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

Meet The Denominator

Posted on 13 February 2011 by Rob Honeycutt

As most here have followed the climate issue for some time I'm sure we have each been faced with climate skeptics throwing out big numbers related to different aspects of climate science.

There is the ever present "31,000 Scientists Who Challenge Global Warming," the infamous Oregon Petition.

And then many of us have run into the ever ravenous PopTech (Andrew) and his, now, 850 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm

These folks have yet to meet….   The Denominator!


Fig 1  -  Okay, this is really the Terminator but bear with me, the effect is about the same.

In this exercise we are going to give both the Oregon Petition and PopTech's 850 papers the benefit of the doubt.  We know there are many many reasons to challenge the assumptions of their claims but there is one thing they can not defend.  They are only presenting one side of the equation.

First, let's look at the Oregon Petition.  They define "scientist" as anyone with a BS degree or better. They state, "This includes primarily those with BS, MS, or PhD degrees in science, engineering, or related disciplines."  Thus, 31,000 is their numerator.

According to the US Census for 2000, 28 million people had bachelors degrees and 16 million had graduate or professional degrees.  We'll safely assume that half of the bachelor degrees are BA's and not BS degrees.  In 2000 that represented about 10% of the population.  If the proportions hold today it leaves us with a total of 31 million people of the current US population of 312 million (Note: the Oregon Petition is limited to the US).

Numerator, meet The Denominator!  31,000 over 31,200,000 comes to 0.00099.  Or roughly 0.1% of persons holding a BS or better have signed the petition challenging anthropogenic global warming, assuming that every single signature on the list is legitimate.  This is what The Denominator does.  He crushes big numbers into itty-bitty numbers.

Now let's look at PopTech's 850 papers.  Even mainstream skeptics like Roger Pielke Jr. as well as others have taken exception to PopTech's list but again, we're going to give him the benefit of the doubt and allow him the concept that 850 peer reviewed papers actually do challenge AGW alarm.  (I know it's a stretch but we're going to cut him a break, this time.)

Here I just went to Google Scholar.  I limited the search to the term "climate change" and only searched articles in the subject areas of 1) Biology, Life Science and Environmental Science, and 2) Physics, Astronomy and Planetary Science.  That returned 954,000 articles.  I did a pretty thorough perusal of 200 articles of the 100 pages of results and it looks like they are all actual papers and not just references to any blogs or websites.  A number are listed as "[citation]" so we might pull out about 10% for good measure.  But everything else looks to be published works in a very wide variety of scientific journals.  I intentionally left out the 177,000 papers that result when I do the same search on "global warming" since I don't know how many of those will be duplicate hits.

Numerator, meet The Denominator!  What we are left with is about 850,000 peer reviewed papers on climate change for the 850 peer reviewed papers that PopTech presents.  That leaves our friend with 0.1% of peer reviewed papers that challenge AGW alarm, as defined by him.  

I'm sure some folks will find ways to quibble about the numbers but I don't think even the very best debater can appreciably alter the resulting percentages.  And if they try…

"I'll be back."

 
Update (Feb 18):  In the comments Poptech has brought up several valid points about the search results I came up with.  In an effort to better quantify the denominator I did some additional research. I did year by year searches going back 40 years on "climate change" and "global warming", excluded citations, and checked for various other erroneous results. 
 
The outcome was, without even addressing the accuracy of the numerator, that the percentage does not change dramatically.  My first cursory search returned 0.1%.  The more detailed work resulted in 0.45%.  It's a big improvement for Poptech, by almost a factor of 5, but still the denominator is so large that it dwarfs the numerator. If a qualified outside group were to audit Poptech's list I believe the numerator would also shrink significantly. 
 
There is plenty of room for skepticism in all areas of science. Good science relies on healthy skepticism.  One highly biased individual creating a subjective list does not rise to the level of good scientific skepticism.
 

0 0

Printable Version  |  Link to this page

Comments

Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next

Comments 151 to 200 out of 788:

  1. The onus on curator of the list, being a honorable fellow who is interested in presenting the science properly, to specify what portion of the scientific literature on the subject of climate change the papers on his little list (which is padded as I and other shave shown) makes up. It is likely to be more than 0.2%, or even 0.5% or even 1%. Rob here has made an initial effort. Poptech can not plead ignorance. Now he is welcome to improve upon the number shown here, and so long as the results of this search are independently verifiable and his methodology sound, i'm sure Rob will be happy to amend the 0.1% number. The ball is now in Poptech's court-- not to nitpick at the 0.1%, but to undertake their own analysis and arrive at his own number. and given that he claims to be happy to correct things, he can start be removing all those papers on the list which have been refuted by subsequent research. he can start with G&T09, followed by McLean et al. 2009, L&C09 etc etc....he can also remove papers which contradict each other. I can;t believe we are helping poptech...if he implements these changes alone, the list will have much more credibility. But first of all he has to unambiguously decide what he wishes to demonstrate, in terms accepted by the science, and then show those papers which directly speak to to that point.
    0 0
  2. PopTech... Did you remove articles because they were published in a journal that is nominally (at best) considered peer-reviewed? (E&E)
    0 0
  3. PopTech... You obviously continue to miss the point of the article. In the article I clearly state that I'm giving you (however dubious) the benefit of the doubt. All I'm doing is applying a very cursorily researched denominator. If you want to drill down into the denominator you have to apply equally rigorous scrutiny to the numerator. We're just engaging in a reduction of the fraction. Believe me, if we carry this exercise out you're not going to fair any better.
    0 0
  4. PopTech... You ask: How did you peruse 200 pages? and Did you count climate control systems in automobiles? I'm saying in response have you contacted all the authors in your list and asked them if they support the position you are assigning to their papers. Do you not see what is right in front of you? We're just reducing the fraction to a lower common denominator.
    0 0
  5. Poptech@209 "That the percentage of climate change papers in relation to AGW and AGW alarm is undetermined and cannot be determined without evaluating each and every paper individually." Excellent. So we agree that the quantity of papers in your list (850) is entirely without context and therefor without meaning. All that remains is the evaluate every paper written about AGW (and its consequences) to arrive at a meaningful ratio. How many of those do you suppose there are? Can't be very many if 850 Skeptical papers makes up a significant percentage of the total.
    0 0
  6. PopTech said... "All I have to demonstrate is his conclusions are based on erroneous results, which I have done." So we are left with an erroneous numerator and erroneous denominator. That's why I said before, it's really too bad that you don't apply a more rigorous standard to your list because it could actually be very useful. Of course, probably not useful for your preferred conclusions.
    0 0
  7. Poptech said "That the percentage of climate change papers in relation to AGW and AGW alarm is undetermined and cannot be determined without evaluating each and every paper individually." So, in fact, I was right when back in comment 169 I said: "I know there are more grains of sand on a beach than 850... but I can't count them all. I guess that means by Poptech's logic that his list has as many 'skeptical' papers as there are grains of sand on a beach?" Poptech also asks why Rob is counting papers about climate control in cars... simply because it was intended to be a rough number. One could just as easily ask PT why he includes papers like the one Mr. Marsupial pointed out, that actually gives cause for alarm if AGW continues. In fact, make that a question directly addressed to you Andrew: why's that paper in there? It's behind a paywall but I will assume Dikran has accurately summarised it. Anyway, if one is very generous and assumes that only 1 in 100 of Rob's counts would actually count, then that list is still 10 times longer than Poppy's.
    0 0
  8. PopTech... "Was the point of the article to falsely imply you perused 200 pages?" There is an error there that I will correct. I perused through about 200 papers. Not pages. There are 100 pages of articles. But that does not alter any of the results.
    0 0
  9. PopTech... The only thing of value to skeptics is the number you try to throw out. You create a false impression that there is a large body of evidence running contrary to AGW and it's just not true. It's a lie.
    0 0
  10. Rob Honeycutt @225 Exactly. The papers in the list may or may not have scientific merit. I am not arguing that, nor would I be qualified to make such an evaluation. The point is that without the denominator the quantity is meaningless.
    0 0
  11. PopTech... When you have authors of papers who specifically say that the papers they wrote do not say what you suggest they say, what is that?
    0 0
  12. "The context and meaning of the 850 list is that they exist contrary to popular belief and it is a valuable resource for skeptics" Ooh here's an opportunity. Can you please point out an example showing popular belief to be that 'skeptical' papers don't exist? That'd be real handy. PS. It's only a valuable resource for throwing a number out there. Thereafter, a real skeptic will look at the papers and analyse them, finding that a very large number are simply crap. Then the 'skeptic' (the person the list was supposed to help) is left trying to defend scores of sub-standard, contradictory papers and looks foolish. Like I said earlier, if you were trying to make your fellow 'sceptics' more wrong, mission accomplished.
    0 0
  13. PopTech... 850 is a large amount relative to what? And, again, the standards you apply to what qualifies for the list is highly questionable. Therefore a more rational number is likely closer to half of that. But again, the number of 850 unto itself has no context. You have to provide context.
    0 0
  14. PopTech... Do we really have to bring up Pielke?
    0 0
  15. PopTech... Is there a consistent theory amongst the 850 papers you list? Or are you merely listing papers supporting a variety of dissenting opinion?
    0 0
  16. Poptech @215, "I have to do no such thing. All I have to demonstrate is his conclusions are based on erroneous results, which I have done." Actually you do. You disagree with 0.1%. Pray tell then...what is the correct fraction? In this sort of endeavour, context is everything. to the man on the street 850 (an inflated number) sounds like a big dent. Well, it is anything but a big dent. And you should very much consult the authors of each paper, b/c by including their paper/s in the list (which is essentially a politically-motivated list) list you may be misrepresenting their position on AGW, and perhaps even misrepresenting their science by lumping it in with a) refuted papers and b) dodgy journals and c) a propaganda list. Again, uncertainty is not equivalent to or suggest a reason to be skeptical of the theory of AGW. you title really does not make any sense, and i suspect that you were trying too hard to cover too many aspects. Didn't Harold Brooks request that you remove one or more of his papers included by you on the list? I still see his name there, more than once in fact. While your merry dance here is intriguing and at times entertaining, I would advise you that it is not helping your credibility one bit. People are trying to help you improve your list. Ignore their advice at your own peril.
    0 0
  17. Poptech pbjamm, "What exactly is it you are arguing for here?" "That the percentage of climate change papers in relation to AGW and AGW alarm is undetermined and cannot be determined without evaluating each and every paper individually." I see... Have you never heard of sampling theory? As I discussed here, it's quite simple to apply sampling to the thousands of results from various databases and Google searches. Even a simple sampling indicates well ~2% +/- some amount displaying disagreement with AGW, ~2% disagreeing with consensus estimates of how much warming is caused by AGW; >96% indication of agreement with AGW as a critical involved factor in climate change with some level of consequences to the field of study. Extrapolating from that I estimate <4% papers disagreeing with AGW or denying consequences in the field of climate science, subject of course to +/- sampling error. And I consider that percentage inconsequential.
    0 0
  18. Potech, "I do not discriminate among skeptic's theories." In other words-- anything goes. Nice. And IIRC, they are not "theories", but hypotheses. Hypotheses which repeatedly get overturned or refuted. I am curious though, please name one such "skeptic theory", with a citation form your list.
    0 0
  19. Arguing about what papers should be included on Poptech's list is not really constructive since it is his list and his subjective criteria. Discussing the quality of those papers is entirely fair. Just because they made it past peer review and were published does not mean they held up under further scrutiny. As he stated @215 "All I have to demonstrate is his conclusions are based on erroneous results" for the list to be invalid.
    0 0
  20. Poptech, Your definition of alarm lumps substantiated negative effects with bluster.
    0 0
  21. PopTech... "... the word "Alarm" was added to make the title more clear as to the purpose of the list." You know if you keep going I think you can qualify the title even further so that you encompass ALL papers on climate change.
    0 0
  22. pbjamm - Entirely correct. Many of the papers on that list are rather infamously invalid upon larger scrutiny, despite repeatedly turning up in skeptic/denial discussions. Incidentally, in regards to the G&T 2009 paper (one I've had particular issues with, as heavily bandied complete bunk) - that was not peer reviewed, but was instead an editor invited review paper. Is peer review a requirement for that list?
    0 0
  23. PopTech... "No not among all of them but that is not the point of the list, it is a resource. I do not discriminate among skeptic's theories." So, in reality, you really have several alternative theories of climate change within the broader list? I would suggest it is appropriate to apply each of these smaller theories up against the broader theory of AGW. That would make the results an even smaller fraction than suggested in the main article here.
    0 0
  24. Poptech at 232: I'm pretty sure quoting someone who has the same opinion as you on that matter doesn't count. It's recycled hearsay, not actual evidence. As for John Kerry, one man's statement does not make it a 'popular belief'.
    0 0
  25. #206: "are you denying the existence of peer-reviewed social science journals?" Surely you don't claim E & E is a 'social science' journal? If so, how is it also a climate science journal? Or is this more PT doublespeak? Example (note an actual item from your 'list', not a made up illustration to make a point): Biased Policy Advice from The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (PDF) (Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 929-936, December 2007) Richard S.J. Tol Interested readers (if there are any left) looking for a laugh should read PT's rebuttal to this post, in which he appears to be shooting a Terminator. Real classy choice of images there, shooting those we disagree with.
    0 0
  26. I would assume shooting the Denominator to be tantamount to a desperate need to not have his number put into context.
    0 0
  27. Pop, Well, you are stubborn to a fault, that is all I can say. Again, context is important. Again, as I and others have demonstrated, your title and the content in many of the papers are oftentimes inconsistent with each other. My comment about "uncertainty not being equal to skepticism" is not a strawman. Your list includes papers which speak to uncertainty. That is not reason to be "skeptical", or question AGW or be cause for alarm. That disclaimer of yours is interesting (not to mention that I'm sure it almost never gets included when people reference the list). Can you provide some concrete examples of "yet their paper(s) or results from their paper(s) support skeptic's arguments against AGW alarm". And just what do you mean by "alarm"? That sounds emotive, not scientific. Please tell us at what point (i.e., warming above pre-industrial levels) does AGW become alarming? You did not answer my question about Brooks. And are you going to remove refuted papers such as McLean et al. (2009) and G&T09? "For obvious reasons I don't take "advice" from people who are intent on misrepresenting the list or making false allegations about it. I have ignored their "advice" to great success." That sounds hypocritical coming from you-- your list does in fact mis-represent the science on so many levels. Many of my papers have been greatly improved by the critical observations and comments made by reviewers-- i did not always appreciate the receiving the (terse) advice, but in the end they were right. Can you please quantify "great success". Your list has in part gained some traction in certain ideological circles, because people are ignorant of the science, have misguided ideas, confirmation bias, do not have time to properly review the list and its contents. It is no more than something to throw up when debating someone on the internet..."hey have you hear there are 850 papers which...."
    0 0
  28. PopTech... Which is what my original article was also doing.
    0 0
  29. Time to inject some semi-relevant humor: Dean Yeager: Doctor... Venkman. The purpose of science is to serve mankind. You seem to regard science as some kind of dodge... or hustle. Your theories are the worst kind of popular tripe, your methods are sloppy, and your conclusions are highly questionable! You are a poor scientist, Dr. Venkman!
    0 0
  30. PopTech... I'd like to ask, how many peer reviewed papers would you venture to guess there actually are?
    0 0
  31. Poptech@260 If you have no idea how many peer review papers there are then why did you say @229 "I personally believe 850 peer-reviewed papers is a large amount. I also believe this is a significant amount in direct relation to the amount of peer-reviewed papers that explicitly endorse AGW theory."
    0 0
  32. Pop @249, You are not making sense anymore. I never made reference to that. And I just love your display of D-K when you were arguing with Brooks about tornadoes. He was not happy about you including his research in your list, that much is very clear. "I have not received an email from any scientist negative in any way about the list." How am I meant to validate that?
    0 0
  33. Wow, that is some pretty serious word mincing. I thought it pretty clear in the context of the discussion. Since you believe your list of 850 papers is a "significant amount in direct relation to the amount of peer-reviewed papers that explicitly endorse AGW theory", how many peer-reviewed papers endorsing AGW theory do you believe there to be?
    0 0
  34. Pop, "Your "context" is not why the list was created." Aaah, it is all becoming clearer now ;) I think we all here (even you) know why the list was generated. If your measure of success is blog traffic and emails from goodness knows who, then I'm afraid that you are horribly misguided. I'm still waiting for some examples of skeptic theories (see my post @240). And you have not answered this yet: "Please tell us at what point (i.e., warming above pre-industrial levels) does AGW become alarming?" It is relevant, as you use the word "alarm" in your title.
    0 0
  35. PopTech... "Yet failed due to a meaningless denominator based on erroneous results." Here. I did a little extra homework for you... Here are a few peer-reviewed journals and the number of results (sans "citation") that come up in search results for the term (complete phrase) "climate change." Nature - 2290 Science - 16,900 AGU - 5440 E&E (dubious, but...) - 125 Geophysical Research - 7780 CSIRO - 1320 PNAS - 3230 Journal of Climate and Climate Research - 8850 Climatic Change - 1830 That's a VERY short list of peer reviewed papers and the total number of papers is 47,765. Now, if you will kindly go through and figure out what papers in your list are actually skeptical of AGW then we will start to be on even ground and can provide useful data. Being that E&E is so dubious I would suggest we pull all E&E papers from both of our figures. At very best I'm guessing maybe 1% of peer reviewed papers on climate change are skeptical of AGW.
    0 0
  36. Re: P/t (254)
    Ron, "I would assume shooting the Denominator to be tantamount to a desperate need to not have his number put into context." No, it is to put something dangerously misleading out of it's misery.
    Surely I am not the only one seeing the irony in this statement? The Yooper
    0 0
  37. PopTech said... "I have not received an email from any scientist negative in any way about the list." Oh, yeah, but there was Dr Pielke...
    0 0
  38. This /The-value-of-coherence-in-science.html might be a good article to establish coherent frameworks of non-GHG, non-GW, non-AGW, non-CAGW and group the 850 papers accordingly. There will be some overlap, but I would certainly exclude any non-GHG paper from the subsequent groups. For example, non-GHG is the adiabatic theory of warming earth (condution-based warming with trivial effects from back radiation) is not coherent with non-AGW, in which existing CO2 is necessary for existing warmth but added CO2 does not add warmth. This is a large effort, but it is easy to do incrementally: take any pair of papers and look for contradictory assumptions or conclusions. I try to do the same with a the mainstream science, but it is not without controversy (see thread above).
    0 0
  39. Albatross, I think "alarm" can be defined fairly rigorously by refering to papers with global tipping points, negative impact trends, or sea level projections that lead to the conclusion that BAU is unacceptable. I have seen a number of papers in the denominator that do not express alarm and in fact do not support alarm. I don't know if it is a significant percentage or negligible.
    0 0
  40. PopTech... Okay, I'll even concede that another 10% of those papers are editorial or other than specific peer reviewed research. Heck, make it 50%! But there are a large number of other journals left to count. You can't win this PopTech. The 850 papers you so liberally define as not supporting AGW are a very tiny fraction of the body of peer-reviewed research. I'm really sorry to crush your project into such nothingness but that's what it is. Nothing. The amount of real research into climate change that does not support the consensus theory of AGW is very very small.
    0 0
  41. #254: "put something dangerously misleading out of it's misery." However humorous you feel that is, the use of that image in context with Rob's name is in exceedingly bad taste.
    0 0
  42. Muoncounter @273, Despite claims to the contrary by PT, I would even go so far as to say by using that image in the context of Rob's name suggests it was a threat of violence by PT against Rob. I trust PT has at least the decency to amend his blog post. I think it is time to close the thread or simply ignore PT. Remember this person has a track record of cyber stalking and posting someone's personal information on the internet, see here for the one example that I know of. To make matters worse, PT has even tried to justify and defend such outrageous behaviour. Now before someone takes offence at me resurrecting this issue, it does raise concerns as to the motives and intentions of the curator of the list, and it is important for people following this thread to know what we are up against here. We could argue with PT for days and the discussion will go nowhere. Rob raised a very valid point, and others here have raised even more valid and pertinent points that call into question the validity and credibility of the list. In the end, the theory of AGW stands, and has yet to be overturned. Unlike the potpourri of papers on the list, the theory of AGW presents a consistent, robust and coherent picture. The real skeptics are the reputable climate scientists who publish in the reputable literature, and whose research have withstood the test of time.
    0 0
  43. #270: "'alarm' can be defined fairly rigorously by refering to papers ... that lead to the conclusion that BAU is unacceptable" PT's use of the made-up term 'AGW alarm' suggests that there's something inherently wrong with such an 'alarm.' That by itself is a value judgment. If a valid scientific study reaches a conclusion that something devastating will happen if we do not act, is it not fully justified -- or perhaps even required -- to spread the 'alarm'? If the roof of your house is on fire while you are down cellar where its nice and cool, don't you want to know about it? Clearly, PT would be more interested in shooting the messenger. #274: Albatross, in the US, it's equivalent to putting rifle cross hairs on your political opponents' districts.
    0 0
  44. How can anyone take seriously any list that has the following : The Failure of the Popular Vision of Global Warming (Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law, Volume 9, Number 1, pp. 53-82, 1992) - Patrick J. Michaels I can find no more than the first page (as you can see from the above link), which seems to be arguing against a 1990 article in JGR (Potential Evapotranspiration and the Likelihood of Future Drought) and the output of some models from the early 80s. It certainly makes clear that the previous IPCC Report (from 1990) is not what some individuals would describe as 'alarmist' - whatever that actually means. Elsewhere, this article is described thus : **Conference Proceeding with Prescreened Review Can that realistically be described as peer-reviewed ? As for the journal itself : The purpose of this organization shall be to publish a journal, which presents scholarly articles concerning international and comparative law issues, including tribal/indigenous peoples law. So, an article which is nearly 20 years old, presented in a law journal, and arguing against some selected articles, is claimed to be 'against AGW Alarm' - whatever that means. Can the use of that paper in that little list really be based on one page ? Surely there's more ?
    0 0
  45. Yes methinks that, if you remove all the dodgy E&E papers(like that travesty by Beck), all the papers of more than 20 years of age, all the papers which have been multiply debunked (like McLean's desperate bid to "Hide the Incline") & all the papers where the scientists *aren't* claiming what PopTech says they're claiming, then his list would look incredibly thin-even if you're kind enough to leave in policy-rather than Science based-papers.
    0 0
  46. I dont think there is anything wrong with the image Poptech used on his website. It is pretty clearly a response to the Terminator imagery used in the original article and not a threat directed at Rob Honeycutt. There are plenty of real deficiencies in the list and that should be the focus.
    0 0
  47. I think we've all proven that-in spite of his numerous, though repetitive, protests-PopTech's list is a complete & total joke-whose sole aim is to feed the ego of his fellow Denialists. In just a few pages, bloggers have successfully highlighted more than 20 papers (outside of the E&E papers) that clearly don't come up to scratch-for one reason or another-yet he arrogantly refuses to concede this point or amend his original claim-all whilst attacking others for allegedly doing what he actually *is* doing-typical denialist hypocrisy.
    0 0
  48. pbjamm... I'm actually quite flattered that he took the time to make a post about it. Honestly, each time he opens his mouth he digs his own hole a little bit deeper. He's kind of the gift that keeps on giving.
    0 0
  49. pbjamm... I have to add, though, even ignoring the deficiencies the list is actually more endorsing of AGW in that such an amazingly small number of studies actually challenge that humans are causing current warming.
    0 0
  50. Poptech @283, "ROFLMAO! If both of you have come to such a ridiculous conclusion then the picture definitely needs to stay just for the pure hilarity of comments like this." That juvenile comment by you speaks volumes about you. Would you have been ROFLMAO had someone used the information provided by you to find Forrester's home and then threatened him and his family, or worse? This appears to be a game for you, it is not. Grow up.
    0 0

Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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