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  2110  2111  2112  2113  2114  2115  2116  2117  2118  2119  2120  2121  2122  2123  2124  2125  Next

Comments 105851 to 105900:

  1. Blaming global warming on the oceans - a basic rebuttal
    Gray says global warming is "likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents". Perhaps another argument against this is to examine the wavelengths of known ocean oscillations, like El Nino. These seem to occur in time periods less than 10 years, even less than 3 years, despite being global in extent. This argues that a natural alteration with a multi-decadal wavelength is unlikely. And if it involves salinity, how did that happen, if not through global melting, due to global warming? It seems the simplest explanation is still the best one.
  2. There is no consensus
    Phil, you can talk up climate science all you like, it involves physics and chemistry, but that's where the similarity ends. You can make predictions in physics and chemistry, and verify them. In climate science, you can't even predict next year's trend. But you can grandly predict the trend for the next century. Without the slightest risk of being proved wrong.
    Moderator Response: You are solidly in the topic of a different thread now: "Models are Unreliable." Use the Search field at the top left of this page.
  3. There is no consensus
    Archie, if the evidence was as overwhelming as you say, I wouldn't waste my time looking. I know for a fact that the evidence is debateable, because I've done a lot of looking, much more that the average student intake. I think I am therefore well justified in my conclusion that most people are initially convinced by the "consensus" rather than evidence. You mention doctors, but many doctors are also homeopaths, and many are "experts" in homeopathy. The concencus of experts in homeopathy would be overwhelmingly supporting the effectiveness of homeopathic remedies. Same applies to Chirpractic. I'm not saying that climate science is as silly as these, I'm just pointing out that a consensus is naturally self perpetuating, till it's disproved. That's why the consensus on AGW is totally valueless, as evidence.
  4. Blaming global warming on the oceans - a basic rebuttal
    mbayer I think you'll find Dan Pangburn is a contributor to ClimateRealsists.com. Embarrassingly to the engineering profession he says he is a mechanical engineer.
  5. Klaus Flemløse at 05:18 AM on 25 October 2010
    DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    Peter Hogarth, Thank you for your remarks. Frank Lanser has been so kind as to produce an excel sheet with the data behind his temperature graph. You can find it below: http://hidethedecline.eu/media/BLANDET/DMIIS.xls I understand from your latest remarks that you have access to the corresponding data from DMI. I would be pleased if you could provide Skeptical Science readers with the DMI data in excel format. I am looking forward to doing a reconciliation of the two datasets. Regards Klaus Flemløse
  6. Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
    Speaking of IR antennas or at least something in the same domain of recovering wasted heat energy, thermionic junctions are finally showing some promise for recycling of waste heat on a large scale. More nanotech goodness...
  7. Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
    @RSVP: AWH represents about 1% of AGHW. Therefore, about 1% of the temperature incraease is due to waste heat. Why are you still arguing about this (apart from wasting peopel's time, which I suspect is your true objective here)?
  8. There is no consensus
    Actually the first relatively back-of-the-envelope style calculations of the net effects of CO2 forcing were remarkably close to what we're seeing, mistermack. The earlier model predictions also produced results that can be considered reasonably useful in light of how things have since progressed. Early calculations were done some 50 years ago or more, model runs were first being done over 30 years in the past, so this is hardly "brand new." One can of course say, "oh, they were just lucky" but that's really not sufficient.
  9. There is no consensus
    Mistermack @246 most science can be verified by experiment No, science is verified by observation. Experimentation is, of course, just a "fast track" way of making observations. For some sciences, (Astronomy, Ethology, Geology) experimentation is difficult, if not impossible; for others (Economics, Human Development) experimentation can be considered immoral. Climate science is actually largely, if not entirely, the application of physics and a little bit of chemistry to a specific system - the Earth and its atmosphere. Experiments pertaining to climate science, and indeed think about the effects of CO2 on the energy balance have been going on for about 150 years.
  10. There is no consensus
    @mistermack: "How many new students in the climate science field come into the subject without an opinion on global warming? And what it the overwhelming opinion going to be? Pro, of course." This is irrelevant. Most people believe in AGW because the evidence is there, and the science is convincing. One has to be pretty arrogant to assume that the majority of people going into climate science are led by irrational belief rather than actual scientific knowledge. "If you didn't believe in global warming, you would be crazy to choose climate science as a career." It's not a matter of belief, but of logical reasoning. We accept AGW as very likely true because the evidence clearly suggests it is. "So every new intake is already convinced of AGW, generally because of the concensus." The consensus exists because the science is pretty compelling. The fact the science is so compelling is the reason many contrarians choose not to debate the science, but rather attack the integrity of those who understand it by claiming (without evidence) they are victim of groupthink. This is what you're trying to do now. It's insulting, not to mention factually wrong. "In fact, in any field, most "experts" are understandaby apologists for the concensus." And that means they are wrong? Is a doctor an apologist for treatment because he's an expert in it? Is a general an apologist for good military strategy because he's an expert? Your position seems to be that the more someone knows about something, the less we should trust that person. That's nothing more than ole' fashioned anti-intellectualism. the bane of scientific thought. You assume the experts are wrong simply because you don't agree with the conclusion...that's not a logical position. "There is an incredibly similar situation in the field of Bible study. The huge majority of people entering the profession are already believers." Actually, the situation is very different, because Bible study isn't empirical science. It's simply the study of Christian religious texts. Again, you try to attack the reputation of those you disagree with, this time by likening them to religious people. The sad thing is that, by espousing false ideas not based on logic and trying to discredit honest scientists, *you* are the one acting like the anti-sciece fanatical religious fringe.
  11. There is no consensus
    Hi Phil, from the little I know, QM and GR contradict each other in places, and both fail when applied to the very beginning of the big bang. However, my real argument would be that most science can be verified by experiment, and maths by proof. Climate science is brand new, with no track record, and has a record of NO correct predictions so far. ( I mean real predictions, not retro ).
    Moderator Response: You are wrong. In the Search field type "Models are Unreliable."
  12. There is no consensus
    Mistermack @242 says: A concensus IS a feedback loop. Especially if it exists in a scientific community. There is scientific consensus on General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics and Darwinian Evolution ... Does that mean they're wrong ? Why should it for climate science ? There is an incredibly similar situation in the field of Bible study. I had a friend that lost her faith studying Theology. Her view was that the lecturers threw every argument against religion at the students to ensure students could overcome any "doubts". For her the doubts got the better of her. She was quite bitter about it :-(
  13. Blaming global warming on the oceans - a basic rebuttal
    #20 How about we assume that GW is caused partly by ocean surface temperature, partly by CO2 level and partly by sunspots? How about we back up our assumptions with the best available science, instead of relying on dodgy pseudoscientific sites?
  14. There is no consensus
    Truevoice, firstly, are you saying then that the scientific consensus is never wrong? I'm afraid I have to disagree. And you don't attempt to refute my points, you are simply argueing by assertion yourself. I think you should reread your own link, and look up "irony".
  15. Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
    RSVP, All heat imparted from our technology is by definition "waste". All of it. The heat which comes from friction, A/C, factories and electronics is all due to inefficiency. Your assumption that waste heat is enough to warm the planet by 0.1C per year is based on a faulty premise. Nor have you demonstrated the effect of "waste heat" is more than the +0.028 W m−2 identified by Flannery. If you have identified a flaw in his paper, please point it out to us.
  16. CO2 lags temperature
    MrResponse, I have read that article about runaway warming, someone already linked it on this thread. But you can't have it both ways. If there is a built-in mechanism that stopped runaway warming, (as seems perfectly clear anyway from the graphs), then there should be little to worry about. And also, what is the mechanism that happens so suddenly (suddenly in climate terms Archie), and sends the whole process into reverse? There is nothing similar to that in the page you linked. If it was the CO2 supply dwindling in the ocean, wouldn't it happen incredibly slowly? How do you think that could happen quickly, and go straight into steep reverse, as I asked? People seem to be dodging the difficult question here.
  17. There is no consensus
    Mistermack, The difference in religious studies and science is that science is self-correcting, using the most rigorous methodology of discovery humans have ever invented. Providing links to arguments about religious experts tells us absolutely nothing about science or the field of climatology. Your statements regarding a "consensus" are yet another Argument by Assertion, a logical fallacy. I strongly suggest you spend some time at the Fallacy Files before posting here again. You'll be able to make a stronger case for your point of view.
  18. Blaming global warming on the oceans - a basic rebuttal
    @Dan: Dude, 'climaterealists.com'? This is a denier website. You were misled by the innocuous URL.
  19. Explaining Arctic sea ice loss
    D Kelly O'Day at 09:40 AM on 19 October, 2010 Sorry about the delay in responding. I fitted a linear trend to the HadCRUT series, then worked out the exact monthly increment for that trend, then generated a monthly cumulative time series and subtracted these values from the corresponding original monthly data values, (then back-checked the result!). This is crude but effective. Hope that makes sense.
  20. Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
    muoncounter #319 In your reference "as much as 20 to 50% of the energy consumed is ultimately lost via waste heat " the use of waste heat in this context refers to inefficiencies in systems. It refers to energy expenditure that accomplishes no useful work. My use of the term refers to any and all heat that is imparted on any and all things on this Earth, assuming the first law of thermodynamics holds for fossil fuel consumption, which it does.... (just imagine if it didnt... we'd have a huge class action law suit for that energy weve been charged for!) So all this energy could be the heat produced from friction on tires, air, engine parts. This could be heat that ultimately escapes from homes for heating. This could be heat used to warm water to shower, all of it ultimately ending up in the environment. I assumed the atmosphere just to simplify the problem, and you are right about heat getting into streams, the oceans etc. You can complicate and refine this as much as you want, and of course this was very rough. For instance, I assume the mass of air is constant with altitude, whereas in reality it drops off to about half at 27,000 ft, which when accounted for would make the resulting temperature rise even higher. Someone else will say the atmosphere is higher, so the rise is less, and on and on. I am aware of this, but if you assume the Earth´s temperature will rise 3 degrees in the next 100 years due to GHGs, then each year the change is 0.03 C. Here, the result for "waste heat" could be 0.1 C. So the only way it could be GHG is if all the waste heat magically goes away, which is what the "non contrarians" are going to have to say.
  21. Blaming global warming on the oceans - a basic rebuttal
    How about we assume that GW is caused partly by ocean surface temperature, partly by CO2 level and partly by sunspots? Set up a rational equation incorporating all these with coefficients to determine the influence of each. If you do this you will discover that, since 1895, sunspots caused about 22% of the temperature increase with the rest divided about equally between ocean surface temperature and sunspots. See the equation which calculates average global temperatures since 1895 with an accuracy of 88%, an eye-opening graph of the results, and how they are derived in the pdfs at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true
  22. There is no consensus
    The AGW arguments rely heavily on feedback loops, and the concensus argument is just about the biggest. A concensus IS a feedback loop. Especially if it exists in a scientific community. How many new students in the climate science field come into the subject without an opinion on global warming? And what it the overwhelming opinion going to be? Pro, of course. If you didn't believe in global warming, you would be crazy to choose climate science as a career. So every new intake is already convinced of AGW, generally because of the concensus. There is your feedback loop, concensus naturally reinforces concensus and actually increases it. In fact, in any field, most "experts" are understandaby apologists for the concensus. There is an incredibly similar situation in the field of Bible study. The huge majority of people entering the profession are already believers. What happens when they study in depth, and maybe experience some doubts? Here's a good article "Biblical Scholars Here's another well written piece on why most "experts" are apologists for the concensus: Most experts are apologists for the concensus .
  23. CO2 lags temperature
    mistermack, since you seem frustrated at the answers you are getting here, why don't you post your question about the rapidity of cooling over on this particular post on ice ages at RealClimate?
  24. CO2 lags temperature
    @mistermack: you seems to assume a lot of things wrong. What you says happens "suddenly" in reality takes hundreds, even thousands of years. You also seem to believe only CO2 affects temperature. You've been provided with links explaining why these ain't so. Why not try to study these various mechanisms a bit more instead of taking such an adversarial approach? Did you come here to learn, or to make a point?
  25. Blaming global warming on the oceans - a basic rebuttal
    TimTheToolMan, water evaporates all the time, and it precipitates all the time. There are spatial and temporal lumps in the atmosphere's water vapor content, but as barry wrote, the overall average is determined by temperature and pressure of the atmosphere, not by temperature of the water pools.
  26. Blaming global warming on the oceans - a basic rebuttal
    "Evaporation occurs all the time at the surface of the oceans" Are you suggesting a warmer ocean wont affect the moisture levels in the atmosphere? What about convection?
  27. CO2 lags temperature
    mistermack, lots of factors influence temperature. Although CO2 is a really important one, it is not the only one. The interplay of those factors is complicated. Our knowledge of that interplay is summarized in causal models. Those models do a good job of hindcasting the changes in temperature in response to changes in those factors.
  28. CO2 lags temperature
    mistermack, your incorrect analogy with a moving ball makes me suspect that you are incorrectly thinking of temperature as having inertia.
  29. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    stylo, #38. The incoming solar and outgoing terrestrial radiation spectra are different (different temperatures of sun and earth). GHGs selectively block frequencies nearer the peak of the earth's spectrum, so they stop only a small fraction of the incoming energy but a larger fraction of the outgoing energy. So a portion of the spectrum becomes essentially unavailable for the earth to use to radiate away energy, and it warms up until it emits enough energy at other frequencies to maintain the balance. If it helps, you can think of it as effectively lowering the emissivity of the earth at certain frequencies, by lowering the transparency of the atmosphere to those frequencies.
  30. CO2 lags temperature
    In any case, Archie, for that to happen, the CO2 graph would have to get ahead of the temperature graph.
  31. CO2 lags temperature
    Archie, that's totally illogical. If you consider the peaks of the graphs, you have a huge steep rise, coming to a sudden stop, followed by a huge steep fall. How on earth does that happen in response to CO2 feedback? Does the ocean suddenly stop outgassing, and suddenly start sucking in CO2? In huge quantities? How would that happen?
    Moderator Response: Again, you seem to be assuming that putting the label "positive feedback" on any phenomenon necessitates the runaway version of positive feedback. See the Argument "Positive Feedback Means Runaway Warming", and read all three versions--Basic, Intermediate, and Advanced.
  32. Blaming global warming on the oceans - a basic rebuttal
    Evaporation occurs all the time at the surface of the oceans, but it is the temperature (and pressure) of the atmosphere that determines how much water vapour accumulates (on average), as per the Clausius–Clapeyron relation.
  33. CO2 lags temperature
    @mistermack: you don't seem to understand that climate feedbacks don't necessarily lead to runaway warming. Did you read the article I linked to earlier? "In climate terms, that would require the CO2 to run out, or the process of outgassing from the ocean to suddenly stop." There is a finite amount of CO2 sequestered in the oceans, so it is possible that the rate of CO2 release from oceans would slow down as that amount decreases. Your analogy is inadequate, and your conclusions are thus erroneous. I suggest reading more from this site before attempting to take down current AGW theory.
  34. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    #39, cont'd: Stylo: So the point is that a little bit from solar input is worth just a little bit from the heat-radiation output: When compared on an apples-to-apples basis, total solar input to the Earth is essentially equal to total Terran heat-radiation output. So the point still stands: Additional water vapor will do much more to reduce the heat loss than it does for blocking incoming solar radiation.
  35. CO2 lags temperature
    There seems to be very poor understanding of feedback among posters, so I'll try to give a simplified description. Imagine you have a football, (soccer), and a golfball. Chop the football in half, and lay it on the ground as a bowl. Put the golfball inside. That's negative feedback. If anything disturbs the golfball, it will roll back to the middle. Turn the football over, and put the golf ball on top. A very slight forcing factor ( a breath of wind ) causes it to roll. Once it's on the down slope, gravity, the feedback mechanism, takes over, and the ball runs away. It no longer needs the wind that started it, and wind in the other direction can't blow it back up the football. So those who claim that a reverse in the level of insolation would stop a feedback mechanism are really not understanding what's happening at all. For that to happen, the feedback would have to be incredibly weak, nowhere near what could pull a planet out of an ice-age. In reality, it's removing the feedback power source that stops positive feedback loops, like turning down the volume knob on your guitar amplifier. In climate terms, that would require the CO2 to run out, or the process of outgassing from the ocean to suddenly stop.
  36. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    #38, Stylo: According to the wiki on the Earth's energy budget (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget ), 1366 (W/m^2) is the instantaneous intensity of the sunlight at 1 AU. However, to compare that with the radiated power from the Earth, you have to convert that into a surface-area average. That gives a factor of 4. More explicitly: - The solar constant S = 1366 (W/m^2). The cross-sectional area of the Earth is pi*R^2, so the total power absorbed from the sun is P_in = S * (pi*R^2) = pi * R^2 * S (The point is that, at any one time, the sunlight only shines on the daytime half of the Earth; and you have to take the tilting of the surface relative to the rays. Both issues are taken care of by using the cross-sectional area to calculate total absorbed power.) - The time-averaged power radiated away through heat radiation, per unit area, is B (W/m^2). Therefore, the total heat radiation lost to space is: P_out = B * 4*pi*R^2 = 4 * pi * R^2 * B (This is emitted day and night, so over the entire area of the Earth.) - Since P_out is, on the average, almost perfectly equal to P_in, 4 * pi * R^2 * B = P_out = P_in = pi * R^2 * S so: B = S/4 = 1366/4 = 341.5 (which is close enough to 342 for government work). So the match is perfect, to within the precision of these numbers. (If there were a 1366 - 342 - 1024 (W/m^2) difference between input power and output power, we would not be talking about "global warming": We would comparing recipes for "global roasting"!)
  37. Blaming global warming on the oceans - a basic rebuttal
    @kdkd : "Only one of these three things (c02, h20(g) and h20(l)) is the primary causal agent." What about something else entirely heating the oceans?
  38. Blaming global warming on the oceans - a basic rebuttal
    @barry : "Gray's argument infers ocean cooling." This is a fair comment. He seems to say the following in the article... "This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations." ...so yes its implied in his statement. However it takes a warmer ocean to increase the amount of water vapour (when it cools) so he's also implying warming in his natural alteration statement. " he is certainly not saying that water vapour is a driver." Nobody is saying that.
  39. Blaming global warming on the oceans - a basic rebuttal
    Indeed, he states that water vapour is a negative feedback - he is certainly not saying that water vapour is a driver. Never mind that his various statements are completely at odds with the consensus of evidence.
  40. Blaming global warming on the oceans - a basic rebuttal
    Gray attributes the warming to ocean heating
    No, Gray's argument infers ocean cooling. He posits that oceans are losing heat to the atmosphere, driven by salinity variation in the oceans - not water vapour.
  41. Blaming global warming on the oceans - a basic rebuttal
    TTM: Circular logic: "The theory goes CO2 drives the warming of the oceans and through increased water vapour, the oceans drive the warming of the earth." Only one of these three things (c02, h20(g) and h20(l)) is the primary causal agent. Your statement can only be true if we assume that none of the above are the primary causal agent. The scientific theory tells us that co2 is the primary causal agent, therefore can be described as the "driver" of the system under examination. The "none of the above" answer could be true on some level of analysis, but is not a terribly useful proposition for the present discussion.
  42. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    #36 nealjking, re: the graphs: the incoming from the sun is 1366 W/m2 but the outgoing is only, what, 342 W/m2? So a little out of the sun's is worth a lot out of the earth's energy flow in terms of greenhouse blocking. #37 TonyW, 1. "your first blanket would radiate away heat because it is cooler." It would be cooler but, without convection-cooling from the air the blanket would just get to the same temperature as the body and radiate away just as much. So, radiation blocking is not really a mechanism of heat trapping. 3. By passively warmed I just mean it doesn't have its own power source and so can't add to the temperature like, say, a lowered emissivity could.
  43. Blaming global warming on the oceans - a basic rebuttal
    "There are no indicators of ocean heat driving temperature changes that are supported by the evidence." There is nothing tricky about this. Gray attributes the warming to ocean heating and doesn't attribute the ocean warming to CO2 (presumably he thinks its something else) and AGW theory attibutes the warming to ocean heating and does attribute the ocean warming to CO2 So I think the statement at the top that I requoted is inadequate in the context of this rebuttal. I'm not quite sure how you get that I'm using circular logic. Perhaps you could explain that?
  44. Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
    #317: "the amount of waste heat per year is around 474 x 10E18 J according to the link you provide above," You seem to equate all energy use with 'waste heat', using the 474e18 J given in said link as if none of that heat went to heat water or heat solids. I wonder why no one else does it this way. For example, a very thorough study of the US industrial processes concluded that of the 32e15 BTU (34e18 J) consumed in 2008 by US industry, "as much as 20 to 50% of the energy consumed is ultimately lost via waste heat contained in streams of hot exhaust gases and liquids, as well as through heat conduction, convection, and radiation from hot equipment surfaces and from heated product streams While industry uses only about one third of the total US energy consumption and the US is only a fraction of the entire world's energy consumption, there's a long way between 34x10^18 J and the 474x10^18 J you've used.
  45. Blaming global warming on the oceans - a basic rebuttal
    TTTM: #8 No, on the face of it your argument looks like circular reasoning. If you think that you have a valid argument, you must spell it out for us clearly and unambiguously. Insinuating that there's some special insight that you have that we can become privy to if we just think about it in the right way is not a terribly valid argument. I think you need to spell it out for us, so that we can assess its arguments on your merits, not on what we think that you think that it means. #9 Yes, there's some sort of optimisation function that will show you the conditions necessary to meet these conditions. Perhaps that work has already been done in the literature, or perhaps the algebra is straightforward. Perhaps you could enlighten us as to the conditions that are necessary to confirm your hypothesis?
  46. Blaming global warming on the oceans - a basic rebuttal
    "My analogy: I cannot get richer by giving away my money unless I have a donor that is giving me money at a faster rate than I am giving it away." This is an interesting point. Were you aware of the rate at which energy is both input into the ocean from the sun and radiated away from the earth? Roughly the amount of ocean heat that was accumulating each year when it was accumulating energy quickly some years ago is the same as the oceans recieves in just one day from the sun. There is plenty of energy around to both heat the oceans and have it produce increased water vapour.
  47. Blaming global warming on the oceans - a basic rebuttal
    @cbp, Yes but this is rebuttal against someone who also is saying oceans drive the warming. Do you see the problem with the statement now?
  48. Blaming global warming on the oceans - a basic rebuttal
    I recall having this conversation with a skeptic on my blog several months ago. I asked him how it was possible that the oceans were releasing heat to cause the climatic warming and yet were still gaining heat themselves? My analogy: I cannot get richer by giving away my money unless I have a donor that is giving me money at a faster rate than I am giving it away. I try to use money examples because people seem to relate well to money (it makes cents). {groans expected}
  49. Blaming global warming on the oceans - a basic rebuttal
    @TimTheToolMan I would assume the author's use of the term 'driving' refers to the culprit initiating the warming, not any of the ensuing feedback cycles. The 'driver' of car is the person behind the steering wheel, not the axle.
  50. Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
    RSVP #317 Woops. Sorry, there is a typo, 474 x 10E21 J, where the exponent should be 18. This doesnt affect the calculation.

Prev  2110  2111  2112  2113  2114  2115  2116  2117  2118  2119  2120  2121  2122  2123  2124  2125  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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