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  1902  1903  1904  1905  1906  1907  1908  1909  1910  1911  1912  1913  1914  1915  1916  1917  Next

Comments 95451 to 95500:

  1. Meet The Denominator
    That is the problem, it is not so simple as you reach data point A. It is whether we can adapt to point A. so far I have seen no evidence that we cannot. But how do you know whether you are right or not? Can your believe be falsified? So far you are carefully avoiding any way in which your beliefs can be shown to be false. By contrast, climate science throws up a large no. of predictions by which falsification is possible. It seems your beliefs appear to be routed in something other data and constructed to avoid falsification. I've finished wasting my time.
  2. Meet The Denominator
    PT: "This is a value judgment so what someone considers 'strong' or 'weak' is going to be subjective. In regards to my list, yes I believe it is strong evidence against AGW Alarm." So in your view, the fact that one can find 850 papers that can be construed to support the skeptical position constitutes strong evidence. Good to know, I'll get you some smoking and lung cancer links tomorrow and expect you to go on the attack against the unfairly declared lung cancer-smoking "consensus." Never mind the context of the orders of magnitude more articles supporting the consensus, 850 is strong evidence! Somehow your logic reminds of a certain superstar: Nigel Tufnel: The numbers all go to eleven. Look, right across the board, eleven, eleven, eleven and... Marty DiBergi: Oh, I see. And most amps go up to ten? Nigel Tufnel: Exactly. Marty DiBergi: Does that mean it's louder? Is it any louder? Nigel Tufnel: Well, it's one louder, isn't it? It's not ten. You see, most blokes, you know, will be playing at ten. You're on ten here, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up, you're on ten on your guitar. Where can you go from there? Where? Marty DiBergi: I don't know. Nigel Tufnel: Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is, if we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do? Marty DiBergi: Put it up to eleven. Nigel Tufnel: Eleven. Exactly. One louder.
  3. Meet The Denominator
    The small group of alarmist scientists is not the "scientific community". Sorry, but the lack of take-up of "science" in those journals (not to mention the relative readership) is the judgement of the science community. The tiny group of non-science reality-deniers publishing in E&E is the minority group. This is not the definition of peer-review, I am perfectly aware of the definition. I was telling you what is meant by peer-review in science. You can quote dictionary definitions till you are blue in the face, but that is what is the "peer-review" is short-hand for in science whether you like or not. Citations are a determination of popularity not scientific validity. Citations are the indication that a paper has been worthwhile and more science has been built on it. Nonsense papers are just forgotten. Its not a perfect measure but its light-years ahead of your list.
    Moderator Response: [DB] Phil, to close an html tag, the slash must precede the letter. Thanks!
  4. A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
    11: RSVP: "What makes you think "contrarians" aren't in favor of global warming?" Clearly no one can assert or deny that either way. For "contrarians" point of view, we always have the choice of: - Nothing's happening - It's warming (not due to human action), but not by enough to worry about. - It's warming (not due to human action), but it's good - It's warming (due to human action), but not by enough to worry about. - It's warming (due to human action), but it's good - It's cooling (not due to human action), etc. etc. (That's not to say that all projections from the real world are in total agreement, of course not, but they vary by degree and technical detail)
  5. Dikran Marsupial at 20:01 PM on 16 February 2011
    A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
    RSVP@11 wrote "I am sure deep down there are "hundreds of millions of people" who wouldnt mind seeing some changes in their lives,... and more likely than not, the well-to-do who do not." That is very unlikely to be correct. The well-to-do are unlikely to be substantially bothered by the direct effects of warming - they have the resources to adapt. However, there are billions living at subsistence level around the world who have difficulty providing enough food for themselves; any disruption to food supply as existing agricultural methods become unviable will cause a big problem, as they don't have the resources to adapt. You have it entirely the wrong way round. If you were a Bangladeshi, I suspect you might not be that keen on a bit of warming and an increase in sea level. "Why are we just gawking at the ice melt, and not spending money on preparing for "the worst"? " In short because of politics. Science can demonstrate there is a problem that needs attention, and suggest solutions. Action however depends on politics, and when was raising taxes ever a vote winner with the electorate? However, this is not the thread (or perhaps the site) for that discussion
  6. A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
    RSVP: I don't know where you live, but in the UK there are plans being drawn up to cope with initial changes (unless emissions are cut then long term changes are not defendable against). Most large companies, organisations, authorities etc, have been required to produce climate adaptation plans. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12302555 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12384389
  7. A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
    Contrarians claim Arctic sea ice has “recovered” What makes you think "contrarians" aren't in favor of global warming? ...as if one must not only believe warming is real, but that it can only bring negative consequences. I am sure deep down there are "hundreds of millions of people" who wouldnt mind seeing some changes in their lives,... and more likely than not, the well-to-do who do not. In any event, since we seem to have fair warning here, (out to 50 years or so), when exactly should society begin backing away for coast lines and building dikes? Supposedly, even if we stop burning fossil fuels the warming is suppose to continue since "equilibrium" hasnt been reached yet. Why are we just gawking at the ice melt, and not spending money on preparing for "the worst"?
  8. Meet The Denominator
    ^ Ron, not Rob. Sorry.
  9. Meet The Denominator
    "I would find alarming something we are unable to adapt to that would result in the loss of innocent life." I don't think that's exactly what Rob was asking? Anyway, that's quite a leap from the way you defined 'alarming' in relation to your list, in which case any remotely bad consequence of AGW was considered alarming.
  10. PMEL Carbon Program: a new resource
    Rick G @16 - not really the same argument, although the logical fallacy is similar.
  11. PMEL Carbon Program: a new resource
    guinganbresil - "On coastal upwelling see Feely et al 2008" Yup, marine scientists are well aware that ocean pH is not homogeneous, and that there are regions of upwelling. Note the flux of CO2 to and from the ocean surface from this NOAA PMEL graph: You still haven't explained your novel mechanism, in fact you continue to evade the question, dancing around the issue . How does the ocean become acidified if not from fossil fuel emissions?. Remember those graphs of total DIC in the ocean you posted at comment Nos.7 & 10.?. Where's that extra carbon coming from?. You understand it has to be coming from outside the oceans right?. See what I mean about coherence?. guinganbresil - .....are playing fast and loose with the facts. Typed, no doubt, without the slightest inkling of self-awareness.
  12. A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
    So, Daniel, does a doubling of Greenland and Antarctic ice mass loss every 5 years mean 4x current rate of loss in a decade? 16x in 20 years? 64 times the current rate of loss in 30 years? (I'll be dead then, my grandchildren should be at the start of their life careers then) 256 times in 2 score years? What would that do to the "small" ratio of loss in a mere two score years, Peter?
  13. Meet The Denominator
    Just out of personal interest PT (I assume this is Andrew), and perhaps you'll think it an odd question, but just what exactly would it take to change your mind? What would really convince you? I gotta ask here cause I'm sure you wouldn't let me ask you on your blog.
  14. Meet The Denominator
    #423 PT "I have made not made any comments to that topic." Both!!
  15. Meet The Denominator
    Well I cannot find the comment policy on your site so I'll have to take your word for it. I thought my unpublished comment characterised the two best challenges to your objection to Rob's post that have been made in the previous 400 and whatever posts: Firstly, that if one were sufficiently patient one could break down the search in google scholar into well-organised chunks of fewer than 1000 papers, and thereby be able to exhaustively search all relevant entries to see if they support AGW 'alarm' by your broadbrush definition. Secondly, that that would not actually be necessary in order to put your 850 into proper context because one could analyse a sample of google scholar results to come up with a reliable estimate. If you disagree, I suggest you take a statistics course.
  16. Peter Offenhartz at 16:52 PM on 16 February 2011
    A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
    It would be much more informative if the change in polar ice were ratioed to the total ice content. This is important for two reasons: (1) The ratio is in fact small and (2) It is the polar ice that puts a brake on global warming. The total heat capacity of polar ice is huge, greater than the heat capacity of the world's oceans. It important to understand the role polar ice plays in stabilizing climate over the course of scores of years, and possibly hundreds of years.
  17. Meet The Denominator
    #410 PT "Incorrect, what I stated was clear - comment policy does not allow my site to be used to continue a topic comment discussion from a another location such as here or anywhere. Continue that conversation where it started." Then you have violated your own policy by allowing your post on your site to be subject to comments. Why? Because you have included substance that comes from the comments section of this post. In other words you are soliciting comments on your site that directly relate to comments on this site. A blatant violation of your own policy.
  18. A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
    Re: Bern (7) Hansen 2011 (p. 17) makes the case for a best-fit 5-6 year doubling time for mass loss in both Greenland and Antarctica due to non-linear ice sheet losses, and that we have already equaled the temperature levels of the Holocene Altithermal (Holocene Maximum). Pass the popcorn. The Yooper
  19. CO2 has a short residence time
    Re: koyaanisqatsi (31) I suspect an issue exists in terminology (see here for discussion). D Kelly O'Day has an excellent post on CO2 here. Quality posts on the subject at SkS can be found here and here. The Yooper
  20. A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
    And that's assuming that Hansen's estimate of a 10-year doubling period for ice mass loss isn't correct... 5m by the end of the century? 25m sea level rise in the next few centuries? Nasty stuff! Will it be amazing? Yes, absolutely. In the same sense that a plane crash, or a train wreck, or a massive pile-up on a freeway is amazing. Some forms of amazement I can do without. Watching those ice mass loss charts get steeper by the year is just scary!
  21. CO2 has a short residence time
    @muoncounter I've been to NOAA, downloaded and spread-sheeted annual CO2 ppmvs and increments for 1950 to 1020. I've calculated increments for each year from consecutive annual ppmv averages (kinda agree with NOAA's). I've calculated % ∆ppmv change for each year. I've calculated average ∆ppmv and %∆ppmv for 1959 to 1020 and 1970 to 2010. I get an average %∆ppmv of 0.45 from 1970 to 2010. That's good. I still don't know where NASA's 1% annual ppmv increase (average) comes from. What is that number? I've emailed NASA and OCO--no answer yet. My NASA OCO link above works..I just double checked. If I can't defend my number I'm on no more firm ground than a skeptic, and that's a very uncomfortable place to be.
  22. Meet The Denominator
    "Yes I believe it is strong evidence against AGW Alarm". Which is what differentiates the Denialist Cult from the rest of us. The Denialist Cult rely a lot on personal belief-without the need for strong evidence to back it up-which is very Faith based. Indeed, the ability to accept mutually contradictory positions is also another typical trait of those who base their views on Faith, rather than Fact. The scientific evidence, over the space of more than 100 years, show a strong relationship between the rise in CO2 & the rise in global temperatures over the last 30-60 years-with other past forcings trending in the opposite directions. This same evidence suggests, very strongly, that further CO2 emissions will lead to yet more temperature rises over the coming century. Even the best case scenario for future Global Warming (which assumes low sensitivity) could cause enormous societal & environmental damage-& based on the impacts of climate change events in the past. That view is not the product of Faith or Personal Belief, it is the basis of more than 100 years of very strong evidence established via the best principles of the scientific method, evidence which no attempt by the skeptic community has managed to undermine. By comparison, Poptech, your much vaunted list represents nothing more than a patchwork quilt of unsubstantiated nonsense-which does more to weaken your case than to strengthen it.
  23. Meet The Denominator
    "Incorrect, what I stated was clear - comment policy does not allow my site to be used to continue a topic comment discussion from a another location such as here or anywhere. Continue that conversation where it started. " Your site has a post on this exact topic and it is by definition a continuation of this topic. You would evidently prefer it to remain unchallenged on your site, given that I reckon the majority of your readers will not come over here and see what else the sks regulars have to say. Skeptical Science could just as easily not approve any submissions from you in this thread, even though your list is the major topic of discussion (just as sks is the topic of your post). Please correct me if I am wrong, but you would consider it a trifle unfair if they did that, no? Anyway, you approved one (completely content-free) comment on it, so why not mine?
  24. PMEL Carbon Program: a new resource
    On coastal upwelling see Feely et al 2008. The salient measurements were made in May and July of 2007: "The central and southern coastal region off western North America is strongly influenced by seasonal upwelling, which typically begins in early spring when the Aleutian low-pressure system moves to the northwest and the Pacific Highmoves northward, resulting in a strengthening of the northwesterly winds (Hickey, 1998; Pennington and Chavez, 2000). These winds drive net surface-water Ekman transport offshore, which induces the upwelling of CO2-rich, intermediate depth (100 to 200 m) offshore waters onto the continental shelf. The upwelling lasts until late summer or fall, when winter storms return." I should point out that although this paper alleges to show exacerbation of low ph due to anthropogenic sources: "Although seasonal upwelling of the undersaturated waters onto the shelf is a natural phenomenon in this region, the ocean uptake of anthropogenic CO2 has increased the areal extent of the affected area." This was not done through time series measurements showing the increase in affected area. It was shown by applying a model that assumes increasing pH to their essentially single temporal data point taken in May-July 2007. This is a classic case of 'begging the question' - applying a model that assumes increasing pH to essentially a single temporal data point to show that pH increases. This paper does, however, show that the coastal regions are subject to upwelling of low pH water which would result in pH stressed organisms. Here is an excellent example of sad shellfish studied in an area of documented upwelling. I hope this provides some coherence for Rob Painting... not so novel... Does all this disprove the assertion that increasing atmospheric CO2 is a risk to ocean health through increasing pH? No. On the other hand, it shows that there are more factors than just atmospheric CO2 at play here and some in the popular press (back to Sigorney Weaver) are playing fast and loose with the facts.
  25. CO2 has a short residence time
    Koy: Go to NOAA for CO2 data; skip this NASA site question altogether.
  26. CO2 has a short residence time
    I get the right number by not using the NASA supplied 1% increase in annual atmospheric CO2 concentrations. But is my reasoning correct???? That is the big question for me. If I can't defend the reasoning, I don't stand much of a chance in converting the skeptic who thinks NASA lied. Not that I've ever converted a skeptic.
  27. A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
    "What wonderful times we live in, in that we can see and monitor these changes." I'm not sure the hundreds of millions of people who depend on glacier melt for drinking water consider glacial retreat so wonderful, nor the other hundreds of millions who will be displaced by the one to two metres sea level rise predicted over the next century.
  28. Meet The Denominator
    Got to love Poptech's earlier comment that supposedly Cato Journal & E&E are not guilty of bad Peer Review processes. Yet both "Journals" have a clearly articulated political/ideological agenda which are the absolute *antithesis* of good, neutral peer review. Hence why papers from said sources must be treated with heaping pillar of salt.
  29. CO2 has a short residence time
    The OCO site won't load for me. Anyway, NASA isn't involved with tracking CO2 at Mauna Loa; NOAA is in charge of that. So I'd stick with the experts. As far as CO2 measurements & their reliability, SkS has a post on that here. For further reading: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/program_history/keeling_curve_lessons.html The Yooper
  30. A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
    HuggyPopsBear: You're right, we're going to see some amazing things over the next few decades / centuries, sights that humans have never seen before. However, it puts me in mind of the Chinese saying: "May you live in interesting times." Remember, that's a curse, not a blessing...
  31. Monckton Myth #12: Arctic Temperature Changes
    The rate of warming you obtain is consistent with graphs shown by Peter Hogarth in the post on northern hemisphere warming rates. Arctic amplification, we are here.
  32. CO2 has a short residence time
    The OCO site Koy links is indeed misleading. One percent annually, starting at 326 ppm, means a >3ppm increase in year one. That didn't happen. It's now (391) increasing at ~2.5 ppm per year, which is still less than 1% per year. The real increase is bad enough, why the fuzzy math?
  33. I want to earn my future, not inherit it
    To Ann: I think there's another critical choice we all need to make -- that between INDEFINITE EXPONENTIAL ECONOMIC GROWTH and a STEADY STATE system. If we choose the former, no amount of 'green' technology will help. Let's say we use 'green' technology to cut down by half the amount of pollution cars generate. If we then merrily proceed to double the number of cars around, what happens? We'll go back to square one. That's what the arithmetic dictates -- you can't get around it. Are any of us prepared to abandon the ideology of indefinite growth, though? Can we reasonably expect Asians to abandon it first? By the way, the traditional philosophies of Asia, such as Buddhism, have been found to contain much that is ecologically insightful. But of course Asians have (largely) been brainwashed by their former colonial masters from the West into thinking that their traditions were obsolete.
  34. CO2 has a short residence time
    Hi Dan, Thanks for the response. First, I have patience and no virtues. Second, you don't have to convince me. But, the numbers do not add up in the NASA OCO article. Clearly, a 1% annual increase in atmospheric CO2 ppmv from 1970 to 2010 (with a 1970 value of 326 ppmv) would result in a in 326*1.01**40=485 ppmv in 2010. But the CO2 concentration in 2010 is 389 ppmv. The best I could do was assume that only 43% of the CO2 remains in the atmosphere, so that the math becomes 326*1.0043**40=387. That is the right number, but I'm not convinced. It strikes me that NASA has been a little sloppy here, even if I am right. The deniers go nuts over stuff like this--they think it's a proof that AGW advocates are lying. It becomes a real problem when we shoot *ourselves* in the foot. koy
    Moderator Response: I don't understand. You get the right number, so why are you unconvinced?
  35. Meet The Denominator
    "No, my site is not for a continuation of comment discussions at other locations." Got a good chuckle out of this one. In other words: My site is for me to comment on other discussions that I find relevant but not for others to challenge or question anything that I might choose to say in any form. You are, I have to say, very consistent in your application of absurd logic.
  36. A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
    I suppose its amazing really to see the changes in the world today, and to see an ice free artic regions would be something this world has not seen for many thousands of years. What wonderful times we live in, in that we can see and monitor these changes. As they say there is nothing new under the sun, it's just we have never seen it before with the naked eye and mankind has to re-educate himself that nothing is permanent and he is going to have to uproot and move with the times. No wonder animal species (as we are) tend to migrate seasonally.
  37. Meet The Denominator
    PT today: "at one time I have either read the abstract, summary or conclusion to all the papers on the list." PT yesterday: "no I have not read every paper completely. I have read many of them and all the abstracts and conclusions (where available)." Contradiction? Qualification? Obfuscation? You be the judge. Either way, the charade will continue ... Let us recall the wisdom of Einstein: “Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.”
  38. Meet The Denominator
    Hmm, comment from Poptech on RSS but not showing here. Anyway, a response for Poptech so he can answer properly. "I don't consider any climate or economic predictions based on computer models to be meaningful" I am well aware of that. What I asked is whether you considered those "alarming". ie IF they were true, would they fit your definition of alarming? This is what I am trying to define. And while you wont accept that they might be true you could also be dead wrong. "I believe these are influenced more by economic policies than climate." Economic policy could be linked but you might need several indicies. However, I am not asking you to agree with mine, I am asking you to name data which you agree would change your mind. You surely arent taking the position that there is no data that could change your mind? "Which are based on bogus computer modeling." I believe you should have phrased that as "models I believe to be bogus despite all the evidence to the contrary."
  39. Meet The Denominator
    400 comments in let me summarize this thread for the newcomers. 1 - Poptech's list of 850 skeptical papers represents a tiny fraction of the total number of papers published on the subject and many that are on the list are of questionable quality 2 - Poptech: There is nothing wrong with any of the papers on my list and they all come from peer reviewed journals. 3 - Some are poor science that has been refuted and some are contradictory! The still represent a tiny percent when compared to AGW supporting papers 4 - Poptech: The papers are fine and your methods are terrible. 5 - OK, the method was flawed, but your papers are of terrible quality. 6 - Poptech: No they are not and you dont know what you are talking about. 7 - GOTO 5
  40. Meet The Denominator
    Hi Poptech I made a comment on your post, nothing remotely unpolite about it, just asking a couple of questions. I think I submitted it correctly - does it pass your blog comment submission policy?
  41. Monckton Myth #12: Arctic Temperature Changes
    Thanks for that S&S paper, Albatross. So much for the long-heralded "recovery". Albedo-flip, here we come. The Yooper
  42. A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
    The first figure is from GRACE data. 2007 is about the mid-point of the reference range, so they used it for a zero point. Mass loss has continued from 2002 (inception of GRACE data). Central Greenland is gaining mass through increased precipitation, principally in the form of snow, but that gain is vastly offset by the thinning margins and marine-terminating outlet glaciers. The Yooper
  43. A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
    Oops, ignore that. I see from here that the figure shows: "Greenland ice mass anomaly - deviation from the average ice mass over the 2002 to 2010 period. Black line shows monthly values. Orange line shows long-term trend (John Wahr)" So it tells you that Greenland has lost about 2000Gt total since 2002 - that's not yearly mass change. Sorry for the confusion.
  44. Monckton Myth #12: Arctic Temperature Changes
    Thanks to all for advice/references. Much appreciated - Screen & Simmonds (2010) is very clear. Implications for the Greenland IS do seem bleak.
  45. A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
    I'm a little confused by that first plot of Greenland ice balance - specifically, that it seems to show that Greenland was in fact gaining ice until about 2007 (if the y-axis shows what I think it does). This does not sync up with the GRACE data shown in this previous sks post: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Why-is-Greenlands-ice-loss-accelerating.html By the way, that's a post I hadn't read before, and the graph showing how surface mass balance used to track precipitation until runoff started increasing at a rapidly accelerating rate around 1995-2000. What an eye-opener.
  46. Meet The Denominator
    Submitting a papers which are essentially the same, not even necessarily identical, is frowned upon in science. It is called padding one's CV and rehashing, and any prospective (respectable) employer would seriously frown upon that.
  47. Meet The Denominator
    " that paper supports the theory that solar activity is the primary cause of climate change." That would be a hypothesis, not a theory. It would also be a false assertion, as anyone with access to SkS's search function can quickly determine.
  48. Meet The Denominator
    All, Someone is appealing to faux authority. And credentials are not everything-- Michaels, Singer and Lindzen have, or have had, ties to the FF industry. Scientists for hire if you will. It is a long list, they are not the only culprits, to contrarians who mix political or religious ideology with science. While these people may be qualified and their (padded) CVs compelling, their qualifications do not speak to their ethics, morality or integrity or quality of their science. These are the usual suspects in an orchestrated attack on science and climate scientists that has been very well documented. I encourage people reading this to do some rigorous research on their backgrounds.
  49. Meet The Denominator
    'No papers were "waved through" E&E as it has a rigorous peer-review policy" Ha ha. We are well aware you believe that but the science community has passed it own judgement. If you consistantly publish rubbish, noone capable of judging the merits of a paper will believe the "rigorous" bit. Also, its normal when talking about science for "peer reviewed" science to be understood as a/ Science b/ reviewed by other publishing scientists (peers). Journals like "Cato" might well allow you put your hand on your chest and declare "its peer reviewed", and I guess all that's all that matters to your audience, but because neither a/ nor b/ are satisfied, it doesnt mean the same as a paper published in a real journal. Instead of your quoting of qualifications, trying quoting cross-journal citation numbers of their publications on climate change (not other fields), then we might be impressed. Still waiting for your answer to #379
  50. Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
    Come to think of it, such a payment system would be larger but much, much easier than other systems. There are no eligibility requirements apart from existence. No means tests or rate changes or age limits or income adjustments or interactions with the tax system as there are with all other benefits.

Prev  1902  1903  1904  1905  1906  1907  1908  1909  1910  1911  1912  1913  1914  1915  1916  1917  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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