Steve G.

George Phillies on Global Warming

In George Phillies, Global Warming, Libertarian on June 6, 2008 at 2:36 pm

The following is posted with the authorization of its author, Dr. George Phillies.

That cesspit of lunacy termed American conservatism continues to kick up claims that there is no global warming. Unfortunately, right wing nonsense is now infiltrating press releases allegedly from our national committee.

Conservative lie #1): Global Warming stopped in 1998. So here is the graph courtesy http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

There is an averaged trend line (black) and there are year to year fluctuations (year numbers are the red and blue lines). 1998 is the red line sticking way way up, the line that does not match neighboring lines at all.

The trend is overwhelmingly visible, with flatness until around 1920, and then trending up with shorter and long term bounces around the trend.

Of course, if you are an American conservative, you take 1998 as ‘typical’ and say ‘we’re getting colder again’ which is clearly not the case.

Oh, why do we get these bounces from the trend? The air holds heat. The ocean holds about a thousand times more heat. The deep ocean is shielded from the air. Change how the shallow ocean is stirred, and you will change how heat exchanges between ocean and air. This cools air all around the world, or heats air all around the world. The La Nina and El Nino Pacific events are examples of this mixing effect. These events last around a year, are unpredictable in advance, and cause some of the bumps you see in the above graph.

Conservative Lie #2) If you can’t predict weather, you can’t predict climate. To predict my climate, you need to predict that Worcester gets around 4″ of rain a month, more in some months, less in others. To predict weather, you needed to predict that, for this June, 3″ fell on one day, and *which day* the 3″ fall would occur. Obviously getting the day right is harder than getting the month right.

Conservative Lie #3) We can’t measure climate change. I call the reader’s attention to the marvel of modern 18th century science, the thermometer, a device that measures temperature quantitatively. Around the world are vast numbers of people recording and reporting the weather. Earth satellites measure much of the rest of the globe. Careful averages–some areas have fewer measurements than others–eliminate fluctuations, smooth out day to day changes, and give accurate measurements of the temperatures of the whole earth, with precision visible in the above graph.

I could go on, but the short message is that climate change denial is wrong and dangerous, both to our country and our party. Denial is dangerous to our country, because it leads us to take bad decisions as private citizens and entrepreneurs. Denial is dangerous to our party, for the same reason that homophobia is bad for our party: The younger generation will reject us, even as the younger generation is rejecting that sinkhole of bigotry that is American conservatism.

  1. Wow, Phillies is getting more coverage now than prior to the LP Con.

  2. Global Warming stopped in 1998.

    Let’s rephrase this statement, retain the contextual accuracy, and see if it remains false — shall we? “The trendline for Global mean temperature has been ‘downward sloped’ since 1998“. An entirely factual, accurate statement!

    Where’s the lie? I’m confused. (In all earnestness, I’m actually not. The contention by the main body of scientists is that global warming is still underway; that what we are seeing is 10 years of statistical noise, based on a dataset that only contains 30 years of comparable data).

    There is an averaged trend line (black) and there are year to year fluctuations (year numbers are the red and blue lines). 1998 is the red line sticking way way up, the line that does not match neighboring lines at all.

    This graph is wrong. 1934 is the hottest year on record; this shows 1998 as being abnormally outside the range of all temperatures. How can we, then, rectify this?

    The trend is overwhelmingly visible, with flatness until around 1920, and then trending up with shorter and long term bounces around the trend.

    So… the planet is, then, psychic? Major human industrial activity did not get underway until two decades later. (The “Post-War boom”). Please note that the trendline of global mean temperature is thus wholly divorced from human CO2 contributions. A radically better match to the trendlines can be obtained by matching the PDO, solar sunspot cycle activity, and the global GDP. But not CO2; that needs to be excluded to obtain that close fit.

    If you can’t predict weather, you can’t predict climate.

    That one is fair. Of course, the total failure of any climate model to account for the capacity of the PDO to flip — let alone the fact that it has (Per NASA’s Argo array, as well as recent satellite data) is hardly encouraging of the IPCC et al.’s capacity to predict.

    We can’t measure climate change. I call the reader’s attention to the marvel of modern 18th century science, the thermometer, a device that measures temperature quantitatively.

    Really, now, Dr. Phillies. I would expect better from you, sir. “There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.” The supermajority of terrestrial datapoints lie within cities inside the United States. Southern America is vastly under-represented, as are the poles, Russia, Africa, and South Asia. Australia and Europe are about equally represented but are less so by far than is the US. Then you have the claims by Hansen et al. that the Urban Heat Island effect has been entirely accounted for… that despite the fact that doing so requires that we throw out the statistical significance of something like 90% of our data points!

    Yet terrestrial datapoints are considered, still, the most relevant for use.

    Furthermore, Dr. Phillies, here “I call the reader’s attention to the marvel of modern 18th century science, the thermometer” you commit an egregious fallacy assigned primarily to the uneducated conservative: you conflate temperature with climate.

    One would imagine that an uneducated layman with not even so much as a Bachelor’s degree shouldn’t be able to poke holes in so important a topic without even “lifting a finger” … but, there you have it.

    And, for the record: I am far more liberal than I am conservative. But in truth, I have always been part of the libertarian camp of politics.

  3. Dr. Phillies, I will not argue with you that the climate does seem to be in a warm mode. From my own areas of expertise (ornitology and agronomy) I can see the trends clearly. To give one fairly striking example, the populations of Ruddy and Common Ground-Doves in Imperial County CA show a very clear trend. 20=30 years ago I am told that nesting in Calipatria would have been essentially impossible– it was too cold. Now there are regular populations (I refer to the Sperry and Eddins populations, for the one person who is likely to have a clue here) (Sources Bob Miller, Guy McCaskie, and yes, Kimball Garrett too)

    The point I have in contention with “carbon footprint” sorts is the REASON behind the changes. You have a plethora of theories and solutions out there, from the people who want to knock us back to Stone Age technologies (and populations!) to the Kyoto Protocol, all the way to the other extreme of people who would argue that this is a simple correction from the “Little Ice Age” of the Renaissance and nothing of concern.

    Myself, I hold to the solar-based theories. I have thought about this– deeply– for about four years now. My personal feelings here is that the amount of solar radiation reaching our oceans can have a relatively large effect on climate even over relatively small output changes. Because our planet is nearly 3/4 water, changes in temperature hold rather well.

    I DO think that human factors such as “greenhouse gas” emissions could hold some sway over this. However I think the effect to be rather small. If actions are taken to reduce carbon emissions, my feeling is that they must have some other beneficial effect to society. For instance, the simple concept of composting is beneficial for many reasons such as increased OM content and maintenance or improvement of soil mineral content. That it also sequesters carbon is merely frosting. If we support solar and wind technologies, it should also be because they are good in other ways. In my mind, using rooftops to hold PV panels is a “waste not want not” sort of thing as we’d be using the roof for something useful.

    Comments?

  4. It’s a combination of many factors.

    1) Orbtial wobble. as we all know, the eliptical orbit of the Earth arund the sun, with its two focii within the solar radius, causes the seasonal differences. Astrophysics also shows that the focii are not fixed but in fact flexible and the fluctuations cause a “wobble” in the earth’s orbit, which can also cause global temperatures to change. It has been well-known since the days of Newton and Kepler that that wobble is measurable but not necessarily predictable as it has no known (at this time) source. My own prediction is that it is a combination of solar-magnetic flux within the sun itself and a flux in solar mass causing a garvitational fluctuation big enough to cuase the wobble.
    2) Sunspot activity has a direct correlation to tmeperature activity, and we are in a sunspot low, and that as caused lower global temps. This is constantly meausred and the graph above does not reflect this.
    3) The increase in carbon emissions from what used to be carbon sinks in agricultural areas, mainly because of pertochemical fertilizers in the soil breaking down under solar radiation, has turned rural areas that used to be carbon sinks into carbon emitters. a move back to sustainable agriculture and away from pertochemical fertilizers (which are becoming too expensive anyway) will reverse this trend.
    4) The increase in concrete and asphalt in urban areas are created mass radiation reflection zones instead of what ued to be the absorbing carbon sinks of vegetation. More green belts and more planting in urban areas can help reverse that trend. The interplay between animals and plants is what makes the Earth “breathe”, and that is out of balance.

    While I personally don’t favor mandated conservation, I think that conservation is a good idea, mainly because it doesn’t make a lot of sense to waste resources.

    But the global warming thing is really about the battle between maintaining our current lifestyle in light of changes, or moving on to a new lifestyle to adapt to the changes. In that battle there is economic opportunity for those adaptions, assuming people can seize it.

  5. Apologies for the typos above. Hard to eat and type at the same time.🙂

  6. Apologizing was a good idea, bucko, lest I call the English department side of the Nun Patrol…..

    As for the rest of it, not sure I really want to watch the fireworks between Ivy League Physics Professor and Cali Hotshot Astrophysics Guy– keep it civil!

  7. Lid, you’d probably be better off calling Dr. Baird, assuming he hasn’t walked into any more walls and then apologized to them lately!

    Relax, Honey. The whole debate has a huge complexities of factors, or which man’s influence, as you put it, is small. I’m sure that this was discussed in some manner when the Ice Age ended 11K years ago amongst those peoples. Humans tend to adapt to their surroundings, and we will again, provided the politicians in power let us do so.

  8. Global warming – ah, so THAT’S why here it is June 6 and I’m freezing my tail off on the plains of Nebraska where it’s usually quite hot on this date!

    NOW it makes sense!!

  9. IConrad claims

    ” Global Warming stopped in 1998.

    *Let’s rephrase this statement, retain the contextual accuracy, and see if it remains false — shall we? “The trendline for Global mean temperature has been ‘downward sloped’ since 1998“. An entirely factual, accurate statement!*

    You missed again. 1998 uniquely was warmer than years since. The trend line, which can be seen on the graph, was headed upward through 1998 and headed up to the present.

    *Where’s the lie? I’m confused. (In all earnestness, I’m actually not. The contention by the main body of scientists is that global warming is still underway; that what we are seeing is 10 years of statistical noise, based on a dataset that only contains 30 years of comparable data).*

    In fact, the old methods are still available, and agree with the new methods, and we actually have the century and a half of decreasingly accurate in the remote past measurements that you see. Of course, understanding calibration differences is sometimes challenging, as for example the sea ocean measurements, which had a calibration effect depending on the type of bucket used in the measurements. However, the point of understanding systematic effects in calibration is that once you understand them the error they seem to create goes away.

    There is an averaged trend line (black) and there are year to year fluctuations (year numbers are the red and blue lines). 1998 is the red line sticking way way up, the line that does not match neighboring lines at all.

    *This graph is wrong. 1934 is the hottest year on record; this shows 1998 as being abnormally outside the range of all temperatures. How can we, then, rectify this?*

    Claims that the reference to 1934 refers to the world as having the hottest year on record is one of those conservative lies I was talking about.
    The reference to 1934 as being the warmest year on record refers to the United States of America, not to the world.
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/1934-and-all-that/
    has the US and world graphs. In 1934, the world was not that hot.

    Phillies old: The trend is overwhelmingly visible, with flatness until around 1920, and then trending up with shorter and long term bounces around the trend.

    *So… the planet is, then, psychic? Major human industrial activity did not get underway until two decades later. (The “Post-War boom”). Please note that the trendline of global mean temperature is thus wholly divorced from human CO2 contributions. A radically better match to the trendlines can be obtained by matching the PDO, solar sunspot cycle activity, and the global GDP. But not CO2; that needs to be excluded to obtain that close fit.*

    On what planet? Industrial activity affecting CO2 levels started on this planet near 1860, with CO2 output getting to about a fifth current levels by 1910, climbing weakly until 1945, and quintupling since then. It did not start in 1945, though it became more dramatic then. The effect of CO2 is more complicated, because line saturation means that increasing CO2 levels starts to have a more and more limited contribution to the greenhouse effect. Your ‘radically better match’ sounds remarkably like a claim from, one of the folks funded by the coal industry, but there are doubtless others with the same opinions.

    Phillies: If you can’t predict weather, you can’t predict climate.

    Critic: That one is fair. Of course, the total failure of any climate model to account for the capacity of the PDO to flip — let alone the fact that it has (Per NASA’s Argo array, as well as recent satellite data) is hardly encouraging of the IPCC et al.’s capacity to predict.

    Someone else said:We can’t measure climate change.

    Phillies: I call the reader’s attention to the marvel of modern 18th century science, the thermometer, a device that measures temperature quantitatively.

    *Really, now, Dr. Phillies. I would expect better from you, sir. “There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.” The supermajority of terrestrial datapoints lie within cities inside the United States. Southern America is vastly under-represented, as are the poles, Russia, Africa, and South Asia. Australia and Europe are about equally represented but are less so by far than is the US. Then you have the claims by Hansen et al. that the Urban Heat Island effect has been entirely accounted for… that despite the fact that doing so requires that we throw out the statistical significance of something like 90% of our data points!*

    Yes, data measured at locations inside local heat islands have to be handled properly. However, we also have lots of other points, and that is good enough. After all, the points are simply used to create the interpolant functions that give us an area-average of the temperature. If I have a 10,000 thermometers in my back yard, rather than one, that does not make my back yard any more important as a temperature measurement, and trashing or reducing to one number the 10,000 measurements is appropriate. If you ever reach bachelor’s degree, rather than wallowing in conservative knownothingism, my answer may become comprehensible.

    *Yet terrestrial datapoints are considered, still, the most relevant for use.

    Furthermore, Dr. Phillies, here “I call the reader’s attention to the marvel of modern 18th century science, the thermometer” you commit an egregious fallacy assigned primarily to the uneducated conservative: you conflate temperature with climate.*

    No sir, I say that average temperature is part of climate, and the first part of measuring the average is to measure the temperature at individual places, and then worry about how to average and how to weight the quality of different measurements. A person who says we cannot measure climate change is as ridiculous as a person who claims that God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Can you imagine the latter doing Libertarian press releases? Then do not imagine the former, either.

    *One would imagine that an uneducated layman with not even so much as a Bachelor’s degree shouldn’t be able to poke holes in so important a topic without even “lifting a finger” … but, there you have it.*

    You lived up to your self description, and your efforts to poke holes, as by making up facts as you go along, or by quoting other people’s fictions, certainly confirms the uneducated part.

    For example, the 1934 question can be solved with a google search and a few minutes skeptical read of sources until you get to someone who actually quotes a primary source.

  10. it may be cold in Nebraska, but its been hot as hell here in Michigan this week. Feels like July.

  11. Thank god this Phillies nut didn’t get the nomination.

    http://www.skepticsglobalwarming.com/

  12. Dr Phillies ,

    I do not understand how isotropically changing the color of a radiantly heated ball can change its mean temperature . It it does , then a perpetual heat engine could be constructed between nearly white and nearly black balls in a constant radiant bath .

    Could you please give the quantitative equations for the temperature of a ball given its spectrum and the spectrum of its source ? It seems impossible to find the equations on the web .

    I believe the problem can be reduced to one dimension – 2 “surfaces” with the same spectrum facing hot and cold energy sources with a constant rate of heat conduction in the “material” between them .

    The answer would go a long way towards clarifying whether the earth is facing catastrophe as advertised , or not .

  13. “Disconcerting as it may be to true believers in global warming, the average temperature on Earth has remained steady or slowly declined during the past decade, despite the continued increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, and now the global temperature is falling precipitously.” Dr. Phil Chapman wrote in The Australian on April 23. “All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead.”

    Chapman neither can be caricatured as a greedy oil-company lobbyist nor dismissed as a flat-Earther. He was a Massachusetts Institute of Technology staff physicist, NASA’s first Australian-born astronaut, and Apollo 14’s Mission Scientist.

    http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/32821

  14. Clues on the absorption-emission issue:

    The earth is not like the moon, in that absorption and emission happen at different wavelengths.

    In order to create a perpetual motion machine, the absorber would have to reach a higher temperature than the emitter. The emitter is the sun, which is at a temperature of thousands of degrees Kelvin. In a solar powered perpetual motion machine, the earth would–it can’t be done as writer above states–have to reach an even higher temperature.

    The earth is not a simple surface, absorbing and emitting. Instead, the atmosphere is opaque and functions as a blanket, so that when we absorb visible light and re-emit infrared light, the visible light comes straight in to the ground, and the infrared light transmits diffusively bouncing many times on its way out back into outer space. The diffusive transport is heat storage, increase the surface temperature of the earth, on the average, over the surface temperature of the moon by about iirc 60 Kelvin.

    If you have the sun, at one temperature, and the earth were a simple absorber and re-radiator, the surface temperature of the earth would be about -40 F (that’s an approximate number, which I am remembering from 40 years ago).

    Putting our party in the hands of the global warming deniers and 15 other varieties of conspiracy theorists and the like guarantees our future failure.

    The measurements showing warming probably don’t care a great deal about the alleged credentials of the people claiming they are not there.

  15. Phillies, if global warming is man-made, than a suppose you could care to explain why global warming is also happening on Mars and Jupiter, where no human life exists? This would seem to be more evidence for the solar theory of global warming.

  16. That’s a second for the question on Mars warming. Remember that Spirit and Opportunity are solar powered and thus carbon neutral.

  17. Mars warming.

    As some of you may have heard, we have in the solar system around 7 other planets, not to mention Pluto, dozens of moons,… Some of them are getting warmer. In the case of Mars, it appears that its polar ice cap, made of carbon dioxide ice, sublimed, increasing its atmospheric warming. In most other cases, most of the other planets, warming is not occurring, rejecting the hypothesis that solar power changes are at hand.

    As most people can confirm, we can measure the solar power output directly. We have been doing this with satellites for decades, and with other means for much longer. Assertions that the change in the earth’s temperature is due to changes in the solar power output are rejected by measurements of the solar power output.

    Disinter, I urge you not compare my remarks with our Presidential candidate’s, because you may have the cognitive dissonance of discovering that he agreed with your position on global warming.

    And if the rest of your are discovering why choosing an untested Presidential candidate may be a bad thing, well, there were people who tried to tell you.

  18. I work in the satellite industry, and solar output measurement is a necessity in our solid-state work in developing our platforms ans especially our sensors, and the tolerances are minute to microscopic. Heck, we just had an entire satellite program get canceled because we couldn’t overcome those tolerances no matter how hard we tried over a decade to figure it out. These same tolerances were just fine twenty years ago. The only change has been that the exoatmospheric solar output has increased and made those tolerance bands different, and the materials science technology has not adjusted or caught up yet. And we’re on the cutting edge of it!

    Most climate scientist lack the requisite astrophysics and atmospheric physics background to fully comprehend the complexities that are the gazintas of the measurements we see as a gazouta. To try to claim it is merely the cause of man is ludicrous. Nothing in nature is ever that simple, as you know with Physics. Does man play a role? Certainly, but as the knowledge base continues to develop we will most likely find that role to be much less than is feared. Despite what Algore says, the debate is not over. In fact, it has barely begun.

    I’m not saying that nothing is going on. Far from it. What I am saying is that the complexities of the sources and interactions (and catalysts) that produce the effects are not as known as the media, public, and general opinion think they are. There is a bad tendency to oversimplify things for the masses and in doing so they make bad mistakes.

    In short, something is definitely happening, but more information and research is needed to better clarify exactly what is going on.

    Remember, it’s only been 350 years since Kepler figured out that the orbital mechanics of the planets were ellipses and not circles, so science can have slow gapfilling at times.

  19. George Phillies said :
    > Clues on the absorption-emission issue:

    I’m not looking for clues , I’m looking for equations .

    > The earth is not like the moon, in that absorption and emission happen at different wavelengths.

    Ridiculous . Just like any other radiantly heated body it re-radiates some of the incoming energy at the temperature its surface reaches .

    > In order to create a perpetual motion machine, the absorber would have to reach a higher temperature than the emitter. The emitter is the sun, which is at a temperature of thousands of degrees Kelvin.

    Ridiculous . What matters is the energy flow locally . The Stefan-Boltzmann law gives the temperature for a black body in a given radiant “bath” and for at least the inner planets other than Venus which is 2+ times the SB calculated temperature , predicts their mean temperature vertually within observational precision . The claim is made that the SB number needs to be reduced by the 4th root of the absorptivity of a gray body . But that clearly leads to absurdity if the radiant field is isotropic . For instance , MgO coated ball with .9 reflectivity sitting in a vacuum bottle in a 300K room would maintain a temperature of about 156K . However , the supposed 30K deficit calculated by “4th root” argument given the earth’s .3 reflectivity is the ONLY explanation I have ever seen for the supposed mean changing “greenhouse effect” . Any such effect must apply only to asymmetric radiant “baths” such as the earth experiences where it’s 3K in all directions other than a .5 degree 6000K disk .

    In a solar powered perpetual motion machine, the earth would–it can’t be done as writer above states–have to reach an even higher temperature.

    > The earth is not a simple surface, absorbing and emitting. Instead, the atmosphere is opaque and functions as a blanket, so that when we absorb visible light and re-emit infrared light, the visible light comes straight in to the ground, and the infrared light transmits diffusively bouncing many times on its way out back into outer space. The diffusive transport is heat storage, increase the surface temperature of the earth, on the average, over the surface temperature of the moon by about iirc 60 Kelvin.

    In the incredibly successful style of classical physics , demonstrate the effect – show me the equations – for a simple model . If you are going to degrade the wellbeing of billions of people , surely that’s the least you can do first . Furthermore , you can define a sphere surround the earth and it’s apple peel skin of an atmosphere and SB must hold on that sphere . Furthermore , the changes in atmospheric spectrum due to slight changes in CO2 are considered to by uniform around the planet according everything I have ever seen . Thus its effect is just a superposition of a simple isotropic sphere on whatever the underlying complexity may be .

    > If you have the sun, at one temperature, and the earth were a simple absorber and re-radiator, the surface temperature of the earth would be about -40 F (that’s an approximate number, which I am remembering from 40 years ago).

    We’re about at the SB temperature . The only derivation of that -40F I have ever seen is the “4th root” argument discussed above . What is the physical justification for your statement here ? It sounds to me that you are parroting the global religious left’s claims without having really questioned the physics yourself .

    > Putting our party in the hands of the global warming deniers and 15 other varieties of conspiracy theorists and the like guarantees our future failure.

    I got to the Heartland.org global climate conference and to label the extremely eminent voices collected there “conspiracy theorists” is insulting to the point of stupidity . It’s those who have not disowned their connection with the political propaganda mill which the IPCC was created to be who are the mediocrities . Check “the Deniers” in the link on the climate and energy page on my http://www.CoSy.com to see some of the giants you are insulting .

    > The measurements showing warming probably don’t care a great deal about the alleged credentials of the people claiming they are not there.

    There is no question about the ~ 0.3% fluctuation in the earth’s measured temperature over the last century . The question is its cause(s) . And apparently you have no particular understanding of the physics to contribute to its resolution .

  20. Sorry for the lack of proofreading on that last post .

  21. Whether global warming is happening or not shouldn’t matter, except in terms of how fast our reaction to environmental problems is.

    There are too many environmental problems, even without global warming, to ignore them. There’s:

    Peak Oil
    Energy Costs
    Mercury Poisoning
    Energy Insecurity
    Peak Metals
    Soil Erosion
    Dead Zones from Pesticide Use
    Food Costs
    Particle Emissions
    Cancer Epidemic
    General Resource Depletion
    Droughts
    Desertification
    Deforestation

    Need I say more? We need to cultivate a sustainable society.

  22. Earth to the retard caucus: the man-made global warming hoax is designed with 3 goals in mind: 1) to control people, 2) an excuse to impose more taxes, 3) to create an entire new industry where, guess what, money will be made.

    Phillies is even scarier than Bob Barf.

  23. I agree with disinter here. Also, those new “energy efficient” lightbulbs are more dangerous to the environment than the old ones. They are full of toxins if broken and they need to be used continuously in order to be worthwhile. What a hoax.

  24. titaniumgirl, ignore the fluorescents. Switch to silicon LEDs.

  25. That’s simplifying it, titaniumgirl, and taking one piece of the movement out of context.

    With the light bulbs, yes, they do have a tiny, tiny amount of mercury in them (about 1 to 3 milligrams), but they also prevent mercury emissions from coal plants, which supply half of the US’s power. Mercury emissions from coal plants just go out into the atmosphere and land and water, usually concentrating near the plant itself, hurting the people and wildlife there. So by buying a bulb with a small amount of contained mercury you are reducing furhter uncontrolled mercury emissions.

  26. “Whether global warming is happening or not shouldn’t matter, except in terms of how fast our reaction to environmental problems is.

    There are too many environmental problems, even without global warming, to ignore them. There’s:

    Peak Oil
    Energy Costs
    Mercury Poisoning
    Energy Insecurity
    Peak Metals
    Soil Erosion
    Dead Zones from Pesticide Use
    Food Costs
    Particle Emissions
    Cancer Epidemic
    General Resource Depletion
    Droughts
    Desertification
    Deforestation

    Need I say more? We need to cultivate a sustainable society.”

    Anybody whose looked beneath the surface would realize that global warming is merely a Trojan Horse for socialism. Disproving it as a hoax does matter to maintain our free society (or at least prevent it from becoming less free). As for all the problems you listed, I will address them individually from a libertarian perspective:

    Whether global warming is happening or not shouldn’t matter, except in terms of how fast our reaction to environmental problems is.

    There are too many environmental problems, even without global warming, to ignore them. There’s:

    Peak Oil-where’s the problem? I don’t see what to problem is that people are free to choose which fuel they please.
    Energy Costs-The solution to this would be to cut down on environmental rescrictions on nuclear power and oil refineries, get rid of the gas tax, and restore sounds money to stop inflation. Increasing the supply of fuel and increasing the value of the dollar will lower fuel prices.
    Mercury Poisoning-If a customer gets poisoned because they unknowingly ate food contaminated with mercury, they have every reason in the world to sue to company. With the threat of lawsuits, a company’s best interest would be to test their food for mercury before selling it.
    Energy Insecurity-See point 2
    Peak Metals-I’m not exactly sure what the problem that your saying is, but if you’re complaining that metal prices are going up, then the solution to this is sound money. Reinstating the gold standard would make sure that gold would not go up in price.
    Soil Erosion-This is probably due to the Tragedy of the Commons. A private property owner would have incentive to insure that his soil is reusable, or else he will suffer economically in the long run.
    Dead Zones from Pesticide Use-Clearly the better solution here is to suffer from famine because pests have been eating our foods.😛
    Food Costs-The solution to this is ending government farm subsidies, ethanol subsidies, sugar quotas, protectionism, and restoring sound money. The first four would insure greater supply, thus lower the cost. The fifth would insure the dollar’s value would nto depreciate, so food prices wouldn’t go up due to the Fed.
    Particle Emissions-WTF?
    Cancer Epidemic-What cancer epidemic? Everybody’s going to die of something. I would think that the increase in cancer deaths is due to the decrease in deaths from other diseases.
    General Resource Depletion-See point 6.
    Droughts-droughts would not be a problem if water were produced on the free market, where it would be rationed through supply and demand. Only if goverment is involved will droughts be a problem.
    Desertification-?
    Deforestation-again, see point 6.

  27. I don’t want to hijack the thread to a different subject but Jass, you are somewhat naive about pesticide use. There are alternatives out there and they DO work. Interplanting alyssum, thyme, and garlic to your brassica crops, for instance, really works to combat brassica aphids. Just as easy as spraying and much tastier. That’s but a simple example. When I’ve followed that, I have ZERO aphids, when I don’t, I can’t eat my broccoli.

    Pesticide use isn’t without consequences either. No chemical, even OMRI ones are.

    However, I don’t believe that pesticides are a primary cause of the dead zone phenomeon but rather anyhydrous and other synthetic based N fertilizers. Because there is now a lot of soils with poor organic matter contents (because of not composting humus back to the soil) the synthetic nutrients are not well held in the soil (clay particles bind nutrients to some extent, but nothing beats organic matter for nutrient sequestration) and they run through the soil profile too quickly. Not only is this bad for the environment but it’s also expensive for the farmer but a lot of times the farmers do not feel they have a choice. Sometimes that is even enforced via contract.

    I have proudly not used any synthetic nutrients or pest management strategies since 2000. GRanted I currently farm in microscale but I hope to change that soon. I have beautiful tasty fruits, veggies and herbs with few troubles. My oranges are praised even by people who have eaten local oranges all their life. The sweetness is incomparable (brix tends to rise in organic situations, long story) and I can get some pretty eye-popping sizes– my record is 23 ounces. Yes, one orange, nearly a pound and a half.

  28. Great, Linda, you’ve found a healthier alternative to pesticides. Now promote in on the free market, and don’t use the fist of government to foce private farmers to use it.

  29. No Jass, I don’t intend to enlist gov’t. I DO promote my ideas– via education only– the best that I can. I hope you didn’t read the fist of gov’t into the last post– such is certainly not my intent in any way.

    Come to think of it my brassica sphid interplanting plan is an original. I found bits and pieces of that in various spots but it took considerable research to pull it all together. I’ll spread it around. I know that one of my mentors (4th generation farmers near Pueblo, CO) would be very interested in my idea. I really should mention it to him.

  30. THE CASE FOR GLOBAL COOLING

    Introduction:

    My own, comprehensive study of the issue of global warming has led me to a very different conclusion — we are headed towards the next ice age and it is coming sooner than you think.

    Not one person in this discussion hit upon the biggest and most profound change taking place on our planet in all of recorded history, the melting of the polar ice caps. For the first time in history, it is now possible to sail from Europe to Asia, via the North Pole.

    Open water in the Baffin Bay area is as welcomed as a warm ocean in Hurricane Season. In fact, it is polar hurricanes that I believe are the cause of Ice Ages, because to theirinsidious ability to disrupt the entire planetary weather system.

    Global Cooling

    “Paleoclimatic records show that large, widespread, abrupt climate changes have affected much or all of the earth repeatedly over the last ice-age cycle as well as earlier – and these changes sometimes have occurred in periods as short as a few years.”
    — National Academy of Sciences, 2002

    In the popular movie, “The Day After Tomorrow,” audiences are confronted with disturbing scenes of a “Superstorm” that dwarfs all other storms. Is such sudden catastrophic climate change really possible?

    Until recently, scientists considered any theory of catastropic change to be heresy. However, science has undergone an astonishing paradigm shift and now accepts the compelling evidence that Earth has already begun a catastrophic change:

    “An example of an extremely quick climate change came during a period of time known as the Younger Dryas, which happened right after the last ice age ended, about 12,000 years ago. The Younger Dryas itself lasted about 1,000 years. What we didn’t know until recently was just how quickly the Younger Dryas started and stopped. In a period of less than 50 years, the climate from the eastern US and Canada to much of Europe went from climate conditions much like today’s, to frigid readings more like the Ice Age, at least a ten degree Farenheit change. That’s how it stayed for a thousand years – and then the climate flipped back to normal in as little as 20 years.”

    — Dave Thurlow, Mount Washington Observatory
    (Listen in Real Player)

    Greenpeace has released a classified study, prepared for the Pentagon, that warns of increasingly unstable and violent weather. This Pentagon Weather Report paints a grim picture of the Gulf Stream failing to deliver warm water to the North Atlantice, triggering widespread weather disasters:

    “A world thrown into turmoil by drought, floods, typhoons. Whole countries rendered uninhabitable. The capital of the Netherlands submerged. The borders of the US and Australia patrolled by armies firing into waves of starving boat people desperate to find a new home. Fishing boats armed with cannon to drive off competitors. Demands for access to water and farmland backed up with nuclear weapons. ”

    Weather scientists are realizing that a major shift in the climate has taken place, marked by a 250 per cent increase in violent hurricanes in the North Atlantic and the first ever hurricane was recorded in the South Atlantic.

    The idea that the Earth has been molded by sudden, catastrophic climate change is something that scientists have resisted for many decades, according to a scientific analysis of the past few decades of climate research by Spencer Weart, Director of the Center for History of Physics at the American Institute of Physics. In an article published by Physics Today, Weart explains how weather scientists have historically refused to comprehend the evidence before them supporting rapid climate change. Each new discovery keeps shortening the time in which massive global climate changes are recognized and understood to have occurred. Shocking new evidence from Greenland now confirms that rapid global climate change has occurred on Earth in as little as five years, or less. In fact, Cal Tech scientist, Jason Saleeby reports major climate shifts have been documented to have occurred in as liittle as two years.

    ————————————–

    Links:

    “The Discovery of Rapid Climate Change”
    http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-56/iss-8/p30.html

    Owsley Stanley: “Ice Ages: Cause of Glaciation”
    http://www.thebear.org/essays2.html#anchor506010

    “The Perfect Dust Storm Strikes Mars”
    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast11oct_2.htm

    The Hilsch Vortex Tube
    http://www.visi.com/%7Edarus/hilsch/

    Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises (2002)
    http://books.nap.edu/books/0309074347/html/index.html
    ————————————–

  31. Global Cooling
    by Steve Kubby

    “Paleoclimatic records show that large, widespread, abrupt climate changes have affected much or all of the earth repeatedly over the last ice-age cycle as well as earlier – and these changes sometimes have occurred in periods as short as a few years.”
    — National Academy of Sciences, 2002

    The melting of the polar ice cap, allowing travel for the first time in recorded history is the biggest global event of the past 10,000 years. That’s because a warm ocean in the Baffin Bay area is likely to generate arctic hurricanes that can disrupt the entire planetary weather system.

    In the popular movie, “The Day After Tomorrow,” audiences are confronted with disturbing scenes of a “Superstorm” that dwarfs all other storms. Is such sudden catastrophic climate change really possible?

    Until recently, scientists considered any theory of catastropic change to be heresy. However, science has undergone an astonishing paradigm shift and now accepts the compelling evidence that Earth has already begun a catastrophic change:

    “An example of an extremely quick climate change came during a period of time known as the Younger Dryas, which happened right after the last ice age ended, about 12,000 years ago. The Younger Dryas itself lasted about 1,000 years. What we didn’t know until recently was just how quickly the Younger Dryas started and stopped. In a period of less than 50 years, the climate from the eastern US and Canada to much of Europe went from climate conditions much like today’s, to frigid readings more like the Ice Age, at least a ten degree Farenheit change. That’s how it stayed for a thousand years – and then the climate flipped back to normal in as little as 20 years.”

    Greenpeace has released a classified study, prepared for the Pentagon, that warns of increasingly unstable and violent weather. This Pentagon Weather Report paints a grim picture of the Gulf Stream failing to deliver warm water to the North Atlantice, triggering widespread weather disasters:

    “A world thrown into turmoil by drought, floods, typhoons. Whole countries rendered uninhabitable. The capital of the Netherlands submerged. The borders of the US and Australia patrolled by armies firing into waves of starving boat people desperate to find a new home. Fishing boats armed with cannon to drive off competitors. Demands for access to water and farmland backed up with nuclear weapons. ”

    Weather scientists are realizing that a major shift in the climate has taken place, marked by a 250 per cent increase in violent hurricanes in the North Atlantic and the first ever hurricane was recorded in the South Atlantic.

    The idea that the Earth has been molded by sudden, catastrophic climate change is something that scientists have resisted for many decades, according to a scientific analysis of the past few decades of climate research by Spencer Weart, Director of the Center for History of Physics at the American Institute of Physics. In an article published by Physics Today, Weart explains how weather scientists have historically refused to comprehend the evidence before them supporting rapid climate change. Each new discovery keeps shortening the time in which massive global climate changes are recognized and understood to have occurred. Shocking new evidence from Greenland now confirms that rapid global climate change has occurred on Earth in as little as five years, or less. In fact, Cal Tech scientist, Jason Saleeby reports major climate shifts have been documented to have occurred in as liittle as two years.

  32. The key to understanding what is happening with our climate is the melting of the polar ice cap, which now allows travel for the first time in recorded history, between Europe and Asia. Truly, this is the biggest global event of the past 10,000 years.

    That’s because a warm ocean in the Baffin Bay area is likely to generate violent arctic hurricanes that could theoretically disrupt the entire planetary weather system. The distribution of glaciers during Ice Ages strongly suggest a pattern of extreme orthographic precipitation, brought on by some mysterious change.

    In my view, that change has consistently been due to the appearance of warm water in the polar regions, accelerated by the change in albedo from snow to water, and culminating in super-sized arctic hurricanes that severely disrupt the normal jet stream patterns, allowing for a massive temperature correction otherwise known as an Ice Age.

    If that is the case, we can use all the greenhouse gasses we can generate, in order to moderate the global cooling that I believe will occur within the next 20 years.

  33. Jass – I really agree with you on some of those points. The organic agriculture industry, for example, is an extremely libertarian place. They’ve only been hurt by government stepping in, and they’ve really been fighting against the government to grow to the $10 billion+ market that they are today.

    The overarching problem with your list of solutions, aside from the fact that you can’t seem to look at it from anything but a libertarian perspective, is that you view each of these problems as its own separate entity, when they are all interconnected, and they all stem from a lack of respect for the planet that we live on and a lack of acknowledgement that its systems are all interconnected. You cannot focus on isolating one of those problems and solving it, because it is not isolated in nature. Fixing one in an irresponsible way, drilling in ANWR for example, just causes more of the other problems (for drilling in ANWR that would be numerous things – global warming, soil erosion, loss of biodiversity, etc.).

    Particle emissions – they are the small particles that are emitted through combustion. Sulfur dioxide, for example. These emissions cause numerous diseases like asthma and cancer.

  34. Particle emissions also cause global dimming, which is the probably reason for the dip in average temperature between the 1940s and 1970s.

  35. Ross, if you had read my earlier posts, you would know that I don’t buy into the man-made global warming theory any more than I buy into the creationist theory. Saying that particle emmisions cause global dimming creates an unfalsifiable argument: if the Earth cools, you can blame it on particle emmisions, if the Earth warms, you can blame it on CO2. You may as well say that God controls the weather.

    However, getting back to the question, it would seem that what you are describing is air pollution. The solution to this is, yet again, private property. Assuming that every person owns their land and all the air above it, if someone puts deadly chemicals into the air, they will have to pay restitution to anybody whoseeee air acquires this pollution.

    The overarching problem with your list of solutions, aside from the fact that you can’t seem to look at it from anything but a libertarian perspective, is that you view each of these problems as its own separate entity, when they are all interconnected, and they all stem from a lack of respect for the planet that we live on and a lack of acknowledgement that its systems are all interconnected. You cannot focus on isolating one of those problems and solving it, because it is not isolated in nature. Fixing one in an irresponsible way, drilling in ANWR for example, just causes more of the other problems (for drilling in ANWR that would be numerous things – global warming, soil erosion, loss of biodiversity, etc.).

    1. What’s wrong with looking at problems from a libertarian perspective?
    2. You seem to act as though the fact that problems are interconnected allows you to completely disregard my free-market solutions. In fact, that would seem to be even more of a reason to support private property.
    3. Loss of biodiversity is a probem with drilling in ANWR? By that reasoning, we should revert back to a hunter-gatherer society to ensure that no biodiversity is lost. Obviously you can see the ridiculousness of this argument.

  36. Oh boy I feel a soapbox coming on.

    ANWR.

    In my spare time a hobby I have enjoyed literally since childhood is birding. I have seen about 230-240 (haven’t tallied recently) species. I regularly do census and survey work since as an intermediate level birder I am expected to contribute to my local birding community (it’s not a law, but it might as well be, we all know how thinly stretched we are and we don’t dare not contribute)

    One argument that is frequently given in regards to ANWR is that it will harm shorebird populations. This is admittedly a concern. Ask a native Californian birder about the populations of say, Sanderling, and you will see a marked downward trend. This is well supported in CBC data as well. I’m told that fifty years ago, you could expect to see Sanderlings (a smallish, quite plain grey sandpiper) on any CA beach, now it takes some real effort. So I DO understand the concern.

    However something that birders regularly observe is that even in conditions of high density bird populations (for examples I will cite Bolsa Chica and the AMCO populations in Riverside) you do not get even distribution across the area. Obviously some of the estuaries at Bolsa have more aquatic prey than others do for the terns, some areas of the preserve have more shallow water for herons and egrets, etc. The crows of Riverside, one of the highest populations in the nation due to the citrus industry, regularly gather in a few locations for night roosting. (Matter of fact, that’s where we count them and then we leave AMCO off the actual count day tallies)

    I truly cannot imagine that ANWR would be different. So if people are drilling for oil and let’s say there is a 2-acre space where people have to monitor the pumping– but let’s say that all told if all drilling spaces are used, only 1000 acres are needed. Isn’t ANWR a million acres strong? It seems to me that there is considerable space for all concerns.

    The question then becomes whether the drilling space and sensitive breeding space are in conflict, that is to say, whether a specific space overlaps with known breeding space for a sensitive species. I am willing to say that there will probably be specific sites where this may occur. For example if a specific marshy area is known as a nesting site for Semipalmated Sandpiper, that one may need to be avoided in favor of a different site that contains perhaps only Western Sandpipers, since those are much more common. (source for ranges Sibley)

    In other words, some strong ornithology surveys over perhaps two years and some good science and good technology might mean that ANWR could be drilled after all. It might mean not pumping every day of the year– it might be best to leave them be during the actual breeding. It might mean that some sites would have to remain undrilled. But I think there is room up there for both sandpipers and oil wells after all.

  37. There are truly people who would have us die, shivering in the dark.

    Disinter and Hugh are much closer to my beliefs !

    Could it be as Barr told Glenn Beck last week the EVIROMENTAL WHACOs are the PROBLEM…?

  38. Jass – 1. Nothing, but there is something wrong with thinking that the solution to every problem fits within one “ism.”
    2. I didn’t mean it that way. A lot of your “solutions” weren’t solutions at all. A few contradicted each other. That’s what I was saying.
    3. That is ridiculous. It wasn’t the argument I was making. Loss of biodiversity is just one of the numerous problems with drilling in ANWR.

    As for particulate emissions, they cleared up in the 70s because of regulations prohibiting those emissions above a certain level.

    In total honesty, I’m pretty new to the libertarian scene. I have yet to really delve into the property rights argument. I find it interesting, but wonder how effective it would be in reality, as I do for all environmental laws.

  39. Ross, for an understanding of why property rights is the best way to protect the environment, consider the ‘great’ job the Soviet Union did of protecting the environment when they established public land ownership.

  40. Okay, that’s just a huge extreme. What about the great job Brazil is doing in the Amazon with the near-anarchy they have there?

  41. That would be ‘great.’

  42. Finally got back to this:

    Dr. Phillies wrote:

    Claims that the reference to 1934 refers to the world as having the hottest year on record is one of those conservative lies I was talking about.

    Fascinating. So, NASA is now a conservative agency bent on deceiving the public? We deserve better intellectual rigor from you, sir.

    Dr. Phillies also wrote:

    You missed again. 1998 uniquely was warmer than years since. The trend line, which can be seen on the graph, was headed upward through 1998 and headed up to the present.

    Try to stay with me, sir. “The trendline since 1998 has been negative.” This is a factual, and accurate statement. As a man with a doctorate I should expect you to easily and immediately comprehend such fine points. To make a statement about the trend since 1998 has absolutely no impact on the trends from any other date; yet, equally, it is outright deception to insist that only one point of origination may be used when calculating trendlines. The only deception here, then, would be a “liberal/green” one: the deception being that the planet has NOT been cooling overall for the last ten years, with 1998 as the baseline. We, again, deserve better from a man with your education.

    As a side note, sir; “realclimate.org” is as biased as the day is long. Going to that site for information is like asking a used car salesman if you should buy a car from him.

    Dr. Phillies, again, wrote:

    On what planet? Industrial activity affecting CO2 levels started on this planet near 1860, with CO2 output getting to about a fifth current levels by 1910, climbing weakly until 1945, and quintupling since then. It did not start in 1945, though it became more dramatic then.

    So… you concede my point on the psychic nature of the planet, and then dodge the issue altogether? You yourself said; temperatures were relatively flat until 1920, when they started climbing with a relatively flat trendline (when factoring out the PDO). Yet human industrial activity began at 1860 — and had no effect at all for eighty years — and then, somehow, managed to cause its significant spike in thermal retention more than two decades before human activity similarly underwent its major increase? This simple fact remains unresolved in the scenario you describe, sir.

    Dr. Phillies, again:

    Yes, data measured at locations inside local heat islands have to be handled properly. However, we also have lots of other points, and that is good enough.

    No, sir, it is eminently NOT. And that was the point I was making.

    Dr. Phillies:

    If I have a 10,000 thermometers in my back yard, rather than one, that does not make my back yard any more important as a temperature measurement, and trashing or reducing to one number the 10,000 measurements is appropriate. If you ever reach bachelor’s degree, rather than wallowing in conservative knownothingism, my answer may become comprehensible.

    If I have 10,000 thermometers in my back yard, rather than one, that does not make my back yard any more important…” Good, then; we are agreed. Now, tell me; what does it do to the accuracy of said information if the only other thermometers you have are all located over your neighbor’s ovens? “If you ever reach bachelor’s degree, rather than wallowing in conservative knownothingism, my answer may become comprehensible.” Dr. Phillies, sir; once again I remind you: I am not a conservative. I would also like to reintroduce you to a couple of concepts: the automath, and Déformation professionnelle. Kindly refrain from the logical fallacy of argumentum ad nauseum, eh? It’s kind of… beneath you, for one; and for another, far too readily and frequently recognized within libertarian circles.

    Dr. Phillies again wrote:

    You lived up to your self description, and your efforts to poke holes, as by making up facts as you go along, or by quoting other people’s fictions, certainly confirms the uneducated part.

    I can see that you have no interest in actually engaging in serious conversation; nor in actually learning something — and that merely because I failed to add a little alphabet soup to my name?

    Pathetic. You have seriously damaged my esteem for you, Dr. Phillies. To resort to deceptions, and insults, in the face of earnest conversation…

    I thought better of you.

  43. Oh, and as a side note:

    Your ‘radically better match’ sounds remarkably like a claim from, one of the folks funded by the coal industry, but there are doubtless others with the same opinions.

    Umm… no, sir: I hesitate to presume, however, that you are familiar with the SSRN?

    That’s kind of a cheap shot, but with it, I shall step out of the conversation for once and for all.

    Dr. Phillies; please, sir — before you comment on this issue further, PLEASE get yourself rid of the cognitive biases preventing you from being rational on the topic at hand?

    A layman such as myself shouldn’t be able to do, intellectually speaking, the harm to your position in debate such as I have been doing, given the level of your education.

  44. Bob,

    I am not about to try to type equations in HTML. However, the Planck blackbody equation is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck's_law_of_black_body_radiation
    and it gives the power radiated at each frequency \nu (looks like an English v) by a black body (something totally black at all wavelengths) at a temperature T. At each temperature, an object emits (perhaps very little) at all wavelengths.

    In addition we have Khirkhoff’s law which says that at each wavelength an object is equally good at absorbing or emitting.

    Now, if the earth had no atmosphere, and were simply painted some color, there would be no greenhouse effect. However, there is an atmosphere, it is at some temperature, and the earth absorbs the heat rays emitted from the air as well as those emitted by the sun. For full details on what happens next, there is a good wikipedia article
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
    on why having an atmosphere is not the same as simply painting the earth some color, for which your intuition is correct.

    Best,

    George

  45. George is right that the planet is getting warmer.

    He is right to argue against propagating conservative misinformation on climate change.

    But he is terribly wrong to accept the notion that some sort of global climate policy is necessary for two reasons:

    1. Accepting the alarmist view that immediate action on climate change is necessary provides justification for a massive world wide government and bureaucracy; one which leaders around the world are already rushing to bring into existence. The US is likely the only country that can put a stop to this.

    2. The science supporting global climate change is SEVERELY flawed. Even the graph George posted is under assault form every angle.

    *Just a couple of weeks ago a massive error was “discovered” (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7195/full/nature06982.html) that will reduce warming (in George’s graph) in the second half of the last century by roughly .2 degrees centigrade.

    *The graph was produced using an algorithm that adjusts for urban heat islands by using “rural” areas as a control group of sorts. In a many, perhaps most cases the “rural” areas have actually experienced significant urbanization in recent years (building/expanding an airport nearby, Installing an air conditioner with the exhaust pointed at the temperature sensor, and a long list of other “I can’t believe they were that stupid mistakes” along with the simple “your rural town of 5000 is now a city of 50K” errors).

    *The record is replete with instances in which the climate sciences peer review process has catastrophically failed. Recently IPCC chapter authors were caught falsifying publication dates just so that they could publish and affirm their own work in the 4th IPCC report.

    I could spend several hours on this. Instead I’ll summarize with the following:

    While the earth is almost certainly warming, the push for global regulation of greenhouse gases is built on top of junk science and is the greatest threat to individual liberty to occur in my lifetime.

    It would be really sad to see any significant portion of the Libertarian party support this serious and imminent threat to our core principles.

  46. Nothing wrong with Mother Earth that offing 3-4×10^9 useless humanoids wouldn’t cure.

    Now, that would reduce the human “carbon footprint.”

    But who decides which units are terminated?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: