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  1521  1522  1523  1524  1525  1526  1527  1528  1529  1530  1531  1532  1533  1534  1535  1536  Next

Comments 76401 to 76450:

  1. Stephen Baines at 02:18 AM on 26 August 2011
    Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    Apirate I think EtR is drawing a false dichotomy and invoking a double standard. We should (and do) acknowldge the influence of ENSO and other factors in the SW weather patterns. But wouldn't we be remiss if we didn't also acknowledge the likely role of warming - given that we know it is occuring? Why is mere mention of AGW with respect to record breaking temps to be avoided? That seems more like a political position than a scientific stance. Think of it this way. The La Nina just past was substantial, but not the most severe on record. The la Nina can explain a persistent pattern of drought in the SW...but it cannot explain the degree to which this summer has spawned an enourmous number of temp records, nor can it explain the disproportionate number of nighttime temp records. La Nina (and other factors) that influence weather patterns at regional scales are important. However, the the diel signature of warming and its extreme nature are perfectly consistent with a role of global warming, distinct from La Nina.
  2. A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
    I do not think it as at all inappropriate to refer to those who oppose mainstream climatology on AGW as 'deniers' or even 'denialists' as long as it can be shown that they are: - in the first case, engaged in denying a phenomenon which has ample evidentiary support without bringing sufficient evidentiary support to their positions. - in the second case, extending this denial into a systematic misrepresentation of the evidence. The attempt to take offence at this terminology by drawing attention to Holocaust denial is a red herring.
  3. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    Great article idea. I think this may have been mentioned before, but I bet getting rid of fossil fuel subsidies would be palatable to all political stripes, in the USA at least. Other than that small effort, the conservative/libertarian minds at the highest levels of government have had decades to think about the answer to this policy question. If they haven't come up with anything but attacks on the science yet, it is unlikely they will ever come up with a solution. Business as usual along with repealing environmental and utility regulations seems to be their solution. Apparently, the market can solve the global warming issue if we just wait and see it perform its magic. This may conflict a bit with the point of the article, but I feel like the radicals among the conservative/libertarians ought to be ignored in the policy debate. They had their chance already. Outreach to the uninformed middle ground folks and moderate conservatives ought to be top priority. If an information campaign were successful, many of the moderates will see the kooky nature of conservative climate science denial. With enough people firmly established in the science and its implications for our society/economy, denialism will be increasingly viewed in the public eye as fringe. I say converting hardcore deniers directly is probably not as efficient as outnumbering them. A three prong campaign to inform the reasonable middle ground, keep the disinformation in check, and move forward with solutions such as an equitable carbon tax seems to be the best overall strategy to me.
  4. apiratelooksat50 at 01:33 AM on 26 August 2011
    Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    EtR at 38 "The Texas heatwave is generally blamed on the strong La Nina. Passing it off as AGW influenced is the type of misinformation that is causing people to distrust climate scientists, as shwon in the previously posted polls." Darn good point.
  5. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    Paul D wrote: "Statistically if they (politicians) all studied the science and came to their own conclusions, you would get some Democrats being skeptic and some Republicans pro AGW." That would only be true if there were some science which supported a position skeptical of AGW. There isn't. Indeed, by the same reasoning we should see Democratic politicians who deny evolution... rather than that too being a purely Republican position. In 'news' and politics there often seems to be a search for false 'balance' even on issues which are entirely one sided.
  6. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    Dana@17 said: "no, there aren't any prominent Democratic politicians who are climate "skeptics"." Statistically if they (politicians) all studied the science and came to their own conclusions, you would get some Democrats being skeptic and some Republicans pro AGW. So the only conclusion, is that both sides are largely ignoring the science. The current situation defies science in many ways.
  7. A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
    Wow indeed. John Cook runs this site from his own pocket + donations + volunteer support. Then announces publicly he's been give a [well deserved IMHO] fellowship... and the bizarrosphere goes "Busted! SkS is a funded propaganda machine". The reality distorting force is strong a bit wishy-washy with these ones...
  8. Dikran Marsupial at 23:38 PM on 25 August 2011
    It's cosmic rays
    Sphaerica Indeed, a good example of how not to communicate is Svensmark and Calders book "The Chilling Stars", which essentially attempts to explain every change in (paleo) climate to GCR (slight over-statement there, but only slight) before the fundamental work demosntrating that GCRs actually could affect climate (nevermind whether they did). As a scientist (of sorts) I cringed reading the book, not because the theory is bad, but the lack of perspective which is potentially maximising the height of the fall they are setting themselves up for. I am always very suspicious of any paper that comes with a press release suggesting its findings are contraversial; most often such a paper either (a) doesn't actually support the message of the press release or (b) turns out to be wrong or (c) both. It is much easier to think of examples where this is true than it is for papers that actually did merit controversy.
  9. It's cosmic rays
    58, Dikran, Well said. The only thing that I would add would be that anyone should look at that study and its conclusions and from it recognize that such research is absolutely in its infancy. It is going to develop and progress as it should, but it needs to build its very foundations before it can progress to making many meaningful conclusions about effects on climate. It is not going to challenge current climate science anytime soon (which says nothing about whether it ever will or won't), and skeptics need to avoid trying to use such research, and every resulting paper which will merely represent another baby step in the process, as a debate tool to be used to provide one more "let's wait and see, we don't know enough about clouds and GCRs yet" excuse. Let it just be good science at work.
  10. Dikran Marsupial at 23:08 PM on 25 August 2011
    It's cosmic rays
    Eric, I completely agree (I try to be a good scientist, but I try to avoid talking to myself as much as possible ;o) as do the RC chaps. The really interesting thing about the CLOUD project as far as the climate debate is concerned is that it is a good example of how science and science funding actually works. Skeptic often say that government agencies will not fund their work, but CLOUD is a big project (see the number of authors) with big funding (about 12MECU IIRC), that aims to investigate the very most basic physical underpinnings of an alternative hypothesis (for which there is only the most circumstantial evidence). It also shows that skeptical hypotheses can and do result in good basic science of general interest to the research community. It also shows that the outcome of an experiment can be very interesting and useful, even if it doesn't provide much support for the working hypothesis (and hence suggest new lines of enquiry or provide support for an existing line etc). A really good experiment is one that has a 50-50 chance of corroborating or refuting an hypothesis as these are the ones that provide the most information about science (in an information theoretic sense). This means we should expect experiments to reject the working hypothesis on a regular basis (a significant minority of experiments); it shows that the research is "sharp".
  11. It's cosmic rays
    54, muoncounter, Really, I find your anti-denial of such science to be the antithesis of all that science represents. As Dorothy would tell you, anti-Em may not be the Wicked Witch of the West, but she's no Glinda the Good Witch, either. That, my friend, makes this entire topic a horse of a different anti-color. Or would that be an anti-horse? I suppose I should visit WUWT to be set straight on such issues.
  12. It's cosmic rays
    Dikran, Their experiments produced between ten and a thousand times fewer aerosol particles than found in nature, which basically means that they have not determined the cause of the aerosol formation in our atmosphere. The results were not what they hoped for in that no climatic conclusions could be drawn from their work. But as any good scientists will tell you, this study will inspire more research in the area.
  13. Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
    243, Dr. Doom,
    My simple calculation of climate sensitivity is < 1.9C. In scientific studies, the lowest estimate is 0.5C. Various studies put the lower bound at 1.5C. IPCC claims < 1.5C is unlikely. But may I add not impossible.
    This is a gross distortion of the facts. You say "various studies put the lower bound at..." but then make no mention of the median expected sensitivity, or the upper bound. It strikes me as just so much gamesmanship to be that blatantly manipulative with a presentation of the facts. "But I may add not impossible?" Meaning what, exactly? It's not impossible that I would find a million dollars on the street tomorrow. What's your point? If you want to be engaged, you must do so with more honesty. No one wants to get into the mud with someone who seems to enjoy it.
    It didn’t say whether there is a saturation CO2 concentration in the upper troposphere.
    More gamesmanship. My college chemistry text never explicitly stated that gremlins don't live in the spaces between electrons. Do I also need to worry about that? Or do scientists need to conduct multiple studies of your issues just to put your personal concerns at ease (as well as designing and building an Interspacial Gremlin Detection Apparatus to lay my own fears to rest)? But I can answer that question. Science is warning of climate change due to increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. This, by fairly simple logic, leads one to the obvious conclusion that CO2 in the upper troposphere is not saturated, and will not be in the near future, because if that were the case no climate change would occur. No explicit statement statement to that effect is necessary. There are also myriad paleoclimate studies (see here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and just about every paper that you bother to look at here) that demonstrate that CO2 levels have been much, much higher in the past (by a whole order of magnitude), along with global mean temperatures, further evidence that if there is a saturation point, we're currently nowhere near it.
    But if there is a clear cut answer, scientists should say that CO2 saturation is physically impossible.
    Why? Who cares? The point is that it's not saturated, we're increasing CO2 levels, and it's dangerous. Your questions appear to be only so much "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" speculation, of no value to anyone attempting to understand the relevant science. Make a valid point, or pose a worthy question. The positions you've presented appear to be distractions with no merit whatsoever.
  14. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    EtR#38: If OPEC/big oil was the concern, then where is the support for 'cheap, reliable American coal'? What happened to all those 'clean coal' TV ads? Banished to the SciFi channel? "Gerrymandering has create many districts which push towards both extremes" You have the process exactly backwards; redistricting is done by the party in control of the state legislatures. Extremists win local elections, take control of state houses (look at Wisconsin, for example) then redraw the electoral maps to suit their candidates - and that can win a presidential election (see: Tom Delay). "generally blamed on the strong La Nina." Off-topic; but not so much any longer. You're forgetting the hallmark of this heatwave: nighttime cooling isn't getting the job done; that's not an elNi/laNa effect - but it is a greenhouse symptom.
  15. OA not OK part 19: SUMMARY 1/2
    Nice summary, Doug, but I have two remarks: In figure 2 – Carbon reservoirs – shouldn’t the change in atmospheric carbon since the industrial revolution be +40 percents instead of +21 percents? And in your last sentence: "However, the amount of released fossil fuel CO2 is less than the amount of extra CO2 that is currently in the atmosphere." I guess it should be: "However, the amount of extra CO2 that is currently in the atmosphere is less than the amount of released fossil fuel CO2."
  16. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    Scaddenp, What technological solutions do you feel are available, or could be made available in the next decade to reduce the consumption of either coal or oil? Political posturing aside, which technologies have the potential to be implemented?
  17. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    Muon, I still disagree that the polls are indicating confusing among the general population. Belief in global warming is but one reason to support government investment in alternate energy. Energy independence from OPEC and the big oil companies or cheap alternatives to rising oil prices are some others. I do not trust the politicians or bureaucrats on either side of the debate when it comes to scientific understanding, and I do not believe that most other people do either (although I have heard people claim it is so because they heard it from whomever). Yes, Obama is moving towards the center. The polls show similar thinking from the moderate camp of each party through the independents in the center. Those outside this area will find difficult running come election time. Both Conservative Republicans and Liberal Democrats are outside this area and unless their constituents feel likewise, have election night struggles. Gerrymandering has create many districts which push towards both extremes allowing many of the politicians to get elected. The Texas heatwave is generally blamed on the strong La Nina. Passing it off as AGW influenced is the type of misinformation that is causing people to distrust climate scientists, as shwon in the previously posted polls.
  18. Dikran Marsupial at 21:47 PM on 25 August 2011
    Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
    Dr Doom Point #1 Full equilibrium temperature is only reached after the thermal inertia of the oceans is achieved. That takes thousands of years. The estimate given by Schwartz is for short term perturbations of the climate system, e.g. due to volcanic eruptions, not long term changes in forcings due to e.g. a rise in atmospheric CO2. Schwartz certainly is not ignorant, but your interpretation of his work is clearly incorrect (further discussion of Schwartz' work belongs on the thread I linked to above). Your calculation may be in the range considered plausible by the scientific community, however the method used to obtain the estimate was based on faulty assumptions, as explained earlier in the thread. The fact that your result is plausible doesnt correct the error in the reasoning. In science it is not enough to get the answer right, the chain of reasoning by which it was obtained and the assumptions used must also be valid. Point #2 the fact that dy/dx tends to 0 as x tends to infnity does not imply that there is a meaningful limit to CO2 radiative forcing, at least not one that has any bearing on a discussion of climate. Point #3, as I have already explained, CO2 radiative forcing does not saturate, no logarithmic function saturates because as dy/dx tends to zero as x tends to infinity, at that point y tends to infinity. So if you really insist, you could say that a logarithmic relationship saturates at infinity. You write: "If there is, what is the limit?" I have told you repeatedly that there is no limit, other than the trivial limit you will get when the atmosphere is 100% CO2 and contains all of the available carbon and oxygen on the planet.
  19. A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
    100, les, Wow. I knew Motl was wrong on the science, but I didn't know he lived in such an angry bizarro opposite-world. He says (I still can't believe it... my fingers feel dirty just having done the copy/paste):
    So I started to maintain a list with names of the most notorious alarmists and the number of years they should spend in prison (not to speak about the separate "electric chair" list). You're encouraged to do the same thing.
    Anyone who can't see the difference between the post here at SkS and that sort of behavior needs a major perspective adjustment.
  20. Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
    # 243: "There is not enough time in the 2oth century to attain equilibrium sensitivity. 100 years are not enough?" Riddle me this: Is the atmospheric CO2 concentration in equilibrium? Has it stopped increasing? Therein lies your answer.
  21. A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
    55 Tom Curtis - "This is a witch hunt." Just for everyone's amusement, from the Dept. of fact-twisting... http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/08/john-cook-will-receive-lots-of-money.html
  22. Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
    I stopped reading the comments because the personal references continue. I’m not the subject of this blog so my knowledge or ignorance is irrelevant. What matters is the explanation why an argument is right or wrong. Point #1 There is not enough time in the 2oth century to attain equilibrium sensitivity. 100 years are not enough? If you start at the end of 20th century up to present, that’s 11 years. Still not enough? Mind you, Schwartz initially estimated the time constant at 5 years. Later he adjusted it to 8.5 years. Other estimates are 15 to 17 years. All are below 100 years. Are they all ignorant? My simple calculation of climate sensitivity is < 1.9C. In scientific studies, the lowest estimate is 0.5C. Various studies put the lower bound at 1.5C. IPCC claims < 1.5C is unlikely. But may I add not impossible. Gregory put it at 1.6C with 90% confidence level. Schwartz put it at 1.9C plus or minus 1.0C. Right smack my simple calculation. All these figures are within my estimate. Are they all ignorant? Point #2 As already demonstrated, a logarithmic function indeed as a limit of zero on dy/dx. Do you still need proof that this is true? Point #3 Is the CO2 effect saturated? Clearly my answer is no. Or else I wouldn’t be computing the CO2 sensitivity. I would have just said it’s futile because the sensitivity is zero. You misunderstood my point. My question was, is there a saturation effect as implied by the CO2 sensitivity which is logarithmic? Obviously it is not saturated now but will it ever be? If there is no such thing, dy/dx should not converge to zero. It should not be a logarithmic function. Let’s develop a non-logarithmic function. Hulburt did not falsify the CO2 saturation hypothesis. To quote this website: “the details of the absorption in the lower troposphere do not matter since heat "is spread around and transferred upward by convection". In other words, what govern the energy balance of the earth is the radiative balance in the upper troposphere and CO2 concentration there does matter.” So it’s the CO2 concentration in the upper troposphere that matters, not the lower troposphere. It didn’t say whether there is a saturation CO2 concentration in the upper troposphere. Definitely there is less CO2 molecules in upper than in lower troposphere. But if there is a clear cut answer, scientists should say that CO2 saturation is physically impossible. If so, it means CO2 can absorb more than the solar flux of 342 W/m^2. There is no limit. Not even by the finite solar energy. If there is, what is the limit? For those who wish to reply, please no more personal references of “ignorance” or whatever positive or negative personal attributes. Just address the arguments. Don’t be too defensive, I’m not trying to falsify AGW. I’m just interested in climate science.
    Response:

    [DB] Playing the "injured bird" routine just smacks of tone troll.  DM aready went this route with you, so please just focus on the science.

    Ignoring previous comments due to the perceived tone is specious.

  23. actually thoughtful at 16:59 PM on 25 August 2011
    Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    Eric the red - can you provide an example of thinking for themselves amongst those who are denying climate change? I assume we can rule out those that parrot the mindless talking points of the radio hosts. "Thinking for themselves" implies critical thinking. I am at a loss to come up with a widely accepted denier position that includes critical thinking; indeed it would appear most denier positions require a lack of critical thinking (take a look around this site for examples). There are certainly a few issues where more research is required (ocean heat content, my old favorite, for one). But were is that nuanced, critical thought and position amongst the right in the US? To my eyes it has been in steep decline for the last 10 years or so. The election of Bush (and rejection of Al Gore) seemed to mark an inflection point where the right began to support some pretty major departures from fact based science to form their worldview.
  24. actually thoughtful at 16:53 PM on 25 August 2011
    Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    I find it highly ironic that Texas is suffering from an AGW influenced heat wave (as in loss of life, loss of business, agriculture losses) - as in SUFFERING. Yet the leader of that state is the biggest shill for it is not happening. Does he not know what state he represents?
  25. Climate Skeptic Fool's Gold
    BTW, I emailed Gavin Schmidt suggesting a short feature at realclimate on this footnote in science history. I make the same request here. Ray Sorenson has replied to an email from me laying out a little detail as to how he came across the entry in Annual of Scientific Discovery, and another interesting item regarding a near-simultaneous discovery of the heat absorbing properties of CO2 by another researcher (1863). I've asked for permission to reproduce portions of the email and provided him a link to this thread. I'll update here if he has any issues with this.
  26. OA not OK part 6: Always take the weathering

    second summary post

  27. OA not OK part 6: Always take the weathering
    @rjowens: Please clarify your point. From the post above:
    But, as we shall see in later posts, when atmospheric CO2 is high then more acidic rain causes more weathering and that consumes CO2 to lower the atmospheric CO2. Only problem is that this happens over a geological time scale.
  28. OA not OK part 18: Been this way before

    second summary post

  29. OA not OK part 17: Pumping currents

    second summary post

  30. OA not OK part 16: Omega

    second summary post

  31. OA not OK part 15: No accounting for taste

    second summary post

  32. OA not OK part 14: Going down

    second summary post

  33. OA not OK part 13: Polymorphs - the son of Poseidon

    second summary post

  34. OA not OK part 12: Christmas present

    second summary post

  35. OA not OK part 11: Did we do it? Yes we did!

    second summary post

  36. OA not OK part 7: Le Chatelier not good enough for ocean acidification

    second summary post

  37. OA not OK part 8: 170 to 1

    second summary post

  38. OA not OK part 9: Henry the 8th I was (*)

    second summary post

  39. OA not OK part 10: Is the ocean blowing bubbles?

    second summary post

  40. OA not OK part 1

    second summary post

  41. OA not OK part 2: Thermodynamic duo

    second summary post

  42. OA not OK part 3: Wherever I lay my shell, that's my home

    second summary post

  43. OA not OK part 4: The f-word: pH

    second summary post

  44. OA not OK part 5: Reservoir dogs

    second summary post

  45. Ocean acidification: Coming soon

    second summary post

  46. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    Camburn, sorry for hammering the point, but I am perfectly convinced that there are technological solutions of all sort. The problem is a political solution to get the change to happen. Sometime in the next 30 years, constraints on oil production are going to give sufficient price signal to change that. However, at the moment, the price of power from coal reflects only production cost (which are subsidized to boot) and there is a lot of coal left. If a government wants an end to coal, how would it change that? Don't say "support nuclear" - what support for nuclear that is compatible with your political values, would cause nuclear stations to be built instead of coal ones?
  47. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    OK. I used to be an advocate of wind, but experience with a wind farm has shown the realiability of wind at peak power need does not fit the bill. Soloar is much the same. When I think of solutions, I think of solutions that are reliable, will provide electricity on demand. I also look at cost. With wind, you have to have another generation system as backup. This is duplication of costs, and not an effective utilization of precious resources. The same applies for solar, altho to a less extent. I do feel there are areas of the world that solar would work well with little redundancy. When I say economics, I think of mankind as a whole. There are millions of people who have not enough food, no work, limitied ability to expand economically. Lifespan is short, life is hard. By using current tech, reliable tech, we will have enough resources to expand eocnomicially for the good of all mankind. As far as fossil fuel consumption for transportation, the swing to more economical cars is evident in the sales of said cars. They should all be diesel as well as that internal combustion engine is much more efficent than a comparable gas engine, and hence, produces less co2 and pollution per gallon of energy consumed. At this time, I can see no practicle alternatives to large horsepower requirements being met with elec or such. If someone knows of one, I am all ears. Innovation is also something that comes over time. Right now I am trying to get a grad student to do an economic analysis of using wind generated elec to produce h, and then to produce nitrogen for crops. This would be better than using ch4, but at this time I do not know the economics of this. To me, as an idea, this is well suited for wind as the generation requirement does not have to be 24/7. It is taking wind, producing a produce that is currently produced from natural gas, and producing it from water, wind, etc with no detrimental environmental effects. Might sound crazy, but it might work as well as N, which is required for crops, is getting extemelty expensive. Tired, as I am harvesting. Thanks for reading.
  48. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    EtR#33: "both the conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats are separate from the general populace, which is fairly consistent." The question here is not R vs. D; the question here is identifying what the general population of Rs say they believe vs. what their candidates are pushing at them. You say politicians listen to the polls; it's not happening. If anything, the R candidates are driving each other into increasingly radical positions; surely you are not saying that the general population of Rs is driving that? And of course, you miss the fact that President Obama keeps moving towards the center. "polls are saying that they are separate issues among the voters." Polls are saying that Rs are confused. They say they don't believe in AGW, but they support government investment in alternative energies. Their leaders would take solar panels off the White House (oh, they already did that one). "I don't not think they are being misled by those they trust" So do you trust Limbaug, Beck, Bachmann and Palin? Enough to go all-in with the climate hanging in the balance? But 'thinking'? Based on the repetition of the talking points by Rs whenever possible, there's no evidence of any thinking. Thinking is hard work.
  49. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    If the quotes are examples of their "thinking" then God help you if one these clowns become president. They are examples of ignoring evidence and going with what you hope is true. WoMD anyone? In what areas of public policy is this not going to be a disaster?
  50. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    Muon, Your poll regarding Republicans is only ten percentage points higher than the general populace (62% vs. 52%). One could assume that Democrats are ~42%, which is a difference of 20 percentage points, and similar to other polls. As I mentioned earlier, both the conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats are separate from the general populace, which is fairly consistent. You are constantly trying to tie energy efficiency to global warming and the political parties. This is why you see it as inconsistent. The polls are saying that they are separate issues among the voters. Contrary to Bern's assertion, I don't not think they are being misled by those they trust, but rather thinking for themselves.

Prev  1521  1522  1523  1524  1525  1526  1527  1528  1529  1530  1531  1532  1533  1534  1535  1536  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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