field correctly noted, there are many types of extreme weather events whose increasing long-term trends have been linked to climate change. While the USA has been fortunate not to see more frequent droughts up to this point, that luck has likely ended (see Dai and SREX). While Field accurately described the body of scientific evidence, John Christy's testimony in the same hearing was grossly inaccurate.
  46. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    -79-Sphaerica thanks ... While I appreciate the interest in a further exegesis of Field's testimony, the specific issue that you raise has been well dealt with over at my blog, so I point you there: http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2012/08/ipcc-lead-author-misleads-us-congress.html?showComment=1343917020804#c5632425002505277530 So, given that lengthy discussion, when I say I have no interest in further parsing those comments, I hope you will appreciate that. Arguments have been presented on both sides, and I am satisfied that my views have been well presented. So, I will restrict my further comments here to science. Thanks!
  47. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    RogerPielkeJr, The original post here at SkS was clear in saying (emphasis added):
    When Field accurately describes the SREX findings about extreme weather hazards, Pielke Jr. misrepresents it as a claim about financial losses
    You responded in the comments here by saying (emphasis added):
    4. Asserting that the role of climate change in hurricane disasters ($$) is "mixed" 5. Implying that the role in climate change in flooding disasters ($$) is increasing
    Dana has responded by saying (emphasis revised):
    To be clear, it's probably true that the SREX doesn't say what you claim Field said. The problem is, as we showed in this post, Field didn't say what you claim he said.
    It is clear to me from this exchange, and I think to anyone reading it, that you do continue to not merely ignore but also reinforce the claim of the original post, that you have misrepresented what Field said and argue against a strawman (what you claim he said, not what he said). Please address this one issue directly and clearly. It can be done in one simple way. Provide a quote, with context as necessary, from Field's testimony which unequivocally supports your contention.
  48. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    -76-dana1981 Good, sounds then like we agree on the science, specifically the follow conclusions associated with IPCC SREX: 1. Linking human-caused climate change to economic disasters via extremes is not scientifically supportable 2. The US has seen a long-term decline in (midwestern) drought 3. Citing the NOAA billion-dollar disasters is a scientifically unsupportable to claim anything to do with long-term changes in climate 4. The role of climate change in hurricane disasters ($$) is not detectable 5. The role in climate change in flooding disasters ($$) is not detectable Let us please leave aside whether Field stated or implied anything to the contrary of these five, people can well look at his testimony and decide that for themselves (here: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=fe138741-9ce8-4444-9912-c2004ae9e955) If we agree on the science underlying these five statements, then this has been a productive visit. Thanks!
  49. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    Roger, again I remind you that your points #1-5 are strawmen. I don't know who your beef is with, but it's clearly not with Field. What Field said was accurate, and you're still arguing that nobody has addressed the discrepancy between the SREX and your charicature of Field. To be clear, it's probably true that the SREX doesn't say what you claim Field said. The problem is, as we showed in this post, Field didn't say what you claim he said. We have demonstrated that Field's testimony (i.e. what he actually said) is supported by the scientific literature. You have yet to provide any evidence to the contrary.
  50. Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
    -74-dana1981 Thanks ... of the five papers that you cite in the post above, four were in fact reviewed by the IPCC SREX (Pall, Min, Dai, Zwiers), thus have been determined to be consistent with the findings of that report as judged by its contributors all the way through the SPM. So citing them as a defense of Field's deviation from SREX won't work. In any case the four papers have nothing whatsoever to do with the points 1-5 that I summarized in #72 above. The fifth paper that you cite Coumou and Rahmstorf, is not cited by IPCC SREX, so it is properly post-SREX, however, it has nothing to do with the 5 points that I raised in #72 above. In any case, Field cites none of these five papers you bring to his defense to make any of his points. He does however cite 2 NOAA websites plus 3 post-SREX papers from the recent BAMS special issue on attribution. But again, neither of the NOAA press releases nor the BAMS special issue speaks to the science underlying the five points that I list in #72. [off-topic snipped] Is there post-SREX literature which justifies overturning findings of the IPCC SREX as described in the five points listed in #72 above? Either there is or their isn't. MacCrcken argued the former (i.e., SREX is outdated by new science), which I think is unsupportable (maybe if he accepts your invitation to participate here he can point to that post-SREX literature that he alluded to but did not cite). If it is the latter then you will have to argue that the SREX got things wrong, which is always possible. Either way, to make your scientific argument, you will need to discuss post-SREX literature. [off-topic snipped] Thanks!
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Please can everybody keep to the science and avoid any further complaints about the nature and/or tone of the discussion, which are off-topic and potentially inflammatory. Please leave enforcing the comments policy to the moderators.

Prev  1105  1106  1107  1108  1109  1110  1111  1112  1113  1114  1115  1116  1117  1118  1119  1120  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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