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  2066  2067  2068  2069  2070  2071  2072  2073  2074  2075  2076  2077  2078  2079  2080  2081  Next

Comments 103651 to 103700:

  1. The Fake Scandal of Climategate
    Hot of the presses. E-mails were deleted.
    xxxxxx said his "email was downloaded to my notebook computer and was erased from the xxU mail server,"
    Read all about it.
  2. The Fake Scandal of Climategate
    This is an excellent article in many ways, but I have to shake my head when I read, "the public needs to understand that science cannot and does not produce absolutely precise answers." This is itself an extremely unscientific hope. Even only a cursory acquaintance with "political science" should make it absolutely clear: the public has -never- understood this -- and it has only been getting worse, not better in recent years. If we have to change this to get timely action on AGW, we are doomed.
  3. The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
    kdkd: You are missing my point entirely. An anomoly, even within a spatial area, using temperature is not a valid climatic heat indicator. You would have to assume that the RH is constant, which in most areas it is not. Where I live, rh can be as low as 15% and as high as 99%. There is absolutely no pattern to the rh, and is not dependant on temperature. The heat content of the air at say 30% rh @80F is a lot less than 80%rh @80F. Do you agree with me on that?
  4. The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
    #36 cont "When talking about climate one must think in terms of heat content. A temperature in a desert, @ say 100F, is not the same heat content as a temperature in the tropics of 100F." This argument is also fallacious. Aside from your clear confusion over the difference between temperature anomaly and temperature (the quote above should have referred to anomaly rather than absolute value), you are making the assumption that the temperature anomaly measured in the desert is being compared to the temperature anomaly being measured in the tropics. In fact what happens in practice is that we measure a mean anomaly for a given spatial area, and compare that at different points in time. So long as the sample of measures are reasonably consistent with each other for a given spatial area at the different times, there is nothing wrong with this. Procedures have also been developed to deal with heat island effects, and changes in station location to improve the validity of this approach. Do you have any more fatally flawed arguments for us to deal with? I'm trying to write something quite difficult at the moment, and the ease with which your arguments are demolished is nice light relief.
  5. The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
    Camburn #36 "by itself tho, [temperature anomaly is] a useless metric when talking about climate" A bit strong. Must be treated with caution would be a more temperate way of making your point. However (cherry picking so-called-sceptics excepted) generally we do not use temperature anomaly alone to examine climate, although it is a useful and reasonably valid measure that makes good intuitive sense. There. It would appear that as you want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, that your argument is not valid.
  6. The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
    #36: "A temperature in a desert, @ say 100F, is not the same heat content as a temperature in the tropics of 100F." Just for fun, which way would heat flow: from 100F desert air to 100F tropical air or vice versa?
  7. The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
    #28: "Particulate and pollution domes and changes in evaporation and hydrology processes" Indeed. But if we're looking for a human fingerprint, evaporation won't cut it. How do 'hydrology processes' know when the weekends are and what the weekday peak traffic hours are? And how does water vapor know to take Easter week off in Mexico? I had a reference that showed different weekly patterns in the Arab countries (Friday is the weekly low in urban CO2 in Kuwait City, compared to Sunday in Rome), but it has escaped my sieve-like filing system for the moment. But riddle-me-this: where does the 500 ppm CO2 from urban traffic eventually wind up? Can it be seen 'downwind'? Are there any temperature anomalies that follow that distribution? I'd love to see evaporation and clouds changing with traffic density, but I'm betting that's not happening. That's why I don't get the point of the graph you posted in 27; nor do I give what I think Camburn is hinting at -- atmospheric moisture as a 'metric' for heat content -- much credit as a 'human fingerprint'. I'll give you that particulates and NOx are probably factors, but if the folks that think the urban CO2 domes don't extend upwards more than a few hundred meters are correct, then neither do those exhaust products. I live near a freeway with heavy rush hour traffic; I have a fine coating of black dust on my front porch on a regular basis. Never had it analyzed, but I bet its full of particulates from car and truck exhaust settling out.
  8. The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
    kdkd: The 2nd proposition. Temperature is not a useless metric in given circumstances. It, by itself tho, is a useless metric when talking about climate. A temperature anomoly is based on temperature data. That is a given. When talking about climate one must think in terms of heat content. A temperature in a desert, @ say 100F, is not the same heat content as a temperature in the tropics of 100F. Can we agree on that? If anyone knows of a temp base that includes heat content as part of the anomoly I am all eyes.
  9. The Fake Scandal of Climategate
    Great piece here from Joe Romm at ClimateProgress on the Wegman Report plagiarism-thingy. Shows the lengths some went to in their attempts to discredit and smear climate science and climate scientists alike. I won't spoil your fun by quote-mining the piece... The Yooper
  10. The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
    Re: Camburn I'm wasting my time with this one. He seems to be cut from the "we-can't-know-anything-so-we-shouldn't-do-anything" cloth. He's all yours, guys. The Yooper
  11. The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
    Camburn: I'm not really sure what your point is. Are you suggesting that temperature anomaly is not a measure of the relative energy content of a body of matter? Or are you just complaining that its sensitivity is relatively poor. The first proposition is absurd. The second proposition is valid, but it does not make it a useless metric, just that it should be triangulated for consistency with other data.
  12. The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
    Camburn - What would you consider a reasonable metric when measuring climate? You have disparaged temperature, and changes in long term temperature averages (anomalies); what are the alternatives you propose? Top of atmosphere radiation balance? Perhaps ocean thermal content or stratospheric cooling? Or ocean acidification? Flora matter, perhaps plant zone changes? Ice balance at the poles and on glaciers (numerous links, all measures are declining, use the search box)? If you have issues with temperature, essentially stating that rising temperatures do not indicate climate change, it's upon you to state what changes you would consider valid measures of climate change.
  13. The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
    Daniel: No matter how you cut it, a temp anomoly is based on temperature. Yes, it is a deviation, but the base is still the raw data.
  14. The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
    Re: Camburn (29) Go here, then scroll down to number 6. Temperatures are useful to describe weather. Anomalies are used to describe climate. Did you wonder why I said climate scientists use anomalies instead of temperatures & why that is? The Yooper
  15. The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
    Continuing #28, this page is OT but interesting.
  16. The Fake Scandal of Climategate
    RealClimate has a new post up with a nice graphic (see here) from Jen Sorensen at Slowpoke comics which really illustrates the nature of the give-and-take present in much of this thread. Funny, too. The Yooper
  17. The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
    Daniel Baily: Ref@26: A temp anomoly is based on temperature. Humanity Rules@ 27: Thank you. I was trying to lead to those studies by showing what a poor metric temperature is. It would appear that you study climate as I do. With an open mind, willing to absorb all sources of information and thought process.
  18. The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
    3.muoncounter From memory there are many specific urban effects. Particulate and pollution domes and changes in evaporation and hydrology processes compared with the surrounding rural area being a couple of them. As with many aspects of the climate discussion things go way beyond just CO2.
  19. It's the ocean
    h-j-m: "KR, I checked about Bolzmann's law and failed to find any hint that it could be applied to a body surrounded by other matter. So I am rather confident that I don't have to 'overturn a lot of physics!'." You also didn't find any hint that SB only describes emissivity in a total vacuum. Have fun here.
  20. It's the ocean
    h-j-m Stefan-Boltzmann´s law applies to bodies. All of them. They all emit energy if their temperature is above 0ºK. What you said is like stating "Newton never said his laws applies to cars!".
  21. The Fake Scandal of Climategate
    Re: fydijkstra (47) Perhaps you can use your Longman’s Dictionary of Contemporary English to look up this: What do you call someone who persists in seeing conspiracies despite multiple investigations proving none exist? Seriously now, despite some bad press, what has really come out of this manufactured non-story (other than a crime being committed by whomever stole the emails)? The science of AGW is more robust than ever and the deniers have less credibility than they ever had (which wasn't much). End of story. The Yooper
  22. It's the ocean
    KR, I checked about Bolzmann's law and failed to find any hint that it could be applied to a body surrounded by other matter. So I am rather confident that I don't have to "overturn a lot of physics!". About water vapour. The article you mention states: the level of water vapour in the atmosphere is a function of temperature. When I wrote about my argument against that notion (basically the same I gave in a previous post) concerning the wikipedia article on water vapour that part of the article got removed in response.
  23. Climategate: Tampering with Temperatures?
    Re: Hyperactive Hydrologist (10) Having been an employee of the US Government (Department of Defense), I can certainly guarantee that not anywhere near all of the data collected by my former employer is readily available to anyone, despite being acquired at taxpayer expense. The Yooper
  24. The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
    John can you just clarify why this is specifically a "human fingerprint"? As you point out water vapour is a very strong GHG. Increased water vapour (as shown in the graph below) is a product of a warmer world rather than specifically a human-induced warmer world. I'm guessing you consider most of the GHG effect is coming from water vapour? Just to emphasis the importance of water vapour I'm going to take a stab that the highest year in the warm nights graph (fig1) is 1998 and is a product of El Nino, the peak is there in the Tamino graph as well. I'm suggesting that the interpretation of this data goes way beyond what the actual data is telling us.
  25. Climategate: Tampering with Temperatures?
    caerbannog @6:02 AM, I'd be willing to bet the the surfacestations.org folks HAVE done the necessary calculations. They just haven't published the results because the results don't agree with their desired outcome.
  26. Climategate: Tampering with Temperatures?
    Hyperactive Hydrologist : "All data that has been funded directly or indirectly by the tax payer should be readily available to everyone." The problem isn't the generated data, the CRU has always made that available, the problem is the source data, that is owned by different nations. The UK isn't responsible for data licensing for say China or other nations. Also what if a government lends money for research that gives a UK company an edge on its competitors. If that research became public, then competitors that have their head offices in other countries could take advantage of research funded by UK tax payers! The issues aren't as simple as you suggest.
  27. Hyperactive Hydrologist at 09:01 AM on 22 November 2010
    Climategate: Tampering with Temperatures?
    I think the UK could learn a lot from the US in terms of data availability. All data that has been funded directly or indirectly by the tax payer should be readily available to everyone. The availability of rainfall and flow data is also pretty poor, although it is improving. I also get a bit annoyed with the time spent on disproving deniers when we should be working on mitigation and adaptation.
  28. The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
    Re: Camburn (24) If I understand you correctly, then yes, temperature by itself is a poor metric indeed (in the sense that it's extremely difficult to establish contextually what is really going on in the climate due to the noise in the signal). Would there only exist other, more accurate, ways of tracking climate change... Fortunately for us, climate scientists today use many metrics, such as temperature anomalies derived from terrestrial, marine & orbital data collection platforms, various proxy records, and many other measurable signatures of a warming world. See here and here for starters. Many more posts exist on this at SkS. Try the search box at the upper left of every page. The Yooper
  29. The Fake Scandal of Climategate
    "It can never be a scandal that a paper appears in a peer-reviewed journal." What planet does he live on? Six editors resigned in the aftermath of the publication of the S&B paper precisely because it was a scandal, and they wanted to distance themselves from that scandal. Scandals of this sort are, thankfully, uncommon, but they do occur, regardless of your own personal (and, I might add, irrelevant) opinion.
  30. The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
    Albatross: What are those other metrics?
  31. The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
    I didn't say we aren't warming. I did say...and will state strongly, that temperature by itself is a poor metric.
  32. The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
    Daniel@21, Not to mention that stating "we are using temperature, by itself, as a measurement of heat of the atmosphere" is wholly inaccurate. Several other, independent,metrics are used by scientists and they all point to a warming planet.
  33. The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
    #20: "The ghosts are ... astonished that we are using temperature, by itself, as a measurement of heat of the atmosphere." There's very little that can be said in reply, except perhaps: temperature is a measure of the thermal energy held by matter. An immediate way of sensing this is by touching the material and deciding whether it is hot, warm, or cold. A thermometer precisely measures the temperature and records a numerical value for the temperature. Astonishing that we rely on numerical values as well. Perhaps the ghosts will also be astonished by that.
  34. Climategate a year later
    KL #various Now that you've made the tacit admission that your main basis for intepreting the emails stolen from CRU is not acutally supported by the evidence, it's quite clear that you are aware that the premises for the starting point of your argument are fatally flawed. However, as you have not explicitly made this admission, and continue to pretend that everything is well with your argument, it seems that you are wasting your time trying to shore up an argument that you are aware is not supported by the evidence.
  35. The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
    I was working out in the garage when I heard the sharp shrieking of moving goalposts... First there was this:
    "And this statement in the article, in and by itself, shows why temperature is such a poor metric when measuring climate."
    When pointed out that by Ned (19) that two centuries' worth of physical geographers had been using temperatures to measure climate, there came the loud shrieking noise of this:
    "The ghosts are laughing at us right now, astonished that we are using temperature, by itself, as a measurement of heat of the atmosphere."
     (emphasis added). Those ghosts are still laughing, but now at all the backpedaling. The Yooper
  36. The Fake Scandal of Climategate
    fydijkstra wrote : "Affecting the quality of an IPCC report can be considered a harmful action. So, this ‘secret plan made by two or more people’ can be considered a conspiracy." No it can't, unless, as Composer99 suggests, you believe that anything should be included, no matter how wrong ? Perhaps you also believe that Creationist views should be allowed to be published alongside those of Evolutionary Theory ? Anyway, to see how shallow your conspiracy theory is, see the Muir Russell report, particularly 9.3 The CRUTEM Temperature Series
  37. The Fake Scandal of Climategate
    And here is a rewritten version of the post to which Caerbannog (#26) replied: According to Longman’s Dictionary of Contemporary English a ‘conspiracy’ is ‘a secret plan made by two or more people to do something that is harmful of illegal’. It is a matter of taste whether certain events that are elucidated in the Climategate e-mails can be called a conspiracy. On 8 July 2004 Phil Jones e-mailed to Michael Mann about some papers by Michaels and McKitrick and by De Laat and Maurellis, both discussing the influence of urbanisation on temperature. About half of the observed warming could be explained from the warming effect of urban agglomerations. Jones and Mann were not amused, and Jones wrote: ‘I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is! Cheers, Phil’ Keeping some papers out of an IPCC report is not illegal. But is it harmful? The 2007 IPCC-report would certainly have been less comprehensive without reference to these papers. Affecting the quality of an IPCC report can be considered a harmful action. So, this ‘secret plan made by two or more people’ can be considered a conspiracy. Redefining what peer-review literature is, is not illegal either, although it is against the rules of scientific publication. And, moreover, it was impossible for Jones, Mann and Trenberth to redefine peer-review literature. This phrase can be considered boasting. It is no conspiracy. Nevertheless, this example shows, that there was at least one event that can be considered a conspiracy. This conspiracy was unseccesful. The papers by MM and DLM were mentioned in the final version of AR4. But Jones was successful in omitting the papers from the first and second draft. It was only after repeated comments by Steve McIntyre, that Jones was forced to add a paragraph. Conspiracy or not? Fact is, that the members of the Climategate e-mail club sometimes call themselves ‘the gang’ (11 times in the e-mails). Maybe that is another sort of boasting. My Longman’s dictionary says about a gang: (1) a group of young people who spend time together and often cause trouble and fight against other groups (2) a group of criminals who work together (3) humorous: a group of friends, especially young people (4) a group of workers or prisoners, doing physical work together. Which of the 4 definitions is appropriate is up to the readers. It’s their word, not mine!
  38. The Fake Scandal of Climategate
    As an extension of tobyjoyce's comment #43, I follow a few medical blogs (such as Science-Based Medicine or ScienceBlogs' Respectful Insolence), and I would venture to say that the two strains of science contrarianisms most often analyzed on those sites (anti-vaccination sentiment and anti-mainstream medicine) rely, on occasion, on strikingly similar arguments as some of the AGW contrarian claims that are documented here at Skeptical Science or that one might find when surfing over to WattsUpWithThat. Also, fydijstra in #45, I must beg to differ. The Lancet published a positively scandalous paper in 1998, retracted early this year, by a now much-discredited Briton who engaged in what amounts to scientific fraud. If the Wakefield 1998 paper, had it not been retracted, were to be included in an IPCC-style summary on the present body of evidence surrounding mass vaccination, it would be an unequivocal travesty.
  39. It's the ocean
    h-j-m - The IR power emitted by the ground is a very straightforward application of Bolzmann's law, as well as per observation (with FTIR spectrometers and other instruments). And 396 W/m^2 is the correct number; that is what will be emitted from the ground and water at the current surface temperature. If you disagree with that, you're going to have to overturn a lot of physics! You don't feel it because at your body temperature you're emitting more than that. In an earlier version of the paper Trenberth estimated 390, then corrected it based on surface temperature variations - +/- swings around average temperatures, due to the T^4 term in thermal radiation, means that a varying temperature surface will emit a bit more than an evenly warm surface. The IR backradiation has also been directly measured, repeatedly and quantitatively, since the 1950's. (Stern, S.C., and F. Schwartzmann (1954) An Infrared Detector for Measurement of the Back Radiation from the Sky in J. Atmos. Sci., 11, 121-129. This documents early measurements of backradiation with a pyrgeometer). As to water vapor, you should read the page on Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas. That states the scientific case regarding water vapor feedback more clearly than I can in a few lines.
  40. Climategate: Tampering with Temperatures?
    caerbannog @8, "all the people associated with that project should be presumed incompetent until they can demonstrate otherwise." That would include Pielke Snr.... To be fair though, Watts et al. claimed recently that they have submitted something for publication.
  41. Climategate: Tampering with Temperatures?
    Folks, this post, among other things, should show you how utterly *incompetent* Anthony Watts and his "surfacestations.org" crew are. The "surfacestations" project has been active for *over three years*. And in the three+ years of project's existence, nobody affiliated with it has been able to produce even *one* cursory analysis of temperature data collected by the stations. This, in spite of the fact that the temperature datasets are no more than a few mouse-clicks away for anyone smart enough to figure out how to use a web-browser. It would have been a simple matter for the surfacestations folks to download and crunch the temperature data from the stations as they were conducting the survey. And it would have been almost a "no brainer" for them to compare temperature data collected from "well-sited" vs. "poorly-sited" stations in order to confirm or disprove their claims about temperature data quality. But in 3+ years' time, nobody affiliated with the project has done that -- this in spite of the fact that the gridding/averaging procedure is a task that capable undergraduate compsci/engineering students would have no problem implementing. It was left to others to perform the analysis work that the lazy and/or incompetent surfacestations folks were unwilling or unable to perform. The fact that the Muir Russell commission was able to do in *two days* what the Anthony Watts' and his surfacestations crew were unable to do in 3+ years should be a reminder to one and all how lazy and/or incompetent the folks who have been attacking the surface temperature record are. The surfacestations project is a complete joke; all the people associated with that project should be presumed incompetent until they can demonstrate otherwise.
  42. Climategate a year later
    KL, May I point out the irony, neigh hypocrisy, of you (falsely) accusing others of "smear". I am merely stating the widely-known facts about NP and Corcoran. NP is being taken to court for very good reasons-- NP repeatedly libeled Weaver (and other scientists) and frequently fabricates or distorts information pertaining to climate science. By knowingly doing so, Corocoran is actually smearing his own reputation. In short, the NP is not a credible, trustworthy, or impartial source of information on climate science. Anyhow, Marco has addressed the misinformation that you quoted from NP in his post @57. KL, is the theory of AGW/ACC a hoax? The reason I ask is that I'm trying to figure out what your position is, because you seem both skeptical of the nuts and bolts (i.e., the science and data) as well as the scientists. In fact, you seem to opportunistically attack the science and scientists whenever you think that doing so will reinforce/support your belief system. My assessment of your posts here at SS is that you are a contrarian and that you think/believe AGW is either a hoax or a non-issue. I could be wrong, so please do state clearly for the record exactly where you are coming from. You might not believe this, but I often naively wish that I could wish away AGW, to make it a non-issue-- but the fact is, is that AGW/ACC is a reality and multiple, independent lines of evidence support a warming of around 3 C for doubling CO2 (and we will easily more than double CO2). And warming is not the only issue, the negative impacts of ocean acidification are already making their presence felt.
  43. The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
    The ghosts are laughing at us right now, astonished that we are using temperature, by itself, as a measurement of heat of the atmosphere.
  44. Climategate: Tampering with Temperatures?
    For "skeptics", the temperature record is reliable just as long as it supports "cooling" or "no warming". If Phil Jones says the last 15 years had no warming trend to the 95% confidence level, then the record is spot on. If someone says it stopped in 1998, then NASA, NCDC and CRU are beyond suspicion. But if you point out the obvious long term warming trend, then it's just a bunch of numbers made up by the secret brotherhood of the warmist scientists.
  45. Climategate: Tampering with Temperatures?
    Ed @4, Thanks for picking up on that. I checked Michael's testimony again and he does not specify which records he is using-- he refers to using the CRU surface temperature data or using data from the Hadley Centre. So it looks like he may have been using both HadCRUT and CRUTEM, the fact that he did not uses the accepted nomenclature does not help. Anyhow, the whole point is the irony of the "skeptics" making (fallacious) claims as to the integrity of the CRU and CRU data, but then going on ahead and using those data repeatedly because they are underestimating the amount of warming.
  46. The Fake Scandal of Climategate
    Caerbannog (#26): The moderator does not want this topic to be discussed; he deleted the comment that you are commenting. My original comment can be found here. It can never be a scandal that a paper appears in a peer-reviewed journal. That only means that an editor and two reviewers appreciate the paper. Any other scientist who disagrees can write another peer-reviewed paper to demonstrate that the first article is wrong. The scandal begins, where Jones tries to keep the paper out of the IPCC-report, without a peer-reviewed article that shows that the paper is wrong. The task of the IPCC is to review the peer-reviewed literature. Keeping out some articles, because Jones does not agree with them, is wrong. Jones was lead author of a very important scientific review, he was not editing a private publication supporting his personal views. So Jones, Mann and Trenberth were making a secret plan to narrow the scope of the IPCC-report, without justification in the peer-reviewed literature. That was harmful for the quality and independence of the IPCC-report. According to Longman's dictionary, that can be called a conspiracy.
  47. The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
    The ghosts of two centuries' worth of physical geographers will be astonished to learn that "temperature is [...] a poor metric when measuring climate".
  48. The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
    "Water vapour is a strong greenhouse gas and the dry desert air traps much less heat than more humid areas." And this statement in the article, in and by itself, shows why temperature is such a poor metric when measuring climate.
  49. Skeptical Science Firefox Add-on: Send and receive climate info while you browse
    Sorry, but I have just noticed a problem with this addon. When I first installed it, Firefox started playing up, I had recently upgraded my video driver and thought maybe that was the cause - which is one of the reasons that I decided to update my PC as mentioned in my last post. The problem I was having was that my mouse pointer, when over a link, would flicker and change back to an arrow from a hand. Having just installed this addon it started happening again until I disabled it - now all is fine again. Does Shine Tech know of this issue?
  50. The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'
    Marcus@11: You say the sun has just come out of the deepest solar min in 100 years. It would appear that you are basing that on sunspots? On what basis are you suggesting that sunspots are the measure of solar activity?
    Moderator Response: See both the Intermediate and the Advanced versions of the Argument "It's the Sun."

Prev  2066  2067  2068  2069  2070  2071  2072  2073  2074  2075  2076  2077  2078  2079  2080  2081  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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