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  1989  1990  1991  1992  1993  1994  1995  1996  1997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  Next

Comments 99801 to 99850:

  1. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    bibliovermis I received this information from an actual interview with Dr. Lockwood. You cannot get any more primary than that.
  2. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    muoncounter Cultural lesson learned. Would it now be possible to get some critical thoughts on Dr Lockwood's statement in the referenced interview? There is no alterior motive, but to learn and understand with inputs from both sides of the climate debate. If the blog is not accepting visitors that is fine too.
  3. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    Rutgers University's Snow Cover Lab provides graphs of snow cover anomalies since 1966 http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=0&ui_region=nhland&ui_month=11
  4. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    PaulPS, It is better to get scientific knowledge from primary sources, or sources which directly link to such, than from a "balanced spread" of opinion blogs. "Not getting the whole picture" is perilously close to conspiracy notions of vast malicious deceit and incompetent groupthink. It is best to trace new publishings back to the primary source so that the full context can be understood.
  5. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    #23: "If you shelter yourself... " In case you hadn't noticed, the 'opposing views' often drop in for a visit; some try to apply for permanent resident status. And even the people who agree don't hesitate to correct a faux pas.
  6. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    archiesteel I knew this was a denier blog, but not aware of veiled threats, thanks for the insight. The link takes you to the video that was on channel 4 news. If you Google "Lockwood a-hundred-years-of-freezing" you can see it on a different website. If you shelter yourself to just blogs that agree with your present view, how will you ever know if you have the whole picture, or challenge thought with opposing views?
  7. It's freaking cold!
    @kdfv #66 Maybe you didn't read or understand the "explanation of legend terminology" that is linked to the map, and also forgot to figure out a way to compare local departure from normal to state averages. You have to do that to say "I don't see how the two maps relate" being that they so clearly relate. You may decide to polish your abilities to simply observe a map as your assertion "it shows the temperatures generally around 4 to 6 degrees above normal" is obviously false and your assertion "it just shows the majority of states at or below normal" is permanently true no matter what you compare (but good dialectic design in your phrases, as that "or" easily makes people forget it is indeed an "and")
  8. Back from the Dead: Lost Open Mind Posts
    http://replay.waybackmachine.org can take you back less. There you can find many more missing links from Aug 2008 to May 2009.
  9. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    @PaulPS: please don't link to denier blogs, especially not those that allow veiled threats of violence in their comments.
  10. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    @co2isnotevil: "I've seen good papers get completely gutted because the 'peers' who reviewed it didn't like the conclusions." Hogwash. More likely, the paper was poor but you felt it was unjustly treated because you agreed with its conclusions. In any case, that's hardly an excuse not to have your theories published and reviewed. "Anonymous review just doesn't work when the topic is controversial and your position goes against the consensus, but it's OK for more accepted mainstream science." Again, conspiracy theories. "Oh, but if only those meanies stopped me from propagating the truth..." Seriously, that's not a defense, that's simply an acknowledgement that your theories aren't sound enough to gain approval. "BTW, I never called it a conspiracy, you did." You clearly implied it. "If you want to use that word, perhaps a inadvertent conspiracy of flawed group think would be more appropriate." Ah, so scientists aren't part of a large conspiracy, they're just idiots who are swayed by groupthink instead of logic - except for you, of course! Give us a break... "I have to believe that scientists pushing the catastrophic point of view must believe what they are saying. The problem is they don't have enough information to know for sure and the reality of the situation is they are just guessing based on a 'gut feeling'." Incorrect. There is ample evidence that AGW is real, and happening. Satellite measurements of OLR is just one of them. As I said before the burden of proof is on you, and you have failed. Discrediting honest, hard-working scientists to paint yourself as the only voice of truth isn't helping. In fact, it's showing your true colors, and they're quite ugly. "The reason seems clear since when you fix these issues, no warming trend is observed and if anything, there's been a small cooling trend over the last 10 years." Again, that seems very unlikely since *every* other record shows a warming trend. What's more likely, that everyone else is wrong and that this single instance really means the opposite of what it's supposed to mean, or that everyone is right, notwithstanding a single point of measurement was inaccurate? I'm sorry, but at this point there is no reason to believe your unreviewed theories over the accepted science - and it is, in fact, accepted. The only reason it is "controversial" is that Energy companies such as Koch Industries have funnelled millions into contrarian groups (and that's no conspiracy, we have a clear money trail).
  11. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    Your example concerns an absolute value. I was explicitly discussing a trend. If you are going to contribute, please read what you are replying to. Focusing on absolute values when discussing climate sensitivity is less than helpful.
  12. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    Biblio, Precision does no good when the trend you are looking for is smaller than the data uncertainty. Consider a model that says 2+2 = 5 +/- 1. This is technically correct since 2+2=4 and that's within the uncertainty. Can you see what happens when you increase precision without increasing accuracy? You end up with a result like 2+2 = 5 +/- 0.25, which while more precise, is no more accurate than the first result and in fact the real answer is outside the uncertainty of the result.
  13. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    archiesteel, I've seen good papers get completely gutted because the 'peers' who reviewed it didn't like the conclusions. I prefer interactive review with known individuals, rather than the anonymous review often utilized for climate papers. Anonymous review just doesn't work when the topic is controversial and your position goes against the consensus, but it's OK for more accepted mainstream science. You can bark all you want about the science being settled, but the truth is climate science is the most controversial branch of science around. BTW, I never called it a conspiracy, you did. If you want to use that word, perhaps a inadvertent conspiracy of flawed group think would be more appropriate. I have to believe that scientists pushing the catastrophic point of view must believe what they are saying. The problem is they don't have enough information to know for sure and the reality of the situation is they are just guessing based on a 'gut feeling'. Science isn't about gut feelings, but about logic, data and first principles and all of this is turning decidedly against the gut feelings driving climate alarmists. Relative to what my climate tool does with the ISCCP satellite data. all I'm doing is plotting the NASA data. And as I told you, the errors I pointed out have been acknowledged by Rossow, who is one of the principles of the ISCCP project and wrote much of their SW. BTW, I had to do a lot of reverse engineering of the error before Rossow would even acknowledge the problem, but he finally did admit to the programming error that led to this problem. He response was, 'Well, you can't use ISCCP data for identifying trends'. The reason seems clear since when you fix these issues, no warming trend is observed and if anything, there's been a small cooling trend over the last 10 years.
  14. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    You may want to change the Snow cover to an up/down arrow as based on the linked interview with Professor Mike Lockwood, winter extremes can go either way. http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2010/12/30/a-hundred-years-of-freezing.html
  15. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    Hmm. The svg opened in Inkscape correctly, but text problems in chrome and firefox
  16. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    The svg is missing a namespace definition - adding xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" to the svg element solved it for me.
  17. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    The graph shows an excellent portrayal of effects of warming. History reveals migrations of plants and animals over the ages to result from warming (and cooling) cycles of the planet. In the context of the AGW "debate", it seems that the graph is neutral, that it provides no attribution to causes of the warming... just to the effects of the warming. Even so, the scientific research depicted in the graph has added considerable knowledge of how all living things adapt to changing climates. The graph provides as succinct a summary as one could ever find.
  18. A Positive Outlook For Clouds
    " it looks to me when I apply the equations that 0.75ºC per W/m² actually equates to a climate sensitivity of 2.78ºC per doubling of CO2" 2.78C comes from GISS Model E, I'm sure (i.e. the model that Gavin works on). I know it's < 3C (but well within the error bars that the 3C best estimate from IPCC comes with).
  19. It's cooling
    Thanks Archiesteel @97, I'm busy today, so I can't argue with BP. Some points. The planet is warming (accumulating heat) the trend in global SATs and tropospheric temperatures is positive and statistically significant, and the rate of warming is noteworthy. Sad that BP cannot even conceded that simple point without prefacing the statement with a caveat. BP, despite his claims is not calculating EQS, he is calculating TCR, and his estimate of TCR is within the range of TCR calculated by Gregory and Forster. If BP thinks he is onto something regarding EQS being so low (he does not say exactly how low, lots of arm waving), I am sure Journal of Climate would be happy to ship his manuscript off to the reviewers if they think his proposed method has merit. Yes, the OHC data are problematic. My point though was that despite the spikes and troughs, the trend in those 0-2000 m OHC data between 2003 and 2008 is up. I do not see a systematic positive bias in the measurements. Finally, let us for now forget the SAT data and the OHC data. There are still multiple, independent lines of evidence which point to a warming planet (oddly enough a planet which BP claims is 'cooling itself').
  20. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    Archie and Michael, I'm saddened to have to agree with your assessments--detraction, obfuscation, fabricating faux debate. I'll add another, it is sad when the "skeptics" are is such a weak position that they have to argue semantics. For example, claiming that a "warming trend" is different from "the planet is warming" (see BP's posts on CS thread). Also BP opines: "It means the extra heat from there can not go anywhere but to an even colder heat reservoir, which is outer space." Well, the GHGs are proving to be an impediment to the loss LWR from the surface. But in BPs' world it seems that LWR from the surface is simply lost to space, unimpeded. Maybe he did not mean that, but then he should have very carefully stated otherwise.
  21. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    Excellent graphic. Thank you, guys. Just curious: where does the SVG work? I tried Fx4, Chrome11 and Opera11 - none display correctly. P.S. You can trim down the size of PNGs with http://www.pngoptimizer.com/ or http://optipng.sourceforge.net/
  22. It's freaking cold!
    kdfv, can you post the link to the second map you are referring to ?
  23. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    BP: The discussion is about the temperature anamoly data. Your graph of surface temperatures is a pitiful attempt to distract people from the discussion. Everyone knows that it is cold in the arctic in the winter. You should stay on topic. For your information, until this week it was above 0C in southern Greenland. It is too bad that you have given up on trying to produce analysis of data tht support your position and now just disrupt discussions that others have.
  24. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    #4 TOP I understood the article to be about effect (what is happening) rather than cause (what made it happen). Nevertheless, I'll go back and re-read it to be absolutely sure. ......Yup! Second reading gives me the same impression. Perhaps you can point out what I'm missing. Cheers!
  25. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    #14 muoncounter I'm talking about the graphic, not "It's not us". For instance, do you see any mention of those green house gases in the graphic. I only see one.
  26. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    #10: "this graphic could be construed as non-AGW." Also construed as AGW in many places on SkS. Use Search to find 'It's not us', 'The human fingerprint', etc. If you do not believe there is human influence on climate, please explain what causes and then mitigated acid rain and ozone depletion. Then explain why there are urban CO2 domes, a close seasonal correlation between CO2/CO/CH4, soot in the Arctic, etc -- all on a thread like 'It's not us'.
  27. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    Sorry, didn't spend enough time on this before posting 1st comment. Agree with psweet - species are "shifting ranges", or "moving" or "being dislocated". Agree with m. sweet - Ocean pH is a pretty serious problem, an aspect of the CO2 problem, and one to which we need to draw more attention. Which makes me wonder about the title: I really don't like the term "global warming". It is too comfy and cuddly feeling. John Holdren has tried to promote "climate disruption", which is a bit better. If you do include ocean pH and other factors, then we are really looking at symptoms of Biosphere Disruption - but maybe that is tending towards OT for the main SS theme...
  28. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    I didn't say non-warming, just non-AGW.
  29. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    Regarding TOP@4.: Isn't the graphic just what the title implies:Indicators of a Warmng World". It doesn't any show evidence specifically related to either AGW or Non-AGW. It seems a good basic graphic summary for the sub-catogory of "skeptic" that agrues against GW. michael sweet suggests adding ocean pH increase to the graphic, but if I understand the climate experts, pH increase is more of an indicator of increased CO2 than of GW in general, which is what the graphic shows... Maybe a companion graphic (yeah,I know, it's much easier to just suggest stuff for someone else to produce)for negative impacts from GW and another for evidence of human causes for GW. Great site - thanks, Roger
  30. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    @4 Dan Bailey I've posted in other places why this graphic could be construed as non-AGW.
    Moderator Response: (Daniel Bailey) Thanks, then it should be a simple matter for you to provide a link to support your position on the graphic.
  31. It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
    #50: "I'll keep referring to the UAH plot... " Perhaps you should also refer to Assessing global surface temperature reconstructions, which demonstrates that all temperature measures are very similar. Figure 8 in that post renders PDO and even Nino/Nina influences on the long term trends a moot point. "I hope we agree that the plot presented in post #39 is misleading." No, we don't agree.
  32. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    @6 michael sweet Maybe then an arrow should be added next to each arrow with Hansen's prediction to scale with what has happened.
  33. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    Nice graphic, John. I want to say thanks for all the work you are doing for our children - the children of the world!! Like Tenney Naumer, however, I do have a bit of a problem with the white vs black arrows. Perhaps all the arrows should be red or orange or amber - some kind of "warning" colour.
  34. It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
    @thepoodlebites: "Based on the evidence, I don't think that we know for sure either way but pre-cursor indicators suggest that we may be headed into another period of cooling similar to the 60's and 70's." Actually, there is no evidence showing we are about to enter a period of cooling (nor was the 70s a period of cooling either "When I took advanced meteorology classes in 1981 the consensus was that we may be entering into another ice-age." Please provide evidence that global cooling was the scientific consensus in 1981, because AFAIK that's not true. "I visited the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC. To label a skeptical scientist a denier is insulting." "Denier" is not attached to the Holocaust, "Holocaust denier" is. Someone who deniers the theory of evolution is an "evolution denier," and someone who denies AGW theory is a "climate change denier." Don't wrap yourself in the mantle of indignant victimhood over this, it's kinda disrespectful for the actual Holocaust victims. "Stick to the scientific method, stay objective, don't give in to personal bias, that leads to the dark side." Sticking to the scientific method will lead you to acceptance of AGW theory. It's not a question of bias, but of evidence - believe me, I'd much rather AGW be false! As far as UAH vs. GISS goes, why not use both? In fact, why not use all the data: Hadcrut, GISS, UAH and RSS? They may not all show the same temperature exactly, but they all show the same trend, and that's what counts.
  35. It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
    Moderator #45 and #46 explains my position, comparing the GISS plot in #39 to the UAH plot on Roy Spencer's website, the GISS plot shows an annual mean value for 2005 (0.61 C) that's higher than the 1998 El Nino year. The UAH plot shows an annual anomaly of 0.3 C for 2005, 0.54 C for 1998. The descrepancy may be in the addition of the surface record to the GISS data, which I can not comment about in this thread. I'll keep referring to the UAH plot if that's OK? If there's any significant warming in the future, it will show up in the satellite data, correct? As far as peer-review in climate science, that's probably off-topic too and best left unsaid here.
  36. We're coming out of the Little Ice Age
    PaulPS, I am in the process of doing a critique on my new blog: Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 is still to come.
  37. It's cooling
    In any case, the topic of this is "is global warming still happening", and the answer to that is a resounding yes. Discussion of the reliability of an OHC graph are quite off-topic.
  38. It's cooling
    @BP: why does your graph stop in 2005? I'm sorry, but you have yet to make a convincing case against the graph. The fact that results are surprising doesn't mean they are impossible. In fact, considering the limits of the survey (0 to 2000 meters), it is quite possible part of the extra heat was released from below. It seems to me the main reason you are dismissing this graph is that it disagrees with your own (non-peer-reviewed) theories. "I said UAH satellite lower troposphere data showed a (moderate) warming trend. That's not the same as "the planet is warming", is it?" All temperatures show pretty much the same warming trend, and it is not moderate by any reasonable standard. Of course, when your goal is to minimize the risk and stall the debate, everything goes, right?
  39. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    Just a small quibble -- it makes more sense to talk about species expanding or shifting their ranges towards the poles, or into cooler regions. The term migration properly refers to a regular seasonal movement, that has always been poleward in the spring, for most species.
  40. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    @JMurphy: "Perhaps it is linked to a report I read about recently, which seems to suggest that people of a certain (right-wing) perspective had a "more pronounced amygdala – a primitive part of the brain associated with emotion..." This is off-topic, but the study was more precise in stating the amygdala is mostly responsible for fear (not just emotions in general). One thing's for sure, it certainly seem to affect scientific understanding...
  41. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    @Argus: "I definitely see more purple than red, and more blue than orange." Well, argusbargus, your eyes are decieving you. You're probably comparing light purple with red, but you should rather compare it with orange. Similarly, you should be comparing blue with green. To stay on-topic, there is absolutely no indication that global warming has stopped, or even slowed down. It's still going on, but that won't stop contrarians from repeating the same debunked arguments, it seems.
  42. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    @BP: why pick a single day, Berényi? You know, cherry-picking is a sign of intellectual weakness or dishonesty. Your claim that the extra heat has "nowhere to go but outer space" is also incorrect. The radiated IR from the surface (it radiates IR, even if it is below zero) will still be intercepted by CO2 molecules, which will then re-radiate it. Seriously, you used to at least have the pretense of knowing what you were talking about, but now it's just sad.
  43. Climate sensitivity is low
    @BP: I'm sorry, BP, but you're just throwing numbers around and hiding behind formulas. If you really understood the science, you'd be able to explain it simply. You might also try to explain why your (purposefully confusing) argument does not agree with actual observations. If you want to go and play the savant, why don't you write an actual scientific article and have it peer-reviewed. After all, since you're apparently able to disprove AGW theory is an important scientific discovery. The fact you haven't is a good indication you don't really believe your theory is exact, but are in fact only trying to further obfuscate the debate.
  44. Berényi Péter at 02:24 AM on 31 December 2010
    Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    #66 michael sweet at 01:56 AM on 31 December, 2010 On the graph at #48, notice that there is a lot of red +10C and very little violet -10C. Those "red hot" areas (Greenland, North-Eastern Canada, Chukchi peninsula, Kamchatka) are still well below 0°C (or rather -10°C, which is still "hot" compared to their usual temperature for the season). It means the extra heat from there can not go anywhere but to an even colder heat reservoir, which is outer space. This is how the planet is cooling itself.
  45. The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism
    Paul Barry, this chart http://i46.tinypic.com/2vja1z5.png shows how El Nino depletes the tropical pacific ocean heat and La Nina recharges it. What is notable is that each strong La Nina recharge seems to provide a "step up" in tropical pacific heat content. Also it is not hard to imagine that as the heat of each El Nino gets spread around the world, the other oceans store some of that heat in the following year or two. That chart came from this page by skeptic Bob Tisdale http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2010/02/la-nina-underappreciated-portion-of.html Some of his work has been criticized here before, but that chart is just data.
  46. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    Argus, We will have to wait for the GISS report at the start of January for quantitative data. On the graph at #48, notice that there is a lot of red +10C and very little violet -10C. The red in Greenland corresponds well to the purple in Siberia so the latitude makes little difference. Eyeballing a graph like this has a lot of subjective error, we will see who did better next week when the quantitative data comes out.
  47. A Positive Outlook For Clouds
    I’ve often seen Gavin at RC state that each W/m² equates to about 0.75ºC increase in temperature. I used his number above although it looks to me when I apply the equations that 0.75ºC per W/m² actually equates to a climate sensitivity of 2.78ºC per doubling of CO2 while 0.81ºC per W/m² gives a climate sensitivity of exactly 3ºC. I’m not sure how he arrived at 0.75ºC instead for 3ºC, I just use it. I’ve never seen averages applied in the way Ken Lambert suggests. See The CO2 Problem in 6 Easy Steps at RC. Also see RC comment # 46 by Chris Colose at Some Examples Worked
  48. A Positive Outlook For Clouds
    The simplistic calculations of climate sensitivity discussed here need to consider that the ocean causes a significant lag in the observed temperature increase. Other threads on Skeptical Science describe this lag as 40 years and more. Thus the 0.8C that we have already measured is due to the CO2 released decades ago. The increase from the last 40 or 60 ppm of CO2 has not yet been seen. The skeptics need to think about their simplistic arguments that "it isn't that scary" and consider that we have not seen the full warming yet. The skeptic argument has shifted from "it is not warming" to "the warming is not so bad". The scientific position has not changed. Tell the 20 million people who were flooded out of their homes in Pakistan this year that "it isn't that scary" and see what they say.
  49. Berényi Péter at 01:33 AM on 31 December 2010
    It's cooling
    #95 Albatross at 10:43 AM on 30 December, 2010 And the 0-2000 m OHC decreased by that about amount in two months in early 2006. Yet, the long-term trend is up my friend. Funny you don't see it's impossible. One needs a 15 W/m2 radiative imbalance at TOA for two months to produce such wriggles. That's more than 6% of ASR (Absorbed Shortwave Radiation). You could say the Earth was at its perihelion in early 2007. But it makes the drop a year before even more suspicious. Either - or. There's simply no heat reservoir in the climate system other than the oceans that could emit or absorb so much heat. The two events, taken together, require imbalances of some 30 W/m2 on such timescales. Can you see anything like that in the ISCCP-FD Net TOA Radiative Fluxes? An OHC history reconstruction showing impossible features is not the best candidate for estimating trends. Also, please make up your mind. Earlier on this thread you correctly stated that the planet is warming and that TCR is about 2 C I said UAH satellite lower troposphere data showed a (moderate) warming trend. That's not the same as "the planet is warming", is it? And I was not talking about TCR (Transient Climate Response), but equilibrium climate sensitivity and said it was at most 2°C, probably considerably less. Other than that, well done, you've quoted me correctly.
  50. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    Terrific graphic. I think your graphics that summarize the AGW arguments so well are great resources. They can be shown to skeptics all at once. That makes it so much harder for the skeptics to focus on one thing, they have to anslwer them all at once. John: is it worth adding pH increase in the ocean? That is not a result of warming, but it is one of the major problems caused by increasing CO2. TOP: how could you possibly use this graphic to sugggest non-AGW? These are all results predicted 20 years ago in James Hansens' testimony in congress. The skeptics said it would never happen. Unsupported trash talk like your comment is so lame. Are you just demonstrating how bankrupt the skeptic argument is?

Prev  1989  1990  1991  1992  1993  1994  1995  1996  1997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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