The myth of global cooling

A friend asked me how I was going to feel when I discovered that anthropogenic climate change (ACC) was not real, when science was proved wrong. ‘Wonderful,’ I said. I’m not happy about ACC, and if I’m wrong that would be fantastic. I don’t have any epistemic commitments to anthropogenic climate change. My commitments are to finding the facts about the world. That is why I became a scientist. I have strong commitments to truth-finding. I’m forced to accept ACC, not because I like the idea, or think this makes economic sense, or even because I’m getting the big bucks with my fellow coconspirators for promoting it. I argue for it because not to believe it would be irrational given the evidence. The sheer number of papers that support the view is staggering. Oh sure, the deniers can site a couple of papers that suggest the case is still open (like this hooter from a couple of civil engineers–why can’t they find climatologists saying things like this?), but they ignore a massively coherent story coming from climatologists, teams of geologists, ecologists, oceanographers, foresters, plant scientists . . . well name a field, the scientific literature is rich with supporting evidence.

The story of Earth’s climate is complex and much about it is not well understood, and there are copious debates within science about how that story of Earth’s atmosphere has unfolded. Scientists are in heated debates about he role of solar cycles, ocean absorption of CO2, the effect of climate change on weather patterns, on and on and on. A common ACC denier tactic is to take these attempts to sort things out, and understand things in greater nuance and clarity, as evidence that ACC is not a consensus. I can’t tell you how often denier sites put up abstracts from scientific papers on the web that explore the role of, say, solar cycles, or something, as evidence that ACC is not real. “See it’s caused by solar cycles.” However, if you read the paper more closely, the scientists doing the study are part of the consensus on climate change. They are trying to sort out a more complete story, to give better analyses, and to make better predictions. That’s what scientists do. That there are fights going on in science is a good thing. That’s how science works. But when you see deep agreement and consensus among scientists from multiple disciplines, its a sign you’d better pay attention, and if you’ve got money riding on the finding you’d best take that into account when making a wager. Take the germ theory of disease. Nowadays, when someone finds a new illness like SARS or Swine flu they immediately start looking for, and usually find, a causal organism. Sure you can find lots of Internet stuff by people, even scientists, who believe that the cases are caused by some imbalance of the humors, or a misalignment of Chi, and you can provide links to their internet sites by the thousands (the most famous case being the Nobel scientist who did not believe that AIDS was caused by HIV). But the germ theory of disease has a lot of science baking it up and if you are going to step out of it, you are stepping out of science. Just like in ACC.

But what I want to really talk about is global cooling. This is brought up so often it staggers the mind that the real story is not more widely known. The statements go something like this: “Thirty Years ago scientists were talking about global cooling, now it’s global warming. What will it be next year?” This pessimistic induction fails to understand science in two ways. First, science changes its mind. It’s not something that stays married to previous stories when those stories turn out not to stand up to new data, new analysis, or new explanatory apparatuses. For example, most scientists once believed the continents where stable and did not move. Now we know that they do, and we have mechanisms that explain how it works. There are boat loads of evidence for continental drift’s actually coming from better instrumentation, and from the ability to take deep ocean sediment cores, and from data that explains things better based on what we find in the Earth’s crust. This is what makes science strong. Changing to fit the facts is the best tool we have for understanding the physical laws of the universe. So, if thirty years ago scientists said that the Earth was cooling, and now they say it’s warming than pay attention. It means that more data has been gathered, better analyses have been conducted, supporting evidence has been reinterpreted. Scientists changing their minds is not a flaw in science. It’s its among its greatest strengths.

Second, scientists, as a group, never said the Earth was cooling. One scientist did. A scientist named Schneider in 1971 published a paper describing a model that showed the Earth’s atmosphere would cool. It got printed in Newsweek, and so was born the myth that science once taught the Earth was cooling. The modeler went back and realized the model had underestimated CO2, and overestimated aerosols from volcanic eruptions. Was cooling a scientific consensus? Were data coming in from freezing glaciers in alpine regions? Was arctic ice getting thicker? Were species from multiple taxa, everywhere you looked, redistributing because of a cooling planet? Were oceans becoming less acidic? Was there less CO2 and other greenhouse gasses being measured in the air? Were temperatures actually being measured as going down from multiple sources? Were multiple models, from multiple independent labs, located in multiple countries across the world, converging to the same story? No. No, to all of these. One guy. One inadequate model. One more weapon in deniers arsenal to put up a smoke screen to the scientific story unfolding on ACC.

The truth is that global warming as been talked about for 200 years. The mechanisms supporting ACC where proposed in the 19th Century and evidences for it has been accumulating for decades. The case for it has only has become strong in the late 80s (I’ve blogged about a conference on ACC I attended in the early 90s and the belief among scientists then was only 50/50–that’s changed to 1:1000), and scientifically it is on very solid footing today.

So for good reasons, the pessimistic induction that “because science changes its mind it can’t be trusted,” is just wrong. The case for ACC? There is much that needs to be sorted out. There are anomalies, complexities, and difficulties. But as the evidence pours in from multiple disciplines, better instrumentation (including satellites and ocean monitoring techniques and ice core data), more sophisticated and robust models, greater diversity of statistical analysis methods, the case for ACC is strong. Could science be wrong? You betcha. Disease might be caused by an imbalance in humors too. But that’s not the way to bet.

This entry was posted in Climate Change, The Environment. Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to The myth of global cooling

  1. Jack Mormon says:

    You wrote, “…science changes its mind. It’s not something that stays married to previous stories when those stories turn out not to stand up to new data, new analysis, or new explanatory apparatuses”.

    Fair enough. But before we begin throwing billions of dollars at intrusive and invasive measures to mitigate CO2 emissions, I want some reasonable assurance that science won’t change its mind again 20 years later. Because science is dynamic, I don’t see how it’s possible to provide that assurance.

    Perhaps if ACC advocates were to knock off the “sky-is-falling” catastrophism, the rest of us might become less skeptical. I trust you also realize that initiating cap-and-trade will empower a new group of predatory parasitical speculators who will make millions trafficking in carbon credits. They’ll create a bubble to suck us dry just like they did with the dot-com bubble and the housing bubble.

  2. Tracy M says:

    Steve, I love reading your scientific point of view on this (among other things)- I have difficulty wrapping my mind around some of this stuff, especially with all the rhetoric that gets slung. Your posts always clarify things. I really wish I could take one of your classes. You must be a fabulous teacher.

  3. Jack says:

    SteveP, I think you’re talking about the more hardened deniers. Most “informed” skeptics agree that there’s some warming happening and that it probably has to do with a rise in CO2. The biggest disagreements have to do with catastrophic predictions (mostly having to do with modeling feedback), economic solutions, and data management.

    Also, I think we should remember that of the thousands of scientist who have published papers having something to do with climate change, only a relatively small number are actually doing work that has to do with detection and attribution. Yes there are many lines of evidence for warming but what percentage of that evidence really nails down causation — firmly?

  4. Rich says:

    “…before we begin throwing billions of dollars at intrusive and invasive measures to mitigate CO2 emissions, I want some reasonable assurance that science won’t change its mind again 20 years later”

    And if we wait twenty years gambling that the consensus might be wrong, the billions you’re worried about now will seem a drop in the bucket as we face not only trillions, but continued extinctions, continued wars over oil and gas, poisoning of the planet, acidification and rising oceans, etc., as our folly of willful ignorance more fully manifests itself. I trust science far more than politicians when it comes to deciding in favor of short term losses over long-term gains. You have no idea what intrusive and invasive will look like in 20 years if we continue to do nothing.

  5. Stan says:

    I’m Reading “Merchants of Doubt” and it is truly amazing how the same tactics applied to ACC denialism were also applied to ill effects of tobacco smoke, acid rain, Star Wars etc… In retrospect, science was correct on each of those counts. Whenever there is ideological or economic opposition to science, the same tactics developed by the tobacco industry in the ’50s are used to cloud the issue.

  6. Rameumptom says:

    I personally believe that ACC is probably true. My personal problem with many of the scientists involved is the solution(s). The Kyoto Treaty, supported by thousands of scientists globally, would have left global temperatures virtually unchanged over a century. Why do such draconic measures, if the measures do nothing but line Al Gore’s pockets?
    Why not find something that gives us a good ROI, or find ways to mitigate issues in various regions, rather than a one-size-fits all methodology that clearly will not work (especially since China and India will not jump on board)?
    Perhaps it would be better and more cost effective to build dikes around New York City and other coastal cities than to imagine we can control something that just cannot be controlled.
    I’d really like us to get beyond the discussion of whether ACC occurs, and move on to how we can effectively fix it or adapt to it.

  7. Rich says:

    I’d really like us to get beyond the discussion of whether ACC occurs, and move on to how we can effectively fix it or adapt to it.

    Part II, chapters 4-10 of Lester Brown’s Plan B. 4.0 is an excellent discussion of what we can do. It’s online and free to read. I highly recommend it (and it’s not lining any of Al’s pockets).

  8. John Mansfield says:

    I agree with SteveP’s thoughts on old global cooling theories. Pointing to them is a weak argument, and I suppose those who do so just find the juxtaposition of warming and cooling too compelling. There are other things like this, though, that give me much more pause.

    The first was Nuclear Winter. The science on that was awful, yet it was able to become a big political issue with little opposition from scientists who knew better because Who wants to say exploding nuclear weapons ain’t such a bad thing? To this day, most of the public thinks Nuclear Winter is real. If work that poorly done can be so effective in shaping public opinion, then it casts a lot of doubt on the self-correcting virtues of science when it deals with policy issues.

    The second issue for me is the continuity of environmental doom throughout my life. In the 70s, pollution was going to kill everything. In the 80s, deforestation was going to do it. Now, doomsday rests on climate change. The mechanisms change drastically, yet somehow the bottom line remains unchanged: mankind is destroying the world; you’re too fat and need to eat less. We used to be warned that petroleum is running out, and the consequences of that will be dire, so we need to use less. Simultaneous with that, we are now warned that the consequences of continuing to combust petroleum will be dire, so we need to use less. Worrying about peak oil and unremitted CO2 production simultaneously ought to produce some feeling of dissonance.

    Thoughout the 1990s, I had a back row seat in the world of environmental fluid dynamics. Between undergraduate and graduate school, I worked a couple years in Los Alamos National Lab’s Earth and Environmental Science division, then in graduate school I dealt a lot with my school’s Earth and Planetary Science department (also the Department of Geography and Environmental Engineering). Climate change was something that only a few people spent much time thinking about and even fewer worked on. That doesn’t mean anything bad about climate change research; nothing gets the attention of everyone or needs everyone working on it. We have to be careful, though, when we represent that thousands and thousands of scientists are working on it. The bulk of those thousands are doing exactly what Jack described in comment #3—running “what if” scenarios. If the globe is warming, as my climatologist colleagues tell me, then how will that affect the things I know something about? What limits hurricane size on a warmer ocean? How will plant growth change? What will be the political fallout? All these thousands of consequences of a warmer planet as studied by researchers who know better than to claim they have first-hand knowledge that the planet will warm. Complicating the task, those who do have such first-hand knowledge are not themselves experts in what the consequences of a warmer world will be. The enormity of the subject is one reason for a bit of humility as to our ability to declare what the inexorable future of the planet is.

  9. John Mansfield says:

    “Perhaps it would be better and more cost effective to build dikes around New York City and other coastal cities than to imagine we can control something that just cannot be controlled.”&mdashRameumptom #6

    You may recall that a complication of clearing out the World Trade Center debris was that that part of Manhattan was originally in the water and had been created by fill. San Francisco also has dozens of ships from the Gold Rush buried under buildings hundreds of yards from the current waterfront. (link) The waterfront of those cities is where people have chosen it to be.

  10. steveP says:

    Good discussion!

    Jack. I’m glad you are joining us. I think you ask great questions and I’m glad you are open to these possibilities. And open, but skeptical attitude is the right approach. Part of the problem is the kind of assurances that you suggest are not going to be much more than they are now. The science is solid. Causation is hard to nail down. This is at least at the level of smoking causing cancer, but even that can (and is!) disputed.

    Your analogy with the housing bubble I think is a good one. Lots of people actually saw the collapse coming, but no one wanted to hear it because it would have slowed growth and affected jobs so it was ignored until things collapse. Ecological collapse is far worse. If the Gulf shows what happens to things like fisheries can do to local economies, just think what world-wide collapse of world wide fisheries (and we are seeing it already) due to ocean acidification affecting food web bases will do. Climate change people I think are alarmist, in part, because the effects could really be bad–and the politics being such as they are we are not getting the kind of discussion that would let us even explore appropriate action.

    Tracy, Thanks! The only thing that makes me a good teacher, though, is the use of Star Trek and the Simpsons!

    Yes exactly, Rich. It looks like the train is coming, and saying let’s see if the train jumps the track, so we don’t have to get off the tracks is a bad strategy. The economic costs for our grandchildren might be horrendous.

    Stan, I’m glad you are reading that book. It is ironic that the same players (literally the same people) that worked hard to deny the cancer-tobacco connection have jumped into the global warming game. If you believe that “In consequence of the evils and designs which do and will exit in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days” D&C 89:4 it might be profitable to follow the movements of such conspiring men (and women) and do otherwise.

    Rameumpton, think that in the end trying to plan for what effects will happen and mitigate them as they arise will difficult to sustain economically. Especially given the political destabilization that catastrophes. The drought in Africa and the Middle East right now is displacing people causing conflicts and other things that are hard to predict. That’s why if we can prevent this up front we will get way more bang for our buck.

    John, Nice perspective on you background. One thing to notice is that the pollution concerns of the 70’s where mitigated through action. The pollution was bad (and can still be seen in places like China). But it was human action and policy that fixed them. Lake Erie was essentially dead and brought back though people acting to remove the pollution. The Clean Air Acts etc. actually reduced acid rain and cleaned up many city’s air. The 80’s deforestation has been devastating to ecologies and infrastructure in places like Thailand and much of South East Asia and those effects are still with us. The number of species lost though this has been staggering. Sadly, “What if” scenarios are all we have in some sense. We know easy things like rising oceans, melting ice near the poles, acidification, but the actual changes are hard to predict because the system is massively complex, non-linear with feedback loops we cannot begin to capture. Where will droughts, floods, political destabilization, etc. occur? And of course some will benefit (Russia and China suddenly have easier access to each others markets if polar ice is missing half the year), Iceland is planting crops it hasn’t been able to grow since the midlevel warming period centuries ago. Not everyone loses.) But, mostly such changes will make the world a much different place for our grandchildren and likely destabilized and economically comprised. I want them to know some of the benefits I know.

  11. Stan says:

    “Fair enough. But before we begin throwing billions of dollars at intrusive and invasive measures to mitigate CO2 emissions, I want some reasonable assurance that science won’t change its mind again 20 years later”

    Jack, a little history. In the early ’50s science had hard evidence that tobacco caused cancer. The industry and the pet scientists fed us doubt for 20 years before the tide was stemmed. Meanwhile lots of people died and a new generation was hooked on tobacco. They are dying now. There was enough “doubt” in the science plus plain lying and hiding data with the media playing both sides “fairly” that it took 30 years before measures began to be applied. The solution? Don’t use tobacco.

    Concerning acid rain, the Regan administration doctored and then withheld a scientific report linking SO2 emission to acid raid. The politicians called SO2 regulation a Billion dollar solution to a million dollar problem. The science was “unclear” and nobody wanted to spend so much money on something that wasn’t absolutely clear. Finally, the George W. Bush administration passed regulation on sulphur dioxide emissions. The industry wanted to build taller smoke stacks to disperse the pollutants widely. That was their “market solution”. Regulation forced them to install scrubbers on their smoke stacks. This forced technology innovation which improved efficiency. Today coal based energy is cheaper, inflation adjusted, than it was in the ’80s when everyone said the economy would collapse if SO2 was regulated. The solution? Reduce SO2 emissions. How did they do it? It was something… oh wait… let me think… oh yeah, something they called ‘cap and trade’ on SO2. A market based solution.

    The ozone layer? Same problems, same lies and smoke screens by those with political and economic motivations. Science eventually won that battle too. The solution? Reduce fluorocarbon emissions by regulation.

    Now, here we are with global warming. The same exact tactics by those politically and economically motivated. Not enough evidence, we don’t want to spend too much money when the science might be wrong. HELLO!!!! You say global warming is real. Good for you! You then say we don’t know how to fix it. DUH! Reduce CO2 emissions with a market driven cap and trade. How much to cap? Ok, we don’t know. Some are still worried about SO2 caps being too high. We have to start somewhere! You are not only on the wrong side of science, you are on the wrong side of history. Regulation drives technology innovation that the market has no internal motivation to achieve. We’ve seen it with SO2, flurocarbons, gas milage etc… The world hasn’t ended, but it may have been(or is being) saved! Don’t fall prey to the “we don’t know enough, the science isn’t in yet, it is too expensive” trap. Use the Force Luke and trust your… science!

  12. Stan says:

    Jack, sorry, it wasn’t you claiming we didn’t know what to do about CO2 emissions. I sheepishly retract my DUH! =:)

    “if the measures do nothing but line Al Gore’s pockets?”

    Rameumptom… DUH!

  13. Stan says:

    Another correction. It was the George H. W. Bush administration that passed SO2 regulation.

  14. steveP says:

    Stan, nicely done. It seems like all the things that have been important environmentally have been rigorously opposed with all the same excuses of what will happen if we act. Those are great examples, thank you.

  15. Karen says:

    I always learn a lot when I make time to stop by and read your posts Steve (and the commments as well).

    I don’t entirely understand where this idea that scientists support ACC simply for gain of money and prestige may have originated? (Perhpahs some answers may come from the history discussed in ‘The Merchants of Doubt’). It just seems that others (ie; oil companies) have a lot more to lose than any climatologist may have to gain.

  16. steveP says:

    Karen, me too. I keep hoping it’s true though, and someone starts laying the big bucks on me for acknowledgment of my efforts on behalf of the grand conspiracy. So far I’ve been left out.

  17. kreed says:

    Good article, Steve. I was on faculty at Yale School of Forestry when acid rain concerns were first raised. I was one of the skeptics, to the consternation of Herb Bormann. But skepticism is healthy in science and when SO2 was identified as the culprit, fixing the problem seemed appropriate.

    Likewise, as a grad student, I participated in the first Earth Week as part of the organizing committee at Oregon State. I’d read the famine predictions of Borgstrom’s “The Hungry Planet” and the catastrophic predictions Erlich’s “Population Bomb” and Erlich’s forecast of the death of the oceans by 1984.

    Borgstrom did not anticipate the “Green Revolution” and Erlich’s predictions of the effects of huge populations were off base. But the facts are still there – we teeter on the edge of calamity without technological mitigation. In short, technology has raised the carrying capacity of the Earth.

    I’m confident that technology will help us deal with global warming, assuming the tipping scenarios are wrong.

    What concerns me now is what concerned me then: why is birth control bad? Why is conservation bad? Why is alternative energy bad? Why is environmental regulation bad? Why is government protection of wildlife habitat bad?

    To me, the deniers’ arguments are stupid. Even if they are right, we need to get off the stored carbon dependency for our energy needs. Eventually, we’ll run out. And if the deniers are wrong (which is far more likely) we’ll be forced to get off the stored carbon train. Why not get started regardless?

  18. John Mansfield says:

    “One thing to notice is that the pollution concerns of the 70?s were mitigated through action.”

    That is a good point. I would like to write a few words about financial interest. It flows in all directions, and it is not an automatically disqualifying bad thing. If a combustion abolitionist is putting his money where his mouth is and investing in non-combusting energy generation, that is a good thing. If he supports a development so useful that it earns him a fortune, even better. For a few years (2000 through 2003) about half my work was support of power utilities in removing particulate and SO2 from the exhaust stream and preventing formation of NOX. Our little group of fluid dynamics consultants loved clean air regulations. We also thought highly of coal. It’s the backbone of electricity generation, and can be as clean as we want to make it. Were we just greedily serving our own financial interests, or did we think our work a valuable contribution to the good of mankind?

    That some former tobacco lobbyist now lobby for oil companies means little. Lobbyists lobby. Everyone dealing with government needs lobbyists. I wouldn’t be surprised if we could find a former tobacco lobbyist or two now representing a university research consortium or some such thing. I know a former high-level EPA regulator who now is well paid to help companies comply with the regulations he crafted. His current job is a needed one, and he is well qualified to do it.

    Equating energy companies with tobacco companies is such a cheap insult, and betrays a sort of ingratitude that makes it seem that the insulter has little idea how his life is supported. It is an astonishing thing to stare through a port into the furnace of a 800 MW plant and see the fires of a half million homes and businesses gathered in one place. In myths like the Prometheus story, combustion is almost synonymous with civilization.

  19. steveP says:

    Good points, kreed. That our energy reserves are limited is well known but little discussed.

    John, these were not lobbyists, these were scientists acting as formal scientific advisors to the president, and then making arguments publicly that the science was bad supporting tobacco (and now CC).

  20. Rameumptom says:

    Stan, Duh yourself, given your corrections.

    My point was I am attuned to action. But we need to get some correct actions out there to act upon.
    For the pollutions of the 60s/70s, we came up with effective methods to combat it, so that, as Steve notes, Lake Erie lives again. We don’t have rivers catching on fire.

    Steve noted that climate change is already affecting locations, and I agree that it is. It causes political destabilization. But what good will spending trillions of dollars on the Kyoto Treaty, if it does nothing but destroy more economies?

    That is my point. Many of the scientific voices for climate change action are pushing us to return to the Kyoto Treaty. Does a “feel good” action that does nothing help anymore than doing nothing and getting the same ecological result?

    Yes, I agree it would be cheaper to act now than to build retaining walls around the world’s coastal cities. But if we ruin the world’s economies with worthless “cap and trade” or other egregious actions, how will that stop the waters from rising on those cities?

    The science suggests we can pump reflective/inert gases into the atmosphere to reflect light back into space; cover glaciers and the Poles with reflective material to reduce melting and increase reflection to space; or send mirrors into space to reflect light back out.

    These would seem less costly than forcing humans to give up industrialization and cars; and move into caves….

    Of course, we could reduce 1/3 of the CO2 emissions if we just slaughter all of our large farm animals worldwide.

    Sadly, we have committees doing a lot of talking, and proposing the most useless “solutions” to implement. My point is that we need real solutions that give us a true Return on Investment (ROI). But the paranoia within me suggests that the top decision makers are using this more to make money than they are to save the world.

  21. John Mansfield says:

    Googling a little, I am guessing that Fred Seitz and Fred Singer are who you are talking about, Steve. I could easily be missing something, but it doesn’t seem that they were advisors to the president.

    (With that essay you wrote on Fred Hoyle not being much of a scientist, I now conclude that you just don’t like Freds.)

  22. realist says:

    Calling authors of a journal article “hooters” for presenting results that contradict your accepted theory on ACC is juvenile and unscholarly.

    I sincerely hope you don’t talk this way about scientists and scholars you disagree with while teaching at BYU.

  23. Mrs.Andy says:

    realist –

    He called the article a hooter, not the authors.
    Purposefully taking offense when none was intended is also “juvenile and unscholarly.”

    And, since you brought it up, Steve is nothing but respectful to scientists and scholars he discusses in class at BYU. He goes out of his way to give them the benefit of the doubt.

  24. SteveP says:

    Sorry folks I’m on vacation in California and will have only limited internet (purposeful).

    Thanks Mrs.Andy!

    And ‘realist,’ all my blogs here are juvenile and unscholarly. You’ve never been here before have you?

  25. Matt Thorley says:

    The Young Men’s President in my ward likes to conclude all his lessons with “therefore what”, meaning, so what will you do with what you have been taught. So Steve, I ask you, “therefore what”? Your arguments are reasoned and rational, so what would you suggest we do about them? You brought up the theory of plate tectonics. The scientific consensus on that issue has changed over time, so what are we doing differently because of that change? Is theory of ACC like the theory of plate tectonics in that the scientific consensus may change, but there really isn’t much we can do about it? Or do you advocate that we do something about ACC? If so, what do you advocate? You see, therein lies the problem for us “deniers”.

    My perception is that the issue of ACC (by the way, when did it change from AGW (anthropogenic global warming) to ACC?) has been co-opted by people with a political agenda that does not align with mine. So while you may tend to see this as an issue of science, I tend to see it as an issue of politics. I would find it very refreshing to find that you have no politics associated with your ACC science. So what about it Steve? Is ACC strictly a scientific issue, like plate tectonics, or is there something political (i.e. spend public money, adopt regulations, tax commercial activity, etc) you think we should do about it?

    No reasonable person denies that the earth has been warming since coming out of the “Little Ice Age” about 1850. That’s just data and it cannot be denied. The questions are, is that warming abnormal? How much of the warming we have experienced over the past 150 years is natural, and how much anthropogenic? Are there reasonable options to mitigate the anthropogenic portion?

    By the way, if this really just about science and not politics, why don’t ideas like this ever get a fair hearing?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *