Absolute MUST Read IPCC Report: Debate over, further delay fatal, action not costly

Posted on  

"Absolute MUST Read IPCC Report: Debate over, further delay fatal, action not costly"

In its definitive scientific synthesis report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) today issued its strongest call for immediate action to save humanity from the deadly consequences of unrestrained greenhouse gas emissions.

This report — signed off by 130 nations including the U.S. and China — slams the door on any argument for delay and makes clear we must under no circumstances listen to those who urge that we wait (who knows how long) to develop as yet non-existent technology [this means you President Bush, Newt Gingrich, Bj¸rn Lomborg]. As the New York Times put it:

Members of the panel said their review of the data led them to conclude as a group and individually that reductions in greenhouse gasses had to start immediately to avert a global climate disaster that could leave island states submerged and abandoned, African crop yields decreased by 50 percent, and cause over a 5 percent decrease in global gross domestic product.

this summary was the first to acknowledge that the melting of the Greenland ice sheet from rising temperature [which would raise the oceans 23 feet] could result in sea-level rise over centuries rather than millennia.

And readers of this blog know the IPCC almost certainly underestimates the timing and severity of likely impacts because it ignores or downplays key amplifying feedbacks in the carbon cycle (see “Are Scientists Overestimating — or Underestimating — Climate Change” especially Part II and Part III). Indeed, IPCC head Rajendra Pachauri — a scientist and economist — admitted as much:

He said that since the panel began its work five years ago, scientists have recorded “much stronger trends in climate change,” like a recent melting of polar ice that had not been predicted. “That means you better start with intervention much earlier.”

How much earlier? The normally understated Pachauri warns:

“If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment.”

In short — time’s up! America — we better pick the right President in 2008.

To balance the bad news, the IPCC and its member governments agree on the good news — action is very affordable:

In 2050, global average macro-economic costs for mitigation towards stabilisation between 710 and 445ppm CO2-eq are between a 1% gain and 5.5% decrease of global GDP. This corresponds to slowing average annual global GDP growth by less than 0.12 percentage points.

But how is that possible? How can the world’s leading governments and scientific experts agree that we can avoid catastrophe for such a small cost?

Because that’s what the scientific and economic literature — and real-world experience — says:

Both bottom-up and top-down studies indicate that there is high agreement and much evidence of substantial economic potential for the mitigation of global GHG emissions over the coming decades that could offset the projected growth of global emissions or reduce emissions below current levels.

In fact, the bottom up studies — the ones that look technology by technology, which I believe are more credible — have even better news:

Bottom-up studies suggest that mitigation opportunities with net negative costs have the potential to reduce emissions by around 6 GtCO2-eq/yr in 2030.

Wow! A 20% reduction in global emissions might be possible in a quarter century with net economic benefits!! Take that, delayers who oppose rapid, mandatory action and supposedly represent the “pragmatic center on climate and energy” — but who in fact represent the fatal siren song of “wait for new technology, wait for new technology.”

But don’t we need new technologies? Of course, but we don’t need — and can’t afford — to sit on our hands when we have so many cost-effective existing technologies:

There is high agreement and much evidence that all stabilisation levels assessed can be achieved by deployment of a portfolio of technologies that are either currently available or expected to be commercialised in coming decades, assuming appropriate and effective incentives are in place for their development, acquisition, deployment and diffusion and addressing related barriers.

Yes delayers — we need to do two things at once: aggressively deploy existing technology (with carbon prices and government standards) and aggressively finish developing and commercializing key technologies and systems that are in the pipeline. Anyone who argues for just doing the latter is disputing a very broad consensus — and is neither pragmatic nor centrist.

What do we risk if fail to act now?

Anthropogenic warming could lead to some impacts that are abrupt or irreversible, depending upon the rate and magnitude of the climate change.

Partial loss of ice sheets on polar land could imply metres of sea level rise, major changes in coastlines and inundation of low-lying areas, with greatest effects in river deltas and low-lying islands. Such changes are projected to occur over millennial time scales, but more rapid sea level rise on century time scales cannot be excluded.

In short, we risk that our top climatologists’s warnings on sea level rise prove true. What else?

As global average temperature increase exceeds about 3.5 degrees C, model projections suggest significant extinctions (40-70% of species assessed) around the globe.

IPCC to world: The time to act is now or we risk destroying life on the Earth as we know it today!

You can listen to the IPCC press conference, download their PPT presentation, and get the entire synthesis report here.

« »

65 Responses to Absolute MUST Read IPCC Report: Debate over, further delay fatal, action not costly

  1. Drew Jones says:

    Joe –
    Thanks so much for this exec summary. This blog is such a gift to me – you filter useful information from all the data and make me chuckle. What a combination!
    – Drew

  2. paul says:

    …Partial loss of ice sheets on polar land could imply metres of sea level rise, major changes in coastlines and inundation of low-lying areas, with greatest effects in river deltas and low-lying islands. Such changes are projected to occur over millennial time scales, but more rapid sea level rise on century time scales cannot be excluded….

    If this is what the IPCC is saying it means were in trouble…their statements have always under estimated the actual. We could be looking at this situation before 2100! If that is the case then in the near future the sea level rise will start to accelerate at a frightening rate.

  3. TG says:

    Debate is a diversion. Exxon,Chevron et all, love it.

    Time for practical clean-up actions. News tip…

    Canadian government refuses to grant domestic sales licenses to both Zenn [Quebec] and Dynasty [B.C.] EV manufacturers. The Zenn vehicle is an award winner in other countries.

    CBC video news clip.. [Mansbridge]

    http:TonyGuitar.blogspot.com

    ======================

    Bio-fuels have some merit …

    Canada has two stations serving more than one grade of bio fuel…[Whoop-de-do].

    A UN approved campaign to retro-fit thousands of coal-gen plants with various clean technology would make vastly more improvement.

    North America is 96% dependent on one single vehicle fuel .. OIL. [Brazil =75% Bio-fuel.] [Which is the banana republic now?]

    A swing to battery, compressed air and clean coal-gen would really reduce pollution.

    …would lower the value of oil.

    …would lower tensions in the M.E.

    …would reduce health hazard smog in cities.

    …would lead to a kiosk road tax collection system

    …would enrage Exxon, Chevron and GM, backers of both Dems and Reps; Libs and Conservatives, not to mention the wrath of Alberta and Texas.

    …would lead to unemployment and tax losses during transition.

    …would be the correct an honorable thing to do. = TG

  4. john says:

    Deniers:

    Game, set, and match.

    Check, and checkmate.

    Now let’s get moving

  5. Paul K says:

    Joe, What do you mean the debate is over? Are you saying the science of climatology has been perfected; the knowledge we have explains and predicts all matters of climate now and forever? Of course not. The debate in the blogoshere is trivial, indeed, full of misinformation and venom. Few sites play it straight. Climate Progress is one of those good few. You often cite Dr. Hansen. His association with NASA empowers him to be recognized as a reliable authority. NASA provides a standard of scientific rigor that all can see. NASA recently published a report on the cause of the recent positive anomaly in arctic sea ice melt. They sent the top men in the field. They report that the ice melt is perhaps as likely to be caused, not by global warming and CO2, but by decadal changes in the temperature of two ocean systems. I don’t think there is any way to say NASA is a tool of the Deniers. Apparently the actual scientists don’t think “the debate is over.

  6. I have no doubt that the moment of climate crisis has arrived, and we need to focus on the actions that have to be taken. Properly managed the climate change crisis will not be expensive to fix. Properly managed the climate change crisis will not lead to the mass improverishment of people and societies, It does require that we understand our priorities and and the actions we must take to accomplish our priorities. Finally we must commit to those actions. I have argued that two major changes, involving proven technology would cut our CO2 emissions by more than half. They are switching base load electrical generation from CO2 emitting sources to nuclear power,

    The second step involves the replacement of fossil fuels in surface transportation with electricity. That means cars, trucks, buses and trains should receive most of their power from plug in batteries (or capasitors), or from continuous electrical sources, The most significant system change this switch would entail is that interstate freight movement would have to be entirely by electrical rail. The energy inefficient, and CO2 wasteful interstate trucking industry needs to go away.

    At this point there is a very strong case for facilitating these solutions quickly. Given the right priorities, Plug in hybrid cars with up to 50 mile battery range can be rolling off auto assembly lines within 5 years. Reactors must be built in a far quicker time frame than under the current system. If there is a world wide shortage of forges for reactor pressure vessels, then the highest priority must be given to building the forges, even if the government must step in and build them. Rail lines must be electrified, and electrically powered locomotives built. All of these things are possible, but commitments must be made.

  7. Joe says:

    What I mean is that the debate over whether need to take action immediately is over. The IPCC, by virtue of being consensus based, is a watered down version of reality. When the IPCC starts pleading desperately, the time for debating the science is over.

    Does that mean the science is settled? Of course not. We need to understand why the climate is changing (and the sinks saturating) FASTER than the models suggest. It may ultimately be that the science tells us 450 ppm will be fatal to life as we know it. That’s the OTHER reason we must act now, to leave the door open a tiny crack for even more ambitious targets.

  8. Ron says:

    What if the reason “the climate is changing (and the sinks saturating) FASTER than the models suggest” is because the hypothesis is flawed and something else besides Man and greenhouse gases are to blame?

  9. David says:

    “If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late.”

    Oh goody. Time for a multiple choice quiz then. By the end of 2012, five years from now, which of the following statements is most likely to be true:

    a. Global oil and coal consumption have been reduced by 50%.
    b. Global oil and coal consumption have been reduced by 20%.
    c. Global oil and coal consumption are at the same levels they are today.
    d. None of the above.

  10. Ron says:

    d.

    What do I win?

  11. Shannon says:

    Well this is what we were hoping to get from the report and we got it. Has the world press run with it yet? I don’t see it. It’s truly pitiful. I had to call my local newspaper today to let them know the story even exists.

  12. Joe says:

    The enduring misery of your fellow humans….

  13. Ron says:

    Shannon,

    “this is what we were hoping to get” ??

    What if you got some good news on climate? Would it make you happy? Or would you call it Denial?

  14. David says:

    Second multiple choice quiz. When November 19, 2012 actually arrives and we’re all pumping just as much or more CO2 into the fragile, fragile atmosphere as we are today, what will be the response of the IPCC:

    a. They release a final “smoke ‘em if you got ‘em, cause we’re all doomed” report. Then they dissolve the whole organization so they can all go home, huddle in a corner, and cry.

    b. They release a report that shows that, well, things weren’t as bad as they thought, and we all really have five more years to do something. But they really, really, really mean it this time.

  15. Ronald says:

    We all get double secret probation.

  16. Dan says:

    c. They recommend everyone pick up a life jacket and a copy of the instructional DVD “Waterworld”, featuring Kevin Costner.

  17. Jay Alt says:

    Joe-
    It might take people a while to read tha, if ever. This could be a
    quicker starting point – http://www.ipccinfo.com/wg4report.php

    David –
    c) would be a very postive development.

    http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/2/21/22313/9981

  18. Rich says:

    There is a different rationale for delay that is not often discussed because it is derived from rather recent economic work on irreversible investments and network externalities. The essence is that once we invest in a certain technology path today, it is quite difficult to move off that path in the future. This is particularly true when the technology is dependent on use of other technologies. The continued dominance of the gasoline automobile is one example of this type if irreversible network technology. The auto tech network includes fuel extraction, production and delivery, the road network, the maintenance network and vehicle production.

    The problem is that moving from this network leaves significant stranded investment. While this can be viewed as a “sunk cost,” it has both significant wealth transfer problems, and problems in undermining credible investment signals about the future, so investment costs will go up for all technologies. A mechanism used to recover these types of stranded costs was at the heart of the California energy crisis in 2000, so it is a non-trivial problem.

    So the question might be posed in this way: “Do we invest today in a less efficient technology A that reduces GHGs X% for the next 30 years, or do we delay Z years and develop a technology B that reduces GHGs Y*X% for 30 years, and avoid making an irreversible investment into technology A?” Because GHGs are a stock pollutant (a concept that many (most?) people don’t understand the distinction from flow pollutants that typify other air pollutants), we can actually gain over the long run if the sum of X% reduction over 30 years is less than the sum of Y*X% over (30-Z) years.

    No, I don’t know the answer to this question, but it is one that should be analytically explored (and would be helpful if the climate scientists would step aside and quit kibitzing on economic issues that they know nothing about.) There is significant value to information right now, but we seem to be rushing headlong into policies that have been ill considered and could be quite counterproductive.

  19. Jim Bullis says:

    Re:Rich

    Thanks for a reasonable statement. It is a good point and well explained.

    If we care about the future we need to combine knowledge from science, engineering, economics, and business to get the job done.

    And yes, it is better to work carefully, because not only are there stranded costs, there is a trail of anger and distrust left behind. The only real solutions will provide for everyone.

    My first rule is to find solutions that do not require a lot of capital investment.

    One example is the history of nuclear power. At one time it was widely acclaimed. Investors put a lot of money into it. Then it became widely hated. Regulations were heaped on regulations and the costs became excessive. Then it became even more hated and the public utility regulators refused to let power companies recover their costs. Then they embraced coal. Guess how hard it is going to be to turn this around. we had better try to find a way that does not require a lot of money.

    The great hope of deregulation is another example for California. Calpine hoped to benefit from low cost natural gas and invested in the best set of electric power generating facilities that we know of. Then the wonders of free enterprise set in and the traders ran the price of natural gas up. That was not the only problem, but Calpine went bankrupt and many investors lost their a–. Guess how quickly they will come back.

    I understand that our California governor has good intentions in banning new coal fired power plants. This really does not mean much since the power will be bought from wherever. But the law also provides that contracts for power coming from coal plants are not allowed. This only means that California will be subject to the spot price. Wait for the next crisis. When there is another shortage and the electricity traders jump in for the gouging fun, guess what will happen. The law will be changed. Of course that will be too late since it will take years to build more coal fired plants. In the meantime the California public will pay horrendous prices for electricity. Guess what. The then sitting governor will be recalled. And eventually the coal plants will come on line.

    I think I am supporting your point that things need to be carefully considered. I suggest further that the needed understanding will come from a range of interests, and yes, it will include both Republicans and Democrats.

  20. Patrick49 says:

    If the IPCC report is a must read so is the following:
    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/ story/ 0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html
    Looks like the IPCCC can’t handle or explain the recent leveling out of global temperature since 1998, an event which climateprogress claims hasn’t happened but the IPCC apparently recognizes as happening.
    Since the global temperature peaked in 1998 according to recent observations, could the model projections be wrong? I have raised the following question with a number of GW alarmist, including Al Gore and the Royal Society without a response. Perhaps someone has answers?
    Question1
    -has any projection used by the IPCC or other GW advocates forecasted, predicted or otherwise foreseen a cooling period or a little ice age in the future?
    Question 2
    -could any of the current computer models with their climate theories, complex assumptions, complex climate models and positive feedback loops forecast, predict, or foresee a cooling period or litttle ice age in the future?
    Question 3
    -since a rather steady state CO2 content had little or no effect on the earth’s cyclical climate for 10,000 years and the recent warming trend has moderated since 1998 while the atmospheric CO2 increased are the repeated iterations of the computer models falsifying the role of CO2 in the earth’s climate? Repeated iterations of the Mandelbrot set equation drives the results to infinity or zero. it is possible that the GW computer simulations drive the result to ever higher temperatures just by how the assumptions on the CO2 effect are designed, weighted and looped, isn’t it ?

  21. Patrick49 says:

    Perhaps The Climate Change Models Are Wrong
    “Argo monitors are 3,000 yellow sentinels –about the size and shape of a large fence post — free-float the world’s oceans, season in and season out, surfacing between 30 and 40 times a year, disgorging their findings, then submerging again for another fact-finding voyage.
    They drift along in the worlds’ oceans at a depth of 2,000 metres — more than a mile deep — constantly monitoring the temperature, salinity, pressure and velocity of the upper oceans.
    Then, about once every 10 days, a bladder on the outside of these buoys inflates and raises them slowly to the surface gathering data about each strata of seawater they pass through. After an upward journey of nearly six hours, the Argo monitors bob on the waves while an onboard transmitter sends their information to a satellite that in turn retransmits it to several land-based research computers where it may be accessed by anyone who wishes to see it.”
    “The URLs are too complex to reproduce here, but Google “Argo Buoy Movement” or “Argo Float Animation,” and you will be directed to the links.”

    To date the Argos have failed to detect any global warming. They are not reinforcing the scientific orthodoxy of the day, namely that man is causing the planet to warm dangerously. They are not proving the predetermined conclusions. In fact, “there has been a very slight cooling,” according to a U.S. National Public Radio (NPR) interview with Josh Willis at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a scientist who keeps close watch on the Argo findings.
    Dr. Willis insisted the temperature drop was “not anything really significant.” Probably accurate but would NASA or NOAA or the IPCC– the UN’s climate experts — shrug off even a “very slight” warming. For certain it would be broadcast far and wide as yet another sign that man is destroying the earth. Dr. Wiilis’s spin on to NPR is a classic case of scientific double-speak he describes the results as follows “It may be that we are in a period of less rapid warming,” Dr. Willis told NPR.”
    In real science-speak that is cooling.
    Source with some editing: 2008/03/24/lorne-gunter-perhaps-the-climate-change-models-are-wrong.aspx

  22. Jim Bullis says:

    Joe, regarding Patrick49 above.

    Having researched your thesis in physical oceanography at Scripps, you are well aware that the temperature in the ocean is about 4 to 6 degrees C at depths below about 500 meters. It typically cools rapidly as depth goes from about 70 meters to 500 meters. This is an especially well known fact in the field of underwater sound science, which is of course an extensively studied branch of physical oceanography.

    As storms increase, as for example Katrina, we know that significant deep currents occur (we known that oil and gas pipelines were wrecked in some places). Such storms must have a significant mixing effect on the gulf stream, such that cooler waters will be brought to the surface. Since something like 70% of the worlds oceans are greater than 3000 meters deep, it seems that the predicted increase in storm activity with global warming might make this a significant counter action to global surface heating. I do not see anything about this kind of process in the IPCC4 report. Is this in the climate models?

    The degree of mixing is quite variable for much less intensive storm effects, so this process would be active on a very general basis.

    This might relate to the observed stability of the ocean, mentioned by Patrick49. I tend to think this will be a moderating trend such that temperature will eventually reach an equilibrium that we might not like. Of course the deep water temperatures will slightly increase, and this also might have unexpected consequences.

  23. Tom says:

    I read so many people worrying themselves to death but few suggestions. Two reasonable suggestions were convert to nuclear power and convert our cars to batteries.

    As to nuclear power, the reason that we aren’t building nuclear power plants is thanks to the environmentalists who block them at every turn.

    As to converting our cars to batteries. This has begun with the hybrid cars. But the technology is still primative. When you have a battery that will let you go 300-400 miles on one charge, while using your air conditioner and can be recharged in five minutes, you won’t have any trouble at all getting people to convert.

    My experience has been that too many environmentalists whine and complain about everything and then block almost all solutions that don’t result in people having to lower their standards of living.

  24. Earl Killian says:

    Tom, your thinking is based on your experience with gasoline vehicles (GVs) where trips to the gas station are both annoying and expensive. You want a big tank to make trips to the gas station infrequent. With an EV one leaves the garage with a full “tank” every morning. That makes the size of the “tank” much less important. And driving on electricity is approximately 2-3 cents a mile. Driving the same vehicle on gasoline is 16 cents a mile. Even a Prius has 8 cents a mile in fuel costs today, and that is rising rapidly.

    Despite having less need for range, there are already EVs built with 250 miles of range. However, 150 miles is more cost effective.

    The more important issue for long-distance driving (many 100s of miles) is recharge time. A demonstration of 10-minute recharge occurred in May 2007. This is unimportant in your home garage, but on the highway you would like to be able to fill the battery pack at every rest stop. Right now it takes special batteries to take electrical energy that quickly, but I expect this will become more commonplace over time. Until it does, people who want to use their vehicles for long-distance driving will choose plug-in hybrids over BEVs. In a multi-vehicle family, I expect it to be fairly common to see one plug-in hybrid and one BEV.

  25. Jim Bullis says:

    Re: Earl Killian of comment somewhere else. ( I have trouble keeping track of comments.)

    I questioned the cost of PV solar re plug in vehicles hoping to hear how that worked out in the system you used.

    Then I was going to point out that the McKinsie study chart that Joe posted somewhere excluded PV solar, presumably because it exceeded the cost threshold of “40 EURO per ton of CO2″ mentioned in note 3 of that chart.

    The elegance of a solar source coupled with an electric car is very appealing, and I hope to do something like that myself. However, this is not necessarily something that 3 billion people on the earth will do, which is the scale needed to get the CO2 reduction needed.

    My contention is that PV solar prices could converge to a practical point very much sooner if cars were made so we did not excessively waste energy as we do today. I am talking about a 90% reduction in energy without losing high speed capability. I accept the requirement to move about rapidly as we now do, as something that will not be given up by drivers of the developed countries. We can not expect drivers in emerging countries to forego this benefit for very long either.

    I tried to find the McKinsie report that goes with the chart that Joe posted but get blocked by a demand that I subscribe. Is there a link that gets it more directly. Without the report it is easy to make assumptions that might not be right about the proposed low cost measures.

  26. Bob B says:

    So climate modelers are finally discovering the PDO–Gee wiz—climate depends on the Ocean cooling and not CO2—they are now hedging since the oceans are cooling and the Earth has not warmed in 10yrs and now likely to cool for the next 10yrs—sounds like a climate warming crisis–? Not–you twits!

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/04/30/eaclimate130.xml

  27. Rob Guenier says:

    Joe: you said in your opening paragraph that, in its 2007 Synthesis report, the IPCC “issued its strongest call for immediate action to save humanity from the deadly consequences of unrestrained greenhouse gas emissions”. Well, I’ve read it carefully and I can find no such call. Please provide the specific reference. Thanks.

    [JR: You’ll find everything here.]

  28. Rob Guenier says:

    No, Joe, that’s not an answer. Nowhere in its 2007 Synthesis report does the IPCC call “for immediate action to save humanity from the deadly consequences of unrestrained greenhouse gas emissions”. To state that it does make such a call, is a misrepresentation of its carefully chosen and measured phrasing.

  29. Rob Guenier says:

    Moreover, your closing comment claims that the IPCC is saying, “The time to act is now or we risk destroying life on the Earth as we know it today!” But there’s nothing in the 2007 Synthesis report (which you say is a “MUST read”) that says anything like that. Nor, for that matter, does the Synthesis claim, “Debate over, further delay fatal, action not costly” as you say in your headline. It seems to me therefore that your article was built on the flimsiest foundation.

  30. Rob Guenier says:

    BTW Rajendra Pachauri is not a climatologist, he’s an industrial engineer. Nor were his comments peer-reviewed. But, Joe, do you agree with him that “if there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late”? If so, it’s already too late as there’s zero chance of China, India, Brazil, Indonesia, etc. reducing their ever-increasing emissions within the next few years. The rational action, therefore, is to focus on adaptation. Perhaps that’s what Rajendra Pachauri meant.

    [JR: You delayers are funny. Either we don’t need to take any action or it’s too late. My position about what needs to be happened could not be clearer.]

  31. Brute says:

    Cap and Spend
    June 2, 2008; Page A16
    The Wall Street Journal

    [JR: This isn’t the blog to reprint WSJ disinfo.]

  32. Brute says:

    Blame Congress for High Oil Prices
    By MACKUBIN THOMAS OWENS
    May 29, 2008; Page A17
    The Wall Street Journal

    [JR: Been through this. A little more domestic supply would have no impact on prices.]

  33. Brute says:

    CO2 levels continue to rise and temperatures continue to drop………looks like the global warming theory is WRONG…….

    UAH: Global Temperature Dives in May
    3 06 2008

    [JR: Sorry, the UAH data is just too questionable as I have blogged.]

  34. Brute says:

    The Army is weighing in on the global warming debate, claiming that climate change is not man-made. Instead, Dr. Bruce West, with the Army Research Office, argues that “changes in the earth’s average surface temperature are directly linked to … the short-term statistical fluctuations in the Sun’s irradiance and the longer-term solar cycles.”

    [JR: THis has been previously debunked everywhere.]

    In recent days, the science and politics of climate change have once again taken center stage. NASA’s Inspector General just issued a report, acknowledging that political appointees “reduced, marginalized or mischaracterized climate change science made available to the general public.” Yesterday, the Senate began debating a bill that would cap carbon dioxide emissions — considered one of the leading causes of man-made global warming.

  35. Brute says:

    NASA Press Office Is Criticized on Climate Reports – Hansen news trend still postive
    3

    06

    2008
    From the New York Times a story on a GAO report looking into “interference” with public releases of climate science at NASA:

    Two years after James E. Hansen, the leading climate scientist at NASA, and other agency employees described a pattern of distortion and suppression of climate science by political appointees, the agency’s inspector general has concluded that such activities occurred and were “inconsistent” with the law that established the space program 50 years ago.

    In a 48-page report issued on Monday as a result of a request in 2006 by 14 senators, the internal investigative office said the activities appeared limited to the headquarters press office.

    No evidence was found showing that officials higher at NASA or in the Bush administration were involved in interfering with the release of climate science information, the report said.

    Read the complete article here

    Even with a reluctant NASA press office, it seems Jim Hansen has had no trouble making the news. The trend appears to be about 5000 articles/decade upwards. It seems to mirror the GISTEMP global temperature anomaly trend quite well.
    Source: Roger Pielke Jr. Prometheus

    Here’s a thought, maybe with Hansen spending so much time with the press, perhaps the press office just became a little bit numb to it all and spent “too much” time on getting the word out on other important science news from the agency?

    In any event, Dr. Hansen has been heard far and wide.

  36. Rob Guenier says:

    No, Joe, you’ve missed the point – which is that you’ve seriously misrepresented the IPCC’s position. You say you are a scientist. You should, therefore, know that it’s always necessary to read the relevant literature carefully before reaching a conclusion about its subject matter. Have you actually read the 2007 Synthesis report? I rather doubt it – your characterisation of its message reflects not its content but rather the UN Press Release and Conference, both of which owe at least as much to bureaucrats and PR consultants as they do to scientists. Surely you can see that, by basing it on such a flimsy foundation, you negate the important message you wish to convey?

    OK – let’s move on to that message. You say your “position about what needs to be happening could not be clearer”. Well, I’m afraid it could be – much clearer. I suppose you mean that the world must start now to radically reduce its GHG emissions. Am I right so far? If so, please outline how you would wish that to be achieved given that, because of the vast and rapid economic expansion of countries such as China and India (both of which plainly have little interest in GHG reduction), such emissions are rapidly increasing and given that even major economies such as Germany that have professed a wish to cut emissions are backing away from any firm commitment. What’s your position on how these massive obstacles are to be tackled?

    Practical questions like this simply must be answered if AGW is to be addressed. Those who indulge in rhetoric without getting down to the really difficult specifics are the true delayers. So please give me a clear summary of how these obstacles should, in your view, be addressed. (And please, in doing so, don’t just refer me to something you or someone else may have written elsewhere.)

    [JR: First, I always find it strange when people who don’t accept what the IPCC says tell me what it says. In any case, all the questions you have raised have been answered more than once on this blog. Strange as it may seem, I don’t actually exist just to summarize previous things I’ve written that you refuse to read. In short, no serious global action can occur until the US makes a serious commitment and assumes global leadership. For seven years, the Bush administration has been blocking domestic action, spreading disinformation on global warming, working behind the scenes to undermine any international effort to do a Kyoto-follow up — all of which has provided political cover for China to keep doing what it’s doing, while making it very, very hard for European countries to sustain action. When we have a president who is not hell-bent on destroying the livability of this planet for the next 50 generations, we will have a shot at concerted global action. But, as I’ve argued in great detail many times on this blog, we have the technologies we need to beat 450 ppm while sustaining economic development around the globe. What we don’t have is political will.]

  37. Rob Guenier says:

    Joe: I see that my most recent comment, replying to your note above and posted at 5:07 am yesterday (over 24 hours ago), is still “awaiting moderation”. Why? I’ve checked carefully and it doesn’t infringe any of this site’s Terms of Use, nor does it contain any unpleasant or ad hominem material. To ensure that my points had not been fully dealt with already, I spent a long time reviewing your (interesting) site: I was unable to find anything that might be so described.

    My post did not, in any way, deny the AGW hypothesis – it took no position on it. Nor was it an argument for delay in taking action. What it did was outline my view of the practical background to the discussion and to summarise what I believe the world is actually doing about climate change and why. The site rules say that it “is designed to encourage discussion on topics related to public policy” and that you “welcome a broad range of viewpoints”. My comments fall precisely within those concepts. So why was it not posted?

    For anyone interested, my comment is at http://www.newstatesman.com/environment/2008/01/global-warming-lynas-climate

    [You accused me of misleading my readers about the content of the IPCC synthesis report. I have repeatedly said that my interpretation is quite in keeping with the content of the report — the head of the IPCC certainly takes the same view of it, as do most leading climate scientists — and so I was puzzling what to do with your comment.]

  38. Rob Guenier says:

    Joe: why not do what you usually do – post it with a comment?

    But I have to say that, in view of your claim, I’ve reviewed the Synthesis again (most carefully) and, quite simply, nowhere does it “call for immediate action to save humanity from the deadly consequences of unrestrained greenhouse gas emissions”. So I ask again: please provide the specific reference. Thanks.

  39. Rob Guenier says:

    BTW, Joe, you might be interested to see this: http://www.marxist.com/global-warming-socialist-perspective-part-one.htm
    It should scotch the often-repeated right wing claim that “alarmists” are part of a socialist conspiracy. Even the editorial is sensibly balanced.

  40. Rob Guenier says:

    OK, Joe, I’ll drop the bit about the IPCC report not saying what you say it said. Here’s the rest:

    I’m sure you agree there are many difficult issues here. However, I suspect that you may need to come to terms with a fundamental principle. Scientists are able to advise with authority on what is happening re climate change, why it’s happening and what might be the consequence. That’s the role of the IPCC. What scientists cannot do is state with authority what actions the world’s governments should be taking. That involves other specialist areas such as economics (especially growth forecasting), economic analysis (e.g. what is likely to be cost effective), politics (e.g. what is realistic given power balances amongst nations), risk management (e.g. future benefit v. current cost) and ethics (e.g. what relative priority should be given to, for example, the alleviation of poverty and disease). On these most difficult issues, scientists may (and, I hope, do) have a view – but it’s unlikely to be any more valid than that of any other well-informed person. Yet you appear to consider anyone trying to understand and tackle these difficulties to be a “delayer”. To my mind, that indicates an immaturity more appropriate to student debate than to the harsh and practical world of real people who are struggling for power and survival.

    A comment on your note (to my June 4th, 11:28 am post):

    From 1990 (the baseline for Kyoto CO2 reductions) to 2004, global fossil fuel emissions grew by 26%. And growth continues apace: China, for example, is spending 35 times as much on oil now as in 1999, with demand expected to treble by 2030. Countries such as China and India are unashamed that the alleviation of poverty is their overriding and urgent priority – they have no need for “political cover” or (perhaps unfortunately) for new technologies. See for example: 

    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/ 2008/ 04/ 09/ money-for-indias-ultra-mega-coal-plants-approved/ ?ex=1208404800&en=fc1b35982cca425a&ei=5070&emc=eta1

    Even Australia – now signed up to Kyoto – is contributing: http://www.australiancoal.com.au/exports0607.htm

    As to Europe, see:
    http://www.politicshome.com/landing.aspx#909 and
    http://www.spiegel.de/ international/ germany/ 0,1518,557199,00.html.
    It’s their voters Europe’s politicians listen to – not US “leadership”. All this will continue. In recent years, the world’s power balance has totally changed: US “global leadership” is no longer a practical way forward and your new President will have to come to terms with that.

  41. John Johnson says:

    This is all hog wash. Wind, Geothermal, Hydro Thermal are all viable sources of energy especially at the current prices of oil. However this is all about exaggeration, and fraud. Global warming is not being caused by cars, or trucks. Volcanoes spew out more carbon dioxide that all the cars in the world combined. The sun is in a solar cycle, and is heating up. All the planets in the solar system have increases in temperature. The surface is heating not the atmosphere. This is all about money. How can we fool the people into accepting a new tax, and governance. The IEA (i.e. UN is pushing Global Warming along with a number of environmental groups on “computer models” that model whatever data you put in. This data is highly subjective – meaning you have to guess what you think the number should be, not what they actually are.

    What science does this article refer to? Is the science UN report of non-scientist? Is it the report of a “scientist with a skewed objective – i.e. funding. I am sorry, but “scientist” are not necessarily the smartest group of people. They are supposed to be concentrated in a specific field, but offered suffer the same corruption of their work as in any industry. The mighty dollar skews result of many reports. If you remember scientist used to be railing about sea level rise. Funny it has not happened yet. I guess that theory waned after a number of geologists (real scientist – what is a climate scientist – who gives that degree away?) reported that tectonic plate movement was the cause of sea level rise not polar melt.

    This discussion on Global Warming is crazy. It seems that you are offering “scientific data”, but in reality it is not accurate. The Earth is always changing there have been cycles of warmth, and cold throughout this planets history. Everything is not centered on the earth. The biggest generator of heat is the sun. The oceans if you can believe compromise 75% of the earth’s surface. It takes a significant amount of energy to raise, or lower the temperature of the earth’s oceans. Can you imagine heating water at a depth of 4000 feet or greater. This all has an impact on the atmosphere. The current “global warming movement” is really a political movement to control people. Look at the price of gas, food, and energy. For years the powers that be have been trying to convince people to move closer to the cities, and develop public transportation. Humm – looks like the mew tactic is working. The theme seems to center it self around live in an agrarian society, but let me keep my 30,000 sq ft mansion with all the amenities.

  42. E.M.Smith says:

    Just what, exactly, can be done before 2012? That’s 4 years away. That isn’t even enough time to get a new car designed and through mandatory Government testing. Forget building a few hundred million of them.

    Electrification of the rail system is not going to happen. That’s a multi decade process and involves replacing the locomotives too. What airplane will take you from N.Y. to Paris without Jet fuel?

    It’s all about lead time, and no solution has a less than a decade solution.

    Battry range? Just try driving from SFO to LAX with a 100 mile battery. I think it’s gonna be drive an hour, rest two. That turns the 6 hour LA run into 18 hours… Yup, it’s gonna be back to oil motor fuels…

    Finally, where will you raise the (about) $12 Trillion needed to replace the existing fleet in those 4 years?

  43. E.M.Smith says:

    Just what, exactly, can be done before 2012? That isn’t even enough time to get a new car designed and through mandatory Government testing. Forget building a few hundred million of them.

    Electrification of the rail system is not going to happen. That’s a multi decade process and involves replacing the locomotives too. What airplane will take you from N.Y. to Paris without Jet fuel?

    It’s all about lead time, and no solution has a less than a decade solution.

    Battry range? Just try driving from SFO to LAX with a 100 mile battery. I think it’s gonna be drive an hour, rest two. That turns the 6 hour LA run into 18 hours… Yup, it’s gonna be back to oil motor fuels…

    Finally, where will you raise the (about) $12 Trillion needed to replace the existing fleet in those 4 years?

  44. Earl Killian says:

    E.M. Smith, the silliness of your comment is amazing. By 2012 we can take regulatory action and pass legislation that implements already proven policies, incentives, and regulations that will make a big difference over the succeeding years. Pachauri said, “If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late.” He did not say put new cars on the road or electrify our rail systems; he said take action. It is precisely because of the lead time that it is imperative that we take action now.

    As far as battery range, you miss the point. First, PHEVs don’t have the any trouble driving SF to LA with all the same characteristics as a conventional car. Second, you are probably unaware that a year ago recharging a 150-mile BEV in 10 minutes was demonstrated. Third, BEV owners without fast recharge cars would simply rent a different vehicle when they plan to drive long distance. The idea that my commute vehicle should also serve a dozen other tasks means that it is a lousy commute vehicle. It is better to use the best of breed for any task.

  45. E.M.Smith says:

    [JR: Contents deleted. This is not a stock-picking site.]

  46. Earl Killian says:

    E.M.Smith, more silliness caused by erecting strawmen to tilt at. You then waste column inches to hear yourself rant. Have fun.

  47. Samir Karnik says:

    Even if the so called global warming thesis is a diversion of issues… we do need to act and make changes. We are made of rock , air , water and are no more different than animals. Human beings fail to recognize the implications of being a part of the cosmic system. We tend to treat ourselves as superior something almost god like , when we are ALL made of dust.
    In India the Gangotri glacier which is the source of the river ganga has been melting at unprecidented rates.It provides water to millions of people.IF it were to melt and become a seasonal river we would need to develop and adopt strategies and technologies if lives were to be saved , as it provides water to a large portion of central india which is densely populated with a large proportion of people falling in the lowest income bracket. There have been definate changes in terms of biodiversity , melting of glaciers , deforestation and host of other issues which cannot be debated. My view is use but do not abuse. The total quanity of pollutants generated and disposed off in the atmosphere is shamefull. i would assume that the foundations of economics are to balme for not considering the value of the environment of which we ourselfs are made of and the mutiplicityy of human wants….. in other words we fail to value ourselves correctly. We do not have to live in conflict with the envt. and must curb our ever increasing needs which are often superfluous .
    In india people live happy lives at 1/16th the consumption of an average american.The flaw lies in following the western model that the media portrays in india as the ‘way ideal life should be’ We do have an everygrowing population that lives much below the poverty line. It would thus be essential to focus on improving the standard of living of bpl population. The only problem faced is that most developing countries ( India for example) have adopted the western model for development which is highly skewed and self-interest oriented.

    We live in world that is entierly connected in every way and i feel there is not place for self interest in such a world…. concept of overall equitable sustainable interest needs to be advocated….. This would call for a revolution in existing ideologies and models…. thus we would have to act NOW …and make changes and build up a sustainable economy free from the inherant inequalities of the capitalist model.
    All i am saying is that we need a more sustainable model in order live in harmony. Reduce/Reuse/Recycle would not hurt anyone.
    Would reccomend the book ‘Plan B’ -Mobilizing to save Civilization
    ( i would like to add that i am a student living in india and am currenly formulating my own view of things. The above represents my view which is most likely to change or progress as i learn more)

  48. Fred Jorgensen says:

    Samir Karnik is (sadly) typical of today’s youth who think that the survival of mankind depends on extending current technologies and resources.
    Our species on this planet is certainly doomed (and with it, the only consciousness we know). Ice age, asteroid impact or plain solar burnout will end our civilization here, who knows when.
    Our blazing progress in the last 500 years has come about by human
    freedom to think and act. Frivolous consumption, unrestricted development, and pursuit of individual happiness have created wealth and
    prosperity that have enabled billions to survive and enjoy life.
    The next stage of civilization depends on progress in genetics, robotics,
    and nano technology. It will come about as long as the suffocating
    rule of government and their experts are limited.
    We’ll get off this dungeon of a gravity well called Earth, and live
    with the limitless resources of this solar system and others.
    The tyranny necessary to establish a ‘sustainable’ society as described
    by S Karnik dooms the human race to a static, miserable existence,
    and eventual extinction.

  49. Skip Anderson says:

    Have read all of the posts. Very interesting and much better disciplined than most sessions. When I got to the end, my conclusion is that everyone is in agreement, but for different reasons. Apparently the bottom line of the IPCC Report (which I have not read) is that we need to have a plan by 2012.

    I don’t believe humans are causing global warming and am not convinced gobal warming is even occurring. But I am sure we are heading toward an energy crisis. We need new sources, and lots of them, in the near future. I would love to see us develop a plan by 2012. I cannot agree that this will not be expensive. Replacing our fossil fuel based economies will be a hugh task.

    Our real problem is leadership. Basically we don’t have it anywhere in the world. However, we citizens of the world, may be to blame. One group demands CO2 reduction; another says that is too expensive and unnecessary; another worries about Polar Bears or Caribou; another is totally NIMBY; etc. It is fine to have varying opinions, but all of these groups are trying too hard to get their way. Leaders (particulary in the US) are not good at sorting out the right decision from many varying positions when they are subjected to this intense pressure. Then we think all be well if we elect the right leaders so we work hard on that. The problem is that this is long term problem. The solution will span many presidential terms. So any election only represents a short move toward left/right, warmer/cooler, however you view it. In the end these deviations from the central path will be conterproductive. We need to develop a way to present our ideas and then compromise rather than fight for our-way-or-no-way. If we are to succeed there will be power lines on some people’s property, some Polar Bears may die, and some CO2 will be emitted.

    We need to decide of we are going to seriously get going, or just keep fighting. Discussion groups like this could be a good place to start. Imagine the effect all these pressure groups told our leaders the most important thing is to just get going.

  50. Samir Karnik says:

    Dear Fred
    You are typical of the classical thought. In the long run we are all dead and if you are looking for immortality remember we are all human and the one thing common to us all is death no mater how rich or how poor you will die! .
    Technology is never static. Just like our consciousness and knowledge which will always develop.
    Such technologies as you talk of if they were to develop would furthur mans greed for power resulting in even more conflict and war. War for PEACE is something I cannot support. I do not think man kinds greed for power will ever vanish. Use power to help rather than getting lost in a web of wanting more and more.

    Today we have just about managed to reach Mars comfortably so i dont see us colonizing other planets any time soon. Right now climate change is REAL. Most ppl do not see this as they sit in offices, nice houses , eating cheese and drinking wine which historically has come to being as a result again of exploitaion of currently developing nations.
    Nanotechnology and other developing technologies can be used for good as well as bad. The future weapons of today being developed by the US scare me. Millions of $ are put into developing such technologies if they were diverted to socially productive uses we could probably rid the world of poverty.

    I admire your futuristic view and share such a vision. In the current scenerio i do not see it as a solution. The BLAZING progress that you talk about from my eyes is regression. We have not learnt to live in harmony with our surrounding. Mankind has always aimed to change and control nature in ways that only benifit himself. The fundamentals of human thought have been structured in such ways. Human thought is not inherant it is created by us. A new born child has no concept of anything. Throught experiance and interactions are these concepts formed and maintains by social institutions that enjoy power to influance thought. (US war on Iraq – ask yourself what that was really about? )

    There are many thinsg that we do not understand and would probably never understand as our consciousness is extremly limited.

    I would like to ask you if you have a solution for the current situation ? or your idea of a practical solution. As we discuss these issues millions of people starve. You have acess to drinking water, right ! and electricity right? There are people masses of populus that do not have these simple resources and have to scavenge the earth for survival. My heart lies with them and not you. These are immediate concerns than mankind needs to be addressing.

    Do not be a dreamer blinded by the light! be practical !! i dont think that you have seen and experianced reality that is for these people. These are people who will be affected the most due to the oil crisis and due to climate change as they do not have any contol of even basic resources.

    We do need responsible governments in order to manage human activities efficiently.

  51. Don’t listen to any of the simplistic calls for nuclear energy until you read “The Lean Guide to Nuclear Energy” at:

    http://www.theleaneconomyconnection.net/downloads.html#Nuclear

    and this
    http://www.cleanwisconsin.org/campaigns/NuclearPower/unsustainable_cost.html

    from the Lean Guide to Nuclear Energy

    “Nuclear energy certainly has disadvantages, quite apart from the clincher problem of the depletion of its fuel. It is a source of low-level radiation which may be more dangerous than was previously thought. It is a source of high-level waste which has to be sequestered. Every stage in the process produces lethal waste, including the mining and leaching processes, the milling, the enrichment and the decommissioning. It is very expensive. It is a terrorist target and its enrichment processes are stepping stones to the production of nuclear weapons.”

    “The world’s endowment of uranium ore is now so depleted that the nuclear industry will never, from its own resources, be able to generate the energy it needs to clear up its own backlog of waste.”
    “Shortages of uranium – and the lack of realistic alternatives –leading to interruptions in supply, can be expected to start in the middle years of the decade 2010-2019, and to deepen thereafter.”

    Before we know it, we will be worrying about peak uranium and fighting wars over it. It is not sustainable in any way shape or form. And what is not sustainable is not a solution to anything.

    The Argonne National Lab says that an airliner crashing into a nuclear power plant could cause a complete meltdown, even if the containment building isn’t compromised. We don’t need thousands more nuclear terrorist targets all over the world, and certainly not in the United States. And look at the angst over Iran’s “civilian” nuclear ambitions and the fear it engenders. How many times will that be repeated if nuclear power development is increased world wide. Fissionable material will be everywhere, and so will the waste which can be used to make dirty bombs. The whole idea is insane.

    Solar and wind are much faster to get up and running than nuclear. And cheaper. Solar and wind farms can produce electricity while they are being built, because they are modular.
    A 500 megawatt plant might have 25 megawatt modules for instance.

    We wouldn’t even achieve energy independence with nuclear because we import 90% of our uranium. And guess who’s lined up as a big future supplier. Russia

    Nuclear is extremely water intensive. It takes billons of gallons of water to cool each reactor. Last summer a reactor in Alabama had to be shut down briefly because of the drought there.

    http://www.grinzo.com/energy/index.php/2008/01/24/nuclear-power-is-hydro-power/

    Federal subsidies to new nuclear power plants are likely between 4 and 8 cents per kWh (levelized)
    from: http://www.earthtrack.net/earthtrack/library/SubsidyReformOptions.pdf

    from Clean Wisconsin website:

    “Estimates of the cost to construct nuclear power plants are as high as $4,000 per kilowatt, as compared to about $1,400 per kilowatt for wind projects.”

    “The nuclear industry has long enjoyed limited liability for nuclear accidents under the Price-Anderson Act, which ensures that taxpayers, not industry, will pay for damages in the event of a serious accident.”

    “Nuclear plant owners are responsible for costs to dismantle retired units, dispose of waste, and decontaminate the site. Each unit has its own decommissioning trust fund, paid for by customers. Wisconsin ratepayers have spent $1.5 billion for the eventual decommissioning of the Point Beach, Kewaunee, and Genoa plants.”

    That’s $500 million paid upfront for future decomissioning of each plant. That probably wouldn’t cover the real cost.

    “I’d put my money on the sun & solar energy. What a source of power! I hope we don’t have to wait until oil and coal run out before we tackle that.”
    Thomas Edison, 1931

  52. Chris says:

    Frivolous consumption, unrestricted development, and pursuit of individual happiness have created wealth and prosperity that have enabled billions to survive and enjoy life. But at the cost of what? Everything?

  53. I’ll reply to Richard Mercer in a later article. Suffice to say here that he is 100% WRONG and a coal company shill. He knows nothing about it, least of all how to find truth on the web.

  54. Brian says:

    According to environmentalists, why should we permit offshore oil drilling – it will take ten years to implement. So why bother starting.

    According to the OP, we have just 4 years to reverse global warming.

    By analogy, since it can’t be done in 4 years, why bother starting … we’re screwed anyways.

    And it’s always the U.S. that must start immediately … how about China, Russia, India, etc.? Do you think that you will get them to take the appropriate moves within 4 years?

    [JR: OP? Of course we have more than 4 years to reverse warming. If we don’t start aggressively in the next 4 years, though, then we are very unlikely to avoid 2C warming and probably will get 5C warming. We agreed in 1992 that the rich countries must go first. We are by far the biggest cumulative polluter — and the richest. If we don’t go first, then why would any developing country act?]

  55. cet says:

    Don’t listen to any of the simplistic calls for nuclear energy until you read “The Lean Guide to Nuclear Energy” at:

  56. kiwichick says:

    For all those who think nukleer is the answer

    w.w.w.ceto.com.au

  57. Tom, your thinking is based on your experience with gasoline vehicles (GVs) where trips to the gas station are both annoying and expensive. You want a big tank to make trips to the gas station infrequent. With an EV one leaves the garage with a full “tank” every morning. That makes the size of the “tank” much less important.thank you格安航空券

  58. uçak bileti says:

    Have read all of the posts. Very interesting and much better disciplined than most sessions. and thank you for information.

  59. Thanks a lot.Great site.

  60. Wow, what a great resource! Thanks for sharing this

  61. Summer Toys says:

    Wow, what a great resource! Thanks for sharing this

  62. medyum says:

    Well this is what we were hoping to get from the report and we got it. Has the world press run with it yet? I don’t see it. It’s truly pitiful. I had to call my local newspaper today to let them know the story even exists.

  63. brass valve says:

    Thanks for article. Keep up sharing.

    Great article.Thanks.

  64. E.M. Smith, the silliness of your comment is amazing. By 2012 we can take regulatory action and pass legislation that implements already proven policies, incentives, and regulations that will make a big difference over the succeeding years. Pachauri said, “If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late.” He did not say put new cars on the road or electrify our rail systems; he said take action. It is precisely because of the lead time that it is imperative that we take action now.

    As far as battery range, you miss the point. First, PHEVs don’t have the any trouble driving SF to LA with all the same characteristics as a conventional car. Second, you are probably unaware that a year ago recharging a 150-mile BEV in 10 minutes was demonstrated. Third, BEV owners without fast recharge cars would simply rent a different vehicle when they plan to drive long distance. The idea that my commute vehicle should also serve a dozen other tasks means that it is a lousy commute vehicle. It is better to use the best of breed for any task.

  65. fotokopi says:

    thank you everybody .This very important blog