jonkon
Master of the Arts
Posts: 111
|
Post by jonkon on Oct 14, 2015 16:42:47 GMT
My work designing blood gas monitors is directly relevant to climate change science, and my experience as a design and regulatory compliance engineer supports your second hypothesis not only in climate change but also in ozone depletion, freon, and eutectic solder (lead-free). I have found that the biggest threat to our environment is environmentalists. They play upon the ignorance of the general public regarding sound science to push pseudo-scientific garbage to justify increased government control over our lives.
The European banned eutectic solder (RoHS Directive) allegedly is to prevent the release of lead into the environment. The Chinese jumped on this rationale to issue their own ban so as to enable the systematic theft of western technology, since all compliance testing must be done exclusively by Chinese testing labs. The Chinese ban moreover only applies to foreign imports, not domestic production. Ironically one of the properties of eutectic solder that makes it so useful is that tin and lead enter into a crystalline bond that makes such migration into the environment impossible. The new lead-free solders recrystallize after assembly causing electrical shorts and equipment failure over time. The lead-free solders also release far more toxic substances into the environment and require more energy to fabricate than the original lead-based solder.
When Dupont's patent on freon expired, it need a way to create a market for its new replacements which not only required larger refrigeration elements but also posed serious flammability and toxic hazards. DuPont's solution was to push the buttons of gullible environmentalists by pushing the absurd idea that CFC's destroyed the Earth's ozone layer thus exposing us to destructive UVb radiation. This is fundamentally wrong on three points:
1) Freon is an inert substance and therefore doesn't react with any thing.
2) CFC's are heavier than air and therefore are incapable of reaching the ozone layer. The practical limit used to elevate medical equipment so as to avoid explosion hazards from CFC's used as anesthetics is 6 feet.
3) Ozone does NOT protect against UVb, but in fact is CAUSED by normal atmospheric oxygen blocking UVb radiation. The UVb radiation splits an oxygen atom into two free radicals which then combine with two other oxygen molecules to form ozone. I used to fix my parents' vacuum tube TVs and designed X-Ray and TV high voltage circuits, where energy levels reached UVb levels, early in my career, so I am intimately familiar with the generation and properties of ozone. The production of ozone from electrical discharge into the atmosphere is a recognized hazard by UL and the military.
With regard to climate change physics and its relation to the design of blood gas monitors, the "curve fitting" employed by climate scientists is no substitute for a sound scientific analysis of the situation. A product, once released into production, is subject to replication thousands of times each day under uncontrolled conditions, exposing the inherent flaws in conventional "scientific" methodology. Dissolution of CO2 in the blood stream is the primary mechanism for transporting waste CO2 out of the body. Detection of CO2 levels is by IR spectroscopy of the C-O bonds. The "Greenhouse Effect," if real, would set up a positive feedback loop with the Earth's oceans that would quickly saturate, leaving the Earth uninhabitable.
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Oct 14, 2015 20:29:54 GMT
Jonkon, not to be argumentative, but I'd like to note a few things. 1. You haven't replied to my remarks regarding Venus's atmosphere. Given that its atmosphere is about 96% CO 2 with the remainder nitrogen (not a GHG as you know) and Venus has a run-away greenhouse effect, it's in fact a major issue for you to explain if your theory is to hold water. The denial of CO 2's effects as a greenhouse gas cuts across disciplines; astrophysics in this case. 2. I briefly looked into the RoHS Directive's ban of lead-tin solders (eutectic solder is a more general category that applies to other alloys as well) and noticed that the EPA (an American government agency) does support the idea that lead leaching into the environment gives lead-tin solder egregious life-cycle effects. I don't immediately see why the EPA would misrepresent the findings on a EU Directive - yes, it is possible, but surely it is a rad thing to propose. 3. Your point about CFCs doesn't account for the effects of wind. True, these compounds wouldn't reach the stratosphere on an Earth without turbulence. That Earth isn't ours. And CFCs are actually measured in the stratosphere. How else would they get there? How couldn't they be there if they're measured there? Also, see: www3.epa.gov/ozone/science/sc_fact.htmlFinally, I have a note about methodology: 4. You have in discussions about the history of science noted the importance of empirical traditions over theoretic traditions (for example Antioch over Alexandria). How do you reconcile this (rather Protestant) empiricism with your reliance on purely theoretical arguments that don't fully engage with the empirically tested consensus view but rather with parts and fails to account for very simple empirical observations, like the greenhouse effect and the abundance of CO 2 in the atmosphere of Venus, measurement of CFCs in the Earth's atmosphere and assessment reports that note lead from lead-tin solders does leach into the environment? Kind regards.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Oct 15, 2015 1:29:17 GMT
Hi Jonkon, I have to say, like ignorantisnescia, I don't wish to be argumentative, but I find your comments problematic at best and quite disturbing at worst. I'm sorry. Really, the properties of gases is a very small part of climate science. Climate science draws on a wide variety of disciplines - this source and this one say that more than a dozen different disciplines are involved, e.g. meteorology, earth science, hydrology, theoretical physics, mathematics, hydrogeology, biology, ecology and environmental science, geography, geophysics, etc. Obviously there are significant overlaps there, but understanding the behaviour of a few gases is a very small part of it. This too is either a misunderstanding or a mis-statement. Graphs and curve fitting are used by climate scientists to illustrate certain points, but climate science is much, much more sophisticated than that. Climate science is built on a large number of mathematical/physical models as this source explains. Here is a quote: [Models] "are mathematical representations of the climate system run on powerful computers. Their fundamentals are based on the laws of physics, including conservation of mass, energy and momentum. GCMs are closely related to models used for daily weather prediction.
GCMs represent the atmosphere and ocean on three-dimensional grids, with a typical atmospheric resolution of 200 km, with 20 to 50 levels in the vertical. Models explicitly represent large-scale synoptic features of the atmosphere, such as the progression of high and low pressure systems, and large scale oceanic currents and overturning. However many important physical processes occur at finer spatial scales. Examples include radiation and precipitation processes, cloud formation and atmospheric and oceanic turbulence. The impacts of such processes are included in ‘parameterisations’, whereby their effects are expressed in approximate form on the coarser model grid. Parameterisations are typically the result of intensive theoretical and observational study, and essentially represent ‘sub-models’ within the climate model itself.
Climate models have undergone continuous development for the last three decades, and now incorporate interactions between the atmosphere, oceans, sea ice and land surface.
Confidence in models comes from their basis in fundamental physical principles, and from their ability to represent important features of the current and past climate. GCMs have shown a substantial and robust warming signal resulting from increasing greenhouse gas concentrations over several generations of model development. However uncertainties arise, particularly in the details and timing of changes. These come from uncertainties in parameterisations, and therefore confidence in projections is greater in some variables (e.g. temperature) than others (e.g. precipitation). These uncertainties are partly reflected in the ranges presented for projections. A broad suite of climate variables have been reported on for these projections. While most models perform reasonably well, there is no single “best” model or subset of models, and climate projections differ between models.
Although spatial resolution has improved over time, grid scales of global models limit representation of some important regional and local scale features and processes. These can be important for the local distribution of rainfall for example. To try to include such features, techniques for downscaling can be applied, whereby higher resolution are "embedded" within a global model, or where statistical relationships between local scale climate and broad scale climate features are exploited."So if you want to intelligently critique climate science, you've got to address these models, not somebody's simplified graph. For some more on models, see Wikipedia, Skeptical Science and the Conversation. That is the concern, though it is doubtful it would come to that.. Jonkon, I'm sorry, but this is pure conspiracy theory and I'm finding it difficult to believe that you are saying this. Are you really saying that all the data in 4000 scientific papers and the conclusions of dozens of scientific organisations counts for nothing, and your evidence-free assertion that large numbers of scientists from all over the world have engaged in a dishonest and nefarious scam, is supposed to stand? Do you understand how this sounds to anyone who respects science and evidence? I'm sorry to express myself so strongly, but really, how could I say it more kindly? You seem to be building an illogical conclusion on scurrilous and unbelievable assertion, and ignoring all the evidence. Can I ask you to please think again? Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by evangelion on Oct 15, 2015 14:19:52 GMT
Jonkon, I have just two things to say: That is all.
|
|
jonkon
Master of the Arts
Posts: 111
|
Post by jonkon on Oct 17, 2015 22:19:25 GMT
Climate Change "Experts" vs. Reality: "Climate change" is a crock!
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Oct 18, 2015 10:13:39 GMT
Climate Change "Experts" vs. Reality: "Climate change" is a crock! Hi Jonkon, it is really disappointing that you don't take a serious approach to this serious question. I posted a lot of scientific information, and you haven't responded to it, only offering one graph, unsourced and not giving a fair picture. Is this typical of climate change scepticism that it can only argue presenting snippets of distorted "facts"? If the matter was a simple as your graph suggests, it would be very strange that thousands of climate scientists, journalists and politicians, as well as ordinary people like me, couldn't recognise that something was wrong. So could it be that it is your graph, and the simplistic argument it represents, that is misleading? So is Climate change a "crock!"?Well even this graph and this author shows it isn't. The graph reports one small aspect of climate change (mid troposphere temperature) and still shows a slow warming, not zero warming. The same author (John Christy) has also produced another graph of lower troposphere temperature and it showed a significant rise in temperature over 40 years. And according to this and several other reports, he agrees that the earth is heating up and that human sources are at least partly responsible. So even if this graph was accurate and fully represented climate science, it wouldn't mean climate change is a "crock", only that it is occurring at a slower pace than predicted. But the graph is probably not correct and it certainly doesn't fairly represent climate science. Is the graph correct?John Christy is a well-credentially climate scientist but he uses his own dataset. This report outlines how a couple of other satellite datasets disagree with Christy's. All datasets use the same basic satellite data, but they all have to correct for satellite errors, caused by "diurnal drift" - slow changes to the satellite's orbit over time. But the methods used to correct the data vary, and a new report says Christy's correction uses an inadequate and ultimately erroneous method. There may also be some algebraic errors in his calculations. So other experts believe Christy is quite wrong. This report summarises what seems to be the current state of play: "So where does that leave us? An "Executive Summary" by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (pdf), co-authored by John Christy of UAH concludes:
"Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human induced global warming. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. While these data are consistent with the results from climate models at the global scale, discrepancies in the tropics remain to be resolved.
This difference between models and observations may arise from errors that are common to all models, from errors in the observational data sets, or from a combination of these factors. The second explanation is favored, but the issue is still open."
In other words, according to UAH, satellite measurements match the models apart from in the tropics. This error is most likely due to data errors. According to RSS, satellites are in good agreement with models."So it seems that it is unlikely that the graph you have presented is accurate, and even Christy is willing to see that it may not be. Is the graph representative of climate science?We have already seen that the graph you presented relates only to mid troposphere temperature, and only at the tropics. Elsewhere, the climate models are accurate, and in the lower tropsphere there is significant climate change even on Christy's dataset. But further, troposphere temperature is only one piece of data in a much larger picture. For example: Where you have unfortunately gone wrongIt is clear then that climate change is not a "crock". It is also clear that the models aren't perfect. But imperfect models don't make the problem go away. We just need to use models thoughtfully, which unfortunately some global warming sceptics and enthusiasts don't always do. Here are a few thoughts. - Global warming models are most accurate globally over long periods. Use shorter time periods and more localised data and they are not so accurate. If you want to misrepresent the information, it is easy to do so. I would hope you wouldn't want to do that.
- Therefore models have struggled to predict the relative (perhaps decadal) effects of El Nino and La Nina. This report shows how inadequate modelling of El Nino caused some models to predict poorly, while better modelling of El Nino led other models to perform much better, as does this report. So the models are getting better. But the important thing here is that if we look at the larger picture over several El Nino-La Nina cycles, the models do much better.
- It is foolish to trust anyone who shows a simple graph that isn't based on good modelling. Selective use of graphs can show a wide variety of outcomes.
- Science is a process of learning more and adjusting hypotheses and models as more data comes in. That is definitely true in climate science, but the science is getting better all the time.
- For all these reasons, climate models generally show a range in their predictions, reflecting the estimate of uncertainty. Studies show that actual data mostly falls within the range, and don't deviate consistently one way or the other - meaning they aren't biased as some claim.
- And so we have a risk calculation. GLobal warming is certain (even John Christy admits that), the argument is only about the degree of warming, how serious that is and what we should do about it. Risk = consequence x likelihood. In this case, the consequence (if the models are right) is enormous, and the likelihood is high, though not certain. This makes the risk unacceptable. Just as we take out house, car or life (accidental death) insurance to enable us to meet the cost of a possible significant loss, so it is prudent to insure against the risk of global warming. The only difference is that in those cases, the risk is low, but here the risk is high. We should be encouraged in this step of risk management because the cost of moving away from fossil fuels is getting smaller all the time.
So can I ask you again to please engage seriously with this question. A throw-away comment about a "crock" based on one unrepresentative graph is unworthy of you and of the seriousness of this problem. Thanks.
|
|
jonkon
Master of the Arts
Posts: 111
|
Post by jonkon on Oct 18, 2015 22:04:03 GMT
The bottom line is that IPCC climate change models predict a temperature rise that is not seen in actual measurements by satellites and weather balloons. If science actually supported climate change activists, they would not need to silence dissent by threatening climate change skeptics with RICO violations (http://www.naturalnews.com/051347_RICO_climate_change_government_corruption.html). Chalk up a victory for conspiracy nuts. Even a paranoid can have enemies.
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Oct 18, 2015 23:07:17 GMT
The bottom line is that IPCC climate change models predict a temperature rise that is not seen in actual measurements by satellites and weather balloons. This is also relevant. Climate change denial is not a scientific position; it's an emotional, religious, or political position.
|
|
jonkon
Master of the Arts
Posts: 111
|
Post by jonkon on Oct 19, 2015 16:41:02 GMT
The converse is also true fortigurn. Destruction of the American economy must not be based on projections that are on the order of the sensor accuracy - Yes, I have designed thermometers and temperature controllers.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Oct 19, 2015 23:51:00 GMT
The bottom line is that IPCC climate change models predict a temperature rise that is not seen in actual measurements by satellites and weather balloons. If science actually supported climate change activists, they would not need to silence dissent by threatening climate change skeptics with RICO violations (http://www.naturalnews.com/051347_RICO_climate_change_government_corruption.html). Chalk up a victory for conspiracy nuts. Even a paranoid can have enemies. Sorry Jonkon, but you are wrong and misleading. The changes are there, not always predicted as accurately as we'd like, but accurate enough - and just as often they're worse than the predictions as they are better. You continue to use evasions, half truths and misleading, unrepresentative data to support a failed hypothesis, instead of respecting the totality of the data. You continue not to even attempt to address the information I have provided. I guess this is the real issue for you. And again it is probably mistaken. All indications are that going renewable and phasing our coal will benefit the economy and be a bonanza for businesses that have the foresight to move with the science. Perhaps your business is one that will reduce in the future, in which case I am sympathetic and understand. But let me tell you a true story. Many years ago I was the manager of a river flow data set in NSW. A man came in who had just sold a business and intended to buy a farm in western NSW, and he wanted river data for the area so he could see whether the river could sustain his projected farming business. I gave him data for the closest stream station (on the Castlereagh River, one of the drier NSW western streams), which had operated during a period of relatively higher flows, and he was pleased. Then I found some data for a nearby station that covered an earlier period where the river was much drier, but he didn't look at it, saying he had enough information. He was deliberately closing his eyes to the information he didn't want to see, but which would have given him a more accurate picture of the water he could expect to find in the river. A few years later, my brother happened to move to the area to work as an engineer on the local council, and he became best friends with a farmer whose family had been on his property for generations. It happened to be in the same locality as the property that guy I had given the data to had bought. We used to visit my brother every year, and on one visit I asked my brother's friend how the guy was going and he said he was doing very poorly because he couldn't get enough water. Sometimes it is better to recognise the bad news and act early rather than try to pretend it will go away, and be the last to change, and get caught out.
|
|
|
Post by evangelion on Oct 20, 2015 10:14:22 GMT
Climate Change "Experts" vs. Reality: "Climate change" is a crock! OK, so you're a raging toss monkey with a soufflé for a brain. I'm glad we've established this already. It saves time.
|
|
|
Post by James Hannam on Oct 20, 2015 16:42:39 GMT
OK, so you're a raging toss monkey with a soufflé for a brain. I'm glad we've established this already. It saves time. Firstly, please can we avoid silly insults like this. Second, while I don't agree with much of what jonkon says, his arguments have more to them than convinced climate alarmists would like. For instance, the graph that fortigurn gave us on surface and satellite temperatures shows a trend of 0.18 degrees per decade from 1983 to 2008 (the line on his graph). That translates into 1.8 degrees per century which is unlikely to be catastrophically dangerous. Also, if the graph extended to 2015, that trend would be lower. And like it or not, it is a highly contested graph. So historical climate data is not in the alarming territory by a long shot. All that stuff we hear about tipping points and other guff is correctly called out by the likes of jonkon. And as Matt Ridley shows here, at the moment we are enjoying substantial benefits from higher CO2 levels. Any disadvantages (of which we haven't seen many so far) have to outweigh the advantages. Certainly, spending billions on trying to decarbonise is, at present, a very bad idea when we have millions of people without access to clean water and electricity. We need cheap electricity a hell of a lot more than we need CO2 free electricity. Third, as a historian of science I cringe whenever anyone says "science is settled". Most scientists have been wrong about most things most of the time. They still are, as the fiasco over fat v carb and putting babies on their tummies shows. Climate science is new and rapidly expanding. On that basis alone, we can say confidently that it will turn out to be mostly wrong. Trying to attack and silence dissenters, whatever you think of their motivations, is anti-scientific and unacceptable. Four, the models have so far been wrong about the future. They have done rather better with the past. So, in summary, nothing that has happened in the last three years has changed my mind since I wrote this: bedejournal.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/lukewarmism.htmlBest wishes James
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Oct 20, 2015 21:31:40 GMT
the models have so far been wrong about the future. Hi James, I agree with you that insults are not helpful. We have discussed climate change without resolution before, so I won't say too much. But I think your statement here is misleading. From what I have read, the predictions are qualitatively accurate - they show rising temperatures, rising sea levels, more extreme weather events, etc, and this has been proven to be true. The models haven't been as quantitatively accurate as we all would like, but: - As the scientists learn more about the El Nino and La Nina effects, the models are getting better.
- Even without that understanding, the long term global predictions are generally pretty good, but they are not so good in the short term and locally. The time scale is particularly important and ignored by many sceptics (like the Murdoch press) - it is nonsense to draw a graph of a decade or two and think that any line on it represents anything more than a very short term trend.
- Analysis I have seen shows that the inaccuracies in the models is not all on the high side as often inferred by sceptics, but evenly spread either side. So if we take averages of several different models (which I found to be good practice as a hydrologist) then the predictions are quite reasonable.
- It is still a matter of risk management. Devastating consequence and fairly high likelihood make the risk enormous, and it is intolerable not to address it.
- Addressing climate change effectively won't cost nearly as much as many people say because it has many other benefits, and won't ruin the economy. We don't need to be afraid.
So I don't think it is true that climate science will turn out to be "mostly wrong" as you say, any more than gravitational science has been found to be mostly wrong. Sure Einstein gave us a new understanding, but for all practical purposes Newton was fine. Your parallel with putting babies on their tummies is of a quite different order. Perhaps our understanding of the most economic way to create non carbon-based energy will change, but physics doesn't change that much, and the models are based on physics. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by James Hannam on Oct 21, 2015 10:13:18 GMT
Hi unkleE, I agree we are unlikely to agree, but I’m happy to maintain a discussion in case it is of interest to others. “From what I have read, the predictions are qualitatively accurate - they show rising temperatures, rising sea levels, more extreme weather events, etc, and this has been proven to be true.”
You are right that temperatures are rising. The question is whether this is happening at a pace that should alarm us. Presently, the answer is no. Sea levels are also rising, but again at a pace that should cause no alarm. Extreme weather is trickier. It is common ground between us that hurricanes etc are not getting stronger or more frequent. This is a very important finding because these events are the only ones where we have accurate worldwide figures going back far enough to see a trend. The reason for that is simple. Hurricanes are hard to miss. Local wet and dry weather tells us much less and we don’t have good global statistics that go back far enough. Nonetheless, I accept that the moderate warming we are seeing does lead to higher rainfall and we’d expect that to lead to more local floods. However, in general more rain is a good thing and the bad effects of local flooding are much less than the failure of the rains. We see evidence of this from the 14% increase in global greening that has been observed, caused by increases in CO2 and rainfall. This is a HUGE benefit to the world. Other bad effects of global warming that we hear about (polar bears, coral etc) are either false or at least inconclusive.
“1.As the scientists learn more about the El Nino and La Nina effects, the models are getting better.”
They are certainly getting better at modelling the past. It is a trivial mathematical truth that you can model any curve you like if you make the formula complicated enough. In science, that tells us nothing at all. All that matters is how well the model predicts what we don’t know already. So far, not so good. Still, you are right that the models have got better. Present long term observed warming is about +0.15 degrees a decade. In 1988 James Hansen’s scenario A predicted 0.5 degrees a decade. In the 1990 IPCC report the central prediction was 0.3 a decade. By 2013 it was down to 0.17 a decade. So, yes the models are getting better. Let’s hope they get better still and we can all stop getting so worried.
Also, one major way that the models have improved is that the error bars have got bigger. This is certainly helpful in showing how little we know.
“2.Even without that understanding, the long term global predictions are generally pretty good, but they are not so good in the short term and locally. The time scale is particularly important and ignored by many sceptics (like the Murdoch press) - it is nonsense to draw a graph of a decade or two and think that any line on it represents anything more than a very short term trend.”
I agree on timescales. I think much of the predicament we have today was caused by a short term accelerated warming in the 1990s, ending in 1998 which got mistaken for the new normal. The current hiatus is really just a reversion to the long term mean increase of about 0.15 degree a decade which should not alarm anyone.
“3.Analysis I have seen shows that the inaccuracies in the models is not all on the high side as often inferred by sceptics, but evenly spread either side. So if we take averages of several different models (which I found to be good practice as a hydrologist) then the predictions are quite reasonable.”
If that is the case, and the average of the models was at about +0.15 per decade, then it is hard to see what all the fuss is about. The models would show global warming is moderate and nothing to worry about. That message hasn’t got out.
“4.It is still a matter of risk management. Devastating consequence and fairly high likelihood make the risk enormous, and it is intolerable not to address it.”
And here is our fundamental disagreement. Everyone says that rises of less than 2 degrees in a century are not likely to be a problem. Actually, we are currently enjoying substantial benefits. Dangerous warming would be a problem but it is not presently likely. Of course, it could happen and is worth thinking about. But not worth wasting billions on when we have more pressing and definitely real problems like poverty, clean water, the need for cheap energy and real environmental issues like invasive species and wasting land on biofuels.
“5.Addressing climate change effectively won't cost nearly as much as many people say because it has many other benefits, and won't ruin the economy. We don't need to be afraid.”
Of course addressing climate change won’t wreak the economy. Capitalism is stronger than that. That does not mean it isn’t a massive waste of money when resources are limited. If you can generate electricity at $50 a glob but choose to do it at $100 a glob you have wasted $50 which you could spend on providing clean water or subsidising opera or whatever you want. Subsidising renewables uses up scarce resources and crowds out other more productive investments.
We should spend some of that subsidy money on R&D, especially new generation nuclear. The rest can be used more productively on other things.
“So I don't think it is true that climate science will turn out to be "mostly wrong" as you say, any more than gravitational science has been found to be mostly wrong. Sure Einstein gave us a new understanding, but for all practical purposes Newton was fine. Your parallel with putting babies on their tummies is of a quite different order. Perhaps our understanding of the most economic way to create non carbon-based energy will change, but physics doesn't change that much, and the models are based on physics.”
Gravitational science has been mostly wrong. OK, so Newton was right and is justly famous as a result. But a host of other figures, from Aristotle to Descartes and goodness knows how many obscure figures, were dead wrong. We tend to forget that the few kernels of scientific truth have been winnowed from a huge mass of chaff that we too often ignore. Journals and libraries are full of science that didn’t make the cut. For every correct theory, there are dozens of wrong turns. Some of those wrong turns last for centuries and become orthodoxy. Climate science is presently generating huge amounts of material. Most of it will be wrong. That said, I’m part of the consensus that states manmade CO2 is increasing global temperatures. By how much, we don’t know but presently the evidence is that it isn’t enough to seriously worry us.
Best wishes
James
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Oct 21, 2015 13:17:46 GMT
The converse is also true fortigurn. Destruction of the American economy must not be based on projections that are on the order of the sensor accuracy Well fortunately no one is proposing anything so ridiculous.
|
|