Wednesday, April 2, 2014

Forbes Follies - Joe Bast Deliberately Excludes And Misrepresents Important Climate Science


The IPCC's Latest Report Deliberately Excludes And Misrepresents Important Climate Science
By Joseph Bast
Reviewed by citizenschallenge

~ ~ ~
First, we should be clear - Joe Bast is a political operative.  Everything he does, he does from a position of defending his policy agenda which is all about protecting the big business status quo.  This is not slander nor misleading and I'm not even opining on whether it is right or wrong.  It is what it is.  

Nowhere in Joe Bast's writings will you find any curiosity or interest in understanding the various dynamics at work in our atmosphere and oceans.  He won't discuss basic geophysical fundamentals, nor review the science that is "settled."  Things that we need to understand before any of the rest of this 'global warming conversation' can make any sense.

Read on as I do a detailed review of Mr. Bast's recent Forbes' Op-Ed attack on the IPCC's WG2 report, including many links to authoritative sources of further information  
(http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/)  
Joe Bast's words are in courier font and unaltered.

Here's an interesting quote worth keeping in mind when reading Joe's take on scientific reality:
"Joe Bast reflecting on the kind of person needed to run the Heartland Institute: 
“My motto is, you need to find a used car salesman who’s a libertarian—
an aggressive, articulate guy who wants to build an organization.” "
Brian Doherty, Radicals for Capitalism: 
A Free-Wheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement 
(New York: Perseus Books Group, 2007).
---

Some biographic info: 
---
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
This week, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is releasing its latest report, the “Working Group II Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report.” Like its past reports, this one predicts apocalyptic consequences if mankind fails to give the UN the power to tax and regulate fossil fuels and subsidize and mandate the use of alternative fuels. 
~ ~ ~
Notice for his opening shot Joe Bast blows his political dog whistle.

A) Working from the foregone conclusion that the IPCC is not to be trusted.
B) Pretending that catastrophic impacts aren't already happening and promising to get worse.
C) Dragging in the UN as though all this were some abstract notion forced on us by them.

This is not about the UN, it's about Evidence Based Awareness of our planet's geophysical processes and our current situation - meaning, the increasing adverse impacts humans are having upon our very own life support system.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
But happily, an international group of scientists I have been privileged to work with has conducted an independent review of IPCC’s past and new reports, along with the climate science they deliberately exclude or misrepresent.
Our group, called the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), was founded in 2003 by a distinguished atmospheric physicist, S. Fred Singer, and has produced five hefty reports to date, the latest being released today (March 31).
So how do the IPCC and NIPCC reports differ? 
~ ~ ~
One big difference is that the NIPCC is an example of advocacy driven Science In A Vacuum, whereas the IPCC is an example of Evidence Based Science.  

IPCC's AR5 reports are based on studies conducted by many thousands of scientists from throughout the world.  With many hundreds of scientists actively involved in the IPCC process - which has been open to public review and comment, something that is certainly not true of the selective one-sided NIPCC report.  

NIPCC was created specifically as a contrarian instrument intent on conjuring up arguments to deny IPCC's various statements, muddling the message is their goal.  You'll find sales pitches in there, but precious little examining of evidence.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The final draft of the IPCC’s Summary for Policymakers identifies eight “reasons for concern” which media reports say will remain the focus of the final report. The NIPCC reports address each point too, also summarizing their authors’ positions in Summaries for Policymakers. This provides a convenient way to compare and contrast the reports’ findings.Here’s what the reports say:
~ ~ ~
About that NIPCC, here's the tip of the iceberg 
(yea I know, this is where they'll claim all of these sources are part of thee conspiracy):

---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
IPCC: “Risk of death, injury, and disrupted livelihoods in low-lying coastal zones and small island developing states, due to sea-level rise, coastal flooding, and storm surges.” 
NIPCC: “Flood frequency and severity in many areas of the world were higher historically during the Little Ice Age and other cool eras than during the twentieth century. Climate change ranks well below other contributors, such as dikes and levee construction, to increased flooding.”
~ ~ ~
A good example of cherry-picking.

If you look at all of history you can find many major destructive floods. NIPCC's Trick is that they've filtered those examples from hundreds of years worth of records.  

 I challenge Bast to show us any five year period that comes close to equaling the destructive floods we've witnessed these past five years.

Joe also ignores that sea levels are rising which promises yet more extreme infrastructure destroying flood events in pretty near all coast cities and islands, over the next decades, and the longer term outlook is... well compounding interest and time is at work there (and I thought business types understood such mathematics), our kids will certainly experience the fruits of our neglect. 

---
---
---
---
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
IPCC: “Risk of food insecurity linked to warming, drought, and precipitation variability, particularly for poorer populations.” 
NIPCC: “There is little or no risk of increasing food insecurity due to global warming or rising atmospheric CO2 levels. Farmers and others who depend on rural livelihoods for income are benefitting from rising agricultural productivity throughout the world, including in parts of Asia and Africa where the need for increased food supplies is most critical. Rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels play a key role in the realization of such benefits.
~ ~ ~
Joe forgets to mention that invasive vines are some of the biggest winners of CO2 increases.
A look at the GoogleScholar search results for "higher CO2 and invasive weeds" reveals domesticated agricultural crops are going to be the losers in the CO2 Utilization Race.

---
---
---
Beyond that, the evidence indicates that our brave new world will be extremely challenging for farmers, given that weather patterns and the intensity of seasons are leaving traditional bounds and becoming increasingly difficult to forecast.

I myself can't understand Joe's cavalier attitude towards something as critical as healthy farms.

---
---
---

Unfortunately, some folk have no appreciation for the complexity of our food supply or for how much we depend on it.  Again Joe reminds me of the silly school boy who thinks life shouldn't have any limits attached to it and that the professors are all fools... to his way of thinking, that is.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
IPCC: “Risk of severe harm for large urban populations due to inland flooding.” 
NIPCC: “No changes in precipitation patterns, snow, monsoons, or river flows that might be considered harmful to human well-being or plants or wildlife have been observed that could be attributed to rising CO2 levels. What changes have been observed tend to be beneficial.”
~ ~ ~
The nicest that can be said is that Joe is "disconnected" from the geophysical reality happening upon our one and only home planet.  

 How an intelligent adult can justify ignoring such easily accessible information is beyond me.

---
---
---
Here's a nice simple tutorial about our planet's atmospheric circulation patterns, it's a start to appreciating what the IPCC is trying to explain in its report.

Factors Affecting Global Climate
By: Alison N. P. Stevens © 2012 Nature Education 
Citation: Stevens, A. N.P. (2012) Factors Affecting Global Climate. 
Nature Education Knowledge 3(10):18

Of course, the easy out is to tell yourself, all these sources are also in on the AGW scam... but how realistic is that?  How would one explain the Earth's participation in the "scam"?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
IPCC: “Risk of loss of rural livelihoods and income due to insufficient access to drinking and irrigation water and reduced agricultural productivity, particularly for farmers and pastoralists with minimal capital in semi-arid regions.” 
NIPCC: “Higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations benefit plant growth-promoting microorganisms that help land plants overcome drought conditions, a potentially negative aspect of future climate change. Continued atmospheric CO2 enrichment should prove to be a huge benefit to plants by directly enhancing their growth rates and water use efficiencies.”
~ ~ ~
Notice Joe again side steps the IPCC claim.  

Except to imply somewhere, someone is developing plants that don't need water, even though that's an unrealistic extrapolation of some studies that indicate leaf stomatal pores of some plants don't seem to open as much in some CO2 enriched situations.  Think about it, a slight retention of moisture, in some plants, certainly wouldn't be enough to compensate for California's current drought, or the thirsty plants in my yard.  


Here again, I can't comprehend Joe's glib attitude towards water.  Obviously the man has no notion of what it's like to live in a dry climate and pray for that essential seasonal rain, that just isn't showing up, like in many areas in our own country, right now.

What Joe Bast doesn't want you to learn about is the situation over the past few years.  
Check out this USA data animation that goes from January 2010 through 2012: U.S. Drought Monitor Map

 ---
---
---
---
This one is a regional study, but it does a good job of describing the challenges that are being faced around the globe:
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
IPCC: “Systemic risks due to extreme [weather] events leading to breakdown of infrastructure networks and critical services.” 
NIPCC: “There is no support for the model-based projection that precipitation in a warming world becomes more variable and intense. In fact, some observational data suggest just the opposite, and provide support for the proposition that precipitation responds more to cyclical variations in solar activity.”
~ ~ ~
Once again Joe avoids the actual IPCC claim.  Instead he's back to his 'alternative precipitation conjecture' and tossing in some vague claim made in some vague study somewhere.  

We are talking infrastructure destruction, it's not just about the water, it's about the wind and the waves attacking infrastructure that was never built for the onslaughts of intensified extreme events.

In addition to various links already shared to authoritative sources disputing Bast's claims, allow me some quotes from the following:

Climate Change
An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society
(Adopted by AMS Council 20 August 2012)

"Other changes, globally and in the U.S., are also occurring at the same time. The amount of rain falling in very heavy precipitation events (the heaviest 1% of all precipitation events) has increased over the last 50 years throughout the U.S. Freezing levels are rising in elevation, with rain occurring more frequently instead of snow at mid-elevations of western mountains. ..." 
"Observations indicate an increase in globally averaged water vapor in the atmosphere in recent decades, at a rate consistent with the response produced by climate models that simulate human-induced increases in greenhouse gases.  This increase in water vapor also strengthens the greenhouse effect, amplifying the impact of human-induced increases in other greenhouse gases.   ..." 
"A valuable demonstration of the validity of current climate models is that when they include all known natural and human-induced factors that influence the global atmosphere on a large scale, the models reproduce many important aspects of observed changes of the 20th-century climate, including (1) global, continental, and subcontinental mean and extreme temperatures, (2) Arctic sea ice extent, (3) the latitudinal distribution of precipitation, and (4) extreme precipitation frequency. ..." 
"Atmospheric water content will increase globally, consistent with warmer temperatures, and consequently the global hydrological cycle will continue to accelerate. For many areas, model simulations suggest there will be a tendency towards more intense rain and snow events separated by longer periods without precipitation. However, changes in precipitation patterns are expected to differ considerably by region and by season. ..."
---
As for the IPCC statement, why is it so difficult to accept the obvious truth in this evidence?  

Particularly consider Hurricane Irene or Sandy, and recent storms that battered the UK's east coast or recent inland events, such as the Calgary Canada floods and the Boulder deluge to name but the two closest to me.

Want more?  Do a Wikipedia search for flood events, pick any recent year and look at what's really happening out there.  Then imagine still more increased moisture in our atmosphere plus increased sea levels... it's not hard to imagine that increasing major infrastructure damaging events are inevitable.

The UK Response to Climate Change (UK Storms, Floods, Extreme Weather) 


ClimateState  |  Feb, 2014
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
IPCC: “Risk of loss of marine ecosystems and the services they provide for coastal livelihoods, especially for fishing communities in the tropics and the Arctic.” 
NIPCC: “Rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels do not pose a significant threat to aquatic life. Many aquatic species have shown considerable tolerance to temperatures and CO2 values predicted for the next few centuries, and many have demonstrated a likelihood of positive responses in empirical studies. Any projected adverse impacts of rising temperatures or declining seawater and freshwater pH levels (“acidification”) will be largely mitigated through phenotypic adaptation or evolution during the many decades to centuries it is expected to take for pH levels to fall.”
~ ~ ~
Bast states bluntly that "rising temperatures and CO2 do not pose a significant threat..." 
But, what does Joe know?  Why trust a salesman with profits on his mind when it comes to assessing the health of our planet?

There is a world of information Bast hides from his public.  
Of course, with our oceans there's more at work here than global warming and acidification, take a look at what we are transforming our oceans into:

---
---
"Dead zone" is a more common term for hypoxia, which refers to a reduced level of oxygen in the water
---
Stanford Report, August 15, 2012
Ocean health scores 60 out of 100, says international team that includes Stanford researchers
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
IPCC: “Risk of loss of terrestrial ecosystems and the services they provide for terrestrial livelihoods.” 
NIPCC: “Terrestrial ecosystems have thrived throughout the world as a result of warming temperatures and rising levels of atmospheric CO2. Empirical data pertaining to numerous animal species, including amphibians, birds, butterflies, other insects, reptiles, and mammals, indicate global warming and its myriad ecological effects tend to foster the expansion and proliferation of animal habitats, ranges, and populations, or otherwise have no observable impacts one way or the other. Multiple lines of evidence indicate animal species are adapting, and in some cases evolving, to cope with climate change of the modern era.”
~ ~ ~
This statement shows a disregard for the vast expanses of time that elapse while habitats readjust to radical environmental changes.    

The world that us older folks got to know during the twentieth century was a product of millions of years worth of evolution through countless changes.  It is true that Earth has endured radical climate change in the past and it will survive this one - in that regard Mr. Joe Bast is spot on with his God's Eye perspective, there's nothing to worry about, worlds come and worlds go.

But, from a human standpoint, we must realize that climate change brings radical changes and disruptions that society's complex systems are not equipped to deal with.

Basically, what Joe is saying is: to hell with our future, give it back to the reptiles they really like it hot.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
IPCC: “Risk of mortality, morbidity, and other harms during periods of extreme heat, particularly for vulnerable urban populations.” 
NIPCC: “A modest warming of the planet will result in a net reduction of human mortality from temperature-related events. More lives are saved by global warming via the amelioration of cold-related deaths than those lost under excessive heat. Global warming will have a negligible influence on human morbidity and the spread of infectious diseases, a phenomenon observed in virtually all parts of the world.”
~ ~ ~
This claim is not true and another exercise of Science In A Vacuum.  Here look at what the reality side of this mirror has to say:


The three 2008 studies for the U.S. show the ratio of cold deaths to heat deaths ranges from 2:1 to 1:3, which is very different from the 7:1 and 9:1 figures quoted by Will and Lomborg for Europe, India, and China. I don't trust any of these numbers, since heat and cold mortality statistics are highly uncertain and easy to cherry pick to show a desired result. It is rather unproductive to argue about how many people die due to heat and cold in the current climate or in a future climate. 
Excess heat deaths due to climate change should not get as much attention as the potential for death due to reduction in crop yields due to increased heat and drought, regional collapses of the oceanic food chain from the steady acidification of the oceans, and the wars these conditions might trigger.
---
A Study of Conflicting Databases in the United States
---
"But is it true that so many die from cold? Only if you make a trick by including the normal seasonal variation in death rate. It has always been so, and will remain so, that more people die during the winter months than during the summer months. ..."
---
And then there is anticipating the future

---
---
---
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
How could two teams of scientists come to such obviously contradictory conclusions on seemingly every point that matters in the debate over global warming? There are many reasons why scientists disagree, the subject, by the way, of an excellent book a couple years ago titled Wrong by David H. Freedman. A big reason is IPCC is producing what academics call “post-normal science” while NIPCC is producing old-fashioned “real science.”
~ ~ ~
It's not about two teams - IPCC is a collection of hundreds of teams and their individual studies.

Bast's NIPCC report lists 35 ideologically motivated contributors.  Their appointed task was to try and poke whatever holes they could into anything the IPCC reports.  What can be learned from such a predatory approach? 

Science is a constructive process where it's the evidence that drives understanding, this NIPCC is about selling a party line.

The tragedy is the millions of simple Republican minded folks who are willing to buy into this fraud because the last thing they want to hear is that the world they love is radically changing under their complacent posteriors.  Actually I don't think that's true - I imagine the most hateful thing to them is the notion that substantive changes are required.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
What is a non-scientist to make of these dueling reports? Indeed, what is a scientist to make of this? Very few scientists are familiar with biology, geology, physics, oceanography, engineering, medicine, economics, and scores of other more specialized disciplines that were the basis for the claims summarized above.
~ ~ ~
For starters a non-scientist would do good to consider the sources.

The NIPCC a small club of like minded ideologues bent on protecting political policy.

 The IPCC's appointed task is to be a collecting house for climate related science studies and reports from thousands of scientists throughout the globe, in a process involving hundreds of contributing authors.

Just because you hate the news coming from them, does not justify pretending it's not real.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
It is frequently said of the global warming debate that it comes down to who you believe rather than what you know. Many climate scientists say they “believe in man-made global warming” even though their own research contradicts key points in the arguments advanced in support of that hypothesis. They say this because they believe the IPCC is telling the truth about findings outside their areas of expertise. Ditto influential science journals such as Nature and Science, which claim to speak on behalf of “climate science.”
~ ~ ~
Remember IPCC is a collecting house of studies and information that can be found independently.  The NIPCC is the product of a small cliche'.

Climate scientists do not say they "believe" - climate scientists gather evidence and draw logical conclusions from that evidence. 

 The consensus is not created by scientists, the consensus is driven by the evidence!
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The NIPCC reports were conceived and written to offer a way out of this conundrum. They are written in a style that laymen without special training can understand, provide explanations of how research was conducted and summarizing the actual findings, often quoting at length from original scholarly sources. Chapters often present research chronologically, in the order in which the studies were published, so readers can understand how the debate has changed over time.
~ ~ ~
NO they are not.  The NIPCC report is written to provide a sales pitch.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The NIPCC reports are hefty – the first volume in the Climate Change Reconsidered series was 850 pages long, and the latest volume is more than 1,000 pages – but executive summaries and “key findings” at the beginning of each chapter make them easy to navigate and fascinating to browse. They are all available for free online at www.climatechangereconsidered.org.
~ ~ ~
The entire NIPCC has three lead authors with extremely biased outlooks and shaky scientific reputations as their histories reveal.

---
The IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), published in 2007, involved more than 500 Lead Authors and 2000 Expert Reviewers from more than one hundred participating nations. These authors and reviewers were all unpaid volunteers, and are required to identify and show consideration to theories that differ from conventional wisdom.
---
The IPCC working group 1 had 831 experts from 85 countries contributing to the IPCC's working group one, Assessment Report 5 - they represent a diverse range of fields, including oceanography, economics, physics, meteorology and social sciences.
---
---
---
Climate Change 2013 Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
How credible are the NIPCC reports?  Endorsements by prominent scientists, reviews, and citations in peer-reviewed journals appear at the Web site mentioned above. NIPCC reports are produced by scores of scientists from around the world (some 20 countries so far), cite thousands of peer-reviewed studies, and are themselves peer-reviewed. In June 2013, a division of the Chinese Academy of Sciences published a Chinese translation and condensed edition of the 2009 and 2011 volumes.
~ ~ ~
Unlike the IPCC, the NIPCC examines literature published exclusively by climate contrarians who are paid to contribute their findings to NIPCC reports, according to leaked internal documents of the Heartland Institute. The 2009 NIPCC report Climate Change Reconsidered had two lead authors, Fred Singer and Craig Idso, and 35 contributors.  
Similarly, the 2011 Interim NIPCC report had three lead authors, Fred Singer, Craig Idso, and Robert Carter, and only eight contributors. The NIPCC does not employ the same rigorous standards and approval process used by the IPCC to ensure its assessment reports are accurate and inclusive. 
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/09/09/heartland-institute-nipcc-fail-the-credibility-test/
---
Interesting that Bast brings up the Chinese Academy of Sciences, here's what he won't tell you:

Saturday, June 15, 2013
Heartland Institute caught in a lie - Chinese Academy of Science objects
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
We know the authors of the IPCC’s reports have financial conflicts of interest, since the government bureaucracies that select them and the UN that oversees and edits the final reports stand to profit from public alarm over the possibility that global warming will be harmful. The authors of the NIPCC series have no such conflicts.
~ ~ ~
See the under current at work here? The Grand Conspiracy Theory, anyone endorsing the accepted science is automatically distrusted.

There was a study looking into this and boy did the reaction manage to prove Professor Lewandowsky's point.

---
---
---
~ ~ ~
Bast's insinuation are particularly ironic considering their source:

"The Heartland Institute maintains a stable of 13 scientists on retainer for the express purpose of attacking the work of the Nobel Prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), according to budget information released last week in the Heartland document dump. 
The scientists, ranging from one of the world's least credible deniers-for-hire (Dr. S. Fred Singer) to a sessional lecturer on the evolution and history of the domestic dog (Susan Crockford), include no top climate scientists currently publishing in the peer-reviewed literature. 
The best paid “expert” on the Heartland list is Craig Idso, a former Director of Environmental Science at Peabody Energy (the largest coal company in the world). Heartland pays Idso $11,600 a month through his Center for the Study of CO2 & Global Change, 
Coming in at $5,000 a month is Idso's principal partner in the regular IPCC attack, Fred Singer, who for the last 20 years has denied pretty much any health threat with a corporate sponsor: the health impacts of second-hand smoke; coal's role in creating acid rain; the danger of asbestos; or DDT; the role of CFCs in creating the ozone hole; and, of course, the human cause and potential consequences of climate change. (See Naomi Oreskes excellent book, Merchants of Doubt for the full, devastating story ot Singer's lucrative denial business.) ..." 
http://www.desmogblog.com/what-passes-brain-trust-heartland
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The series is funded by three private family foundations without any financial interest in the outcome of the global warming debate. 
~ ~ ~ 
About that funding, check out some of the details:

---
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The publisher, The Heartland Institute, neither solicits nor receives any government or corporation funding for the Climate Change Reconsidered series. (It does receive some corporate funding for its other research and educational programs.) 
~ ~ ~ 
Heartland’s funding over the past decade has included thousands of dollars directly from ExxonMobil and the American Petroleum Institute, but a large portion of their funding ($25.6 million) comes from the shadowy Donor’s Capital Fund, created expressly to conceal the identity of large donors to free-market causes. The Koch brothers appear to be funneling money into Donor’s Capital via their Knowledge and Progress Fund. 
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/09/09/heartland-institute-nipcc-fail-the-credibility-test/---
I find it sad that Joe Bast and friends can't conceive that scientists actually are in it for pursuing a better understanding of how our planet functions... 

For scientists understanding is their passion, and truth is their tool, not their enemy... even if it means reconsidering one's own preconceptions! 

That's why these very smart people do what they do, rather than going for the big money of Wall Street or other fields ripe for financial killings.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
So is man-made global warming a crisis? Don’t just wonder about it, understand it yourself. 
~ ~ ~
I myself believe that the first step towards that goal of "understanding it for yourself" is to become familiar with the global climate system, it's vast and complex and involves many different components.  For a nice introduction to our planet's global heat distribution engine, enjoy this most informative video:

Earth From Space HD 1080p / Nova


The groundbreaking two-hour special that reveals a spectacular new space-based vision of our planet. Produced in extensive consultation with NASA scientists, NOVA takes data from earth-observing satellites and transforms it into dazzling visual sequences, each one exposing the intricate and surprising web of forces that sustains life on earth.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Read one or a few chapters of one of the NIPCC reports, and ask if what you read is logical, factual, and relevant to the debate. See if the UN or its many apologists take into account the science and evidence NIPCC summarizes, and then decide whether its predictions of “of death, injury, and disrupted livelihoods” is science or fiction. 
Joseph L. Bast is president of The Heartland Institute, publisher of the Climate Change Reconsidered series for NIPCC, and editor of some of the volumes in the series.
~ ~ ~ 
This is wonderful rhetoric - 
but Mr. Bast, the real challenge isn't to wrap yourself in your own bubble of information. 

The challenge is to be intellectually honest enough to expose your assumptions to what the larger scientific community has discovered, rather than erecting one phony barrier after another between you and learning.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~




Posted by at
Labels: , , , , ,

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)