Raypierre Still Doesn’t Get It

The guys at RealClimate have absolutely zero debating skills. That much has been known for a long time and has just been confirmed once again with a relatively weak blog containing incredible statements such as

Do the above issues suggest “politicized science”, deliberate deceptions or a tendency towards alarmism on the part of IPCC? We do not think there is any factual basis for such allegations

(stand-up comedy shouldn’t be far)

(yes, that blog is weak because it pivots on a mere handful of arguments, all of them at risk of being shown fallacious. The first one that goes, will carry the rest of the blog down with itself)

Those minimalistic skills are now spreading elsewhere, with the most simplistic of logical reasoning apparently beyond the grasp of “raypierre”, aka Raymond T Pierrehumbert. Next to Andy Revkin’s “Does an Old Climate Critique Still Hold up?” I had originally posted the following comment of Feb 10, 9:09EST (also available in my “Lacis, The IPCC, Simple Physics And Post-normal “Science”“)

34. Maurizio Morabito – February 10th, 2010 – 9:09 am
[…] (c) I’d suggest people drop the “Greenhouse effect is simply physics” argument. Simple physics shows that warm air moves upwards, and a room’s floor is generally colder than its ceiling. However, mountaintops are generally colder than sea-level locations. Why? Because the free atmosphere is a complex system where you can’t just apply simple physics (for a different example: think of anti-oxydants’ wonders in Petri dishes and the failure to translate that into effective anti-aging treatments in the real world) […]

I do think that the Petri dish analogy made my point extremely clear. Alas, not to all…

80. raypierre – February 10th, 2010- 9:20 pm
34. Maurizio Morabito —

No, Maurizio, we should not drop the argument that “the Greenhouse Effect” is simply physics. It IS simply physics. What needs to happen instead is that you and people like you either (a) take the time to learn a little physics yourself, or (b) lacking time, at least defer to people who do know the physics. “a” is by far the preferable option.

For example, mountaintops are colder than the lower altitudes because of the simple physical principle that gases cool when they expand rapidly enough. Convection moves the air upwards fast enough that the air cools. This kind of thermodynamics is taught in most good high school physics classes, and its atmospheric relevance has been understood since shortly after Horace de Saussure’s landmark studies of mountain meteorology in the early 1800’s.

The fact that your comment was recommended by 6 readers so far speaks volumes about the scientific ignorance of many of the readers who support your position.

Why oh why would the Louis Block Professor in Geophysical Sciences at the University of Chicago feel it necessary to demean himself with the last paragraph above, totally undeserving any reply, I will never understand. Obviously though, a career in Geophysical and Atmospheric Sciences may prevent people like raypierre from taking the time to learn a little cellular physiology.

Somebody did try to re-iterate my point:

88. Harry Eagar – February 11th, 2010 – 7:45 am
raypierre, a big time, scientifically qualified alarmist, sez: ‘For example, mountaintops are colder than the lower altitudes because of the simple physical principle that gases cool when they expand rapidly enough.’

I live on a mountain, 10,000 feet high. I’m at 1,500 feet. True, it’s colder at the top, but it’s warmer at 7,000 than at 1,500 feet (most of the time).

Climate and weather are possibly more complex that people like Raypierre would like hoi polloi to know.

No way…help for Prof Pierrehumbert was at hand next day:

109. Ivan Carter – February 12th, 2010 – 7:40 am

[responding to Harry Eagar] Raypierre says that mountaintops are cooler than at the bottom based upon known (and incontrovertible) principle of physics, and this commenter calls him out because ‘mountaintops are colder than the bottom’ because sometimes in between (thru short term warmth rising, I think, some of the time), the air is warmer than at the bottom.

Pierre didn’t give a full analysis of mountain climate, nor was doing so relevant. He simply gave an example of one specific point, correctly stated and which the commenter himself backed up, that was then manipulated into yet another irrelevant but apparently appealing attack upon RayPierre and scientists!

It is what is done on here, often more subtly, however, over and over and over again […]

By the way, Ivan: to state the truism that climate and weather are more complex than the individual effects at play, does not mean “to attack the scientists” any more than to point to the Ediacaran fossils didn’t mean “to attack the scientists”…just those scientists that prevented our understanding of Precambrian fauna for 80 years

And now for my latest reply. I have no hope raypierre, Ivan Carter or anybody thinking they’re characters in a Fort Apache remake will understand any of it. You see, even if they have lacked the time so far, surely they have never even thought of deferring to anybody that knows anything about movies, or Precambrian fauna…

115. Maurizio Morabito – February 14th, 2010 – 3:07 pm
raypierre (86) and Ivan Carter (109): my original point was that you cannot simply take one effect observed in the lab (for example, the greenhouse effect) and state that it will work as-is in the real world. In the real world, other effects will “sum up” to it, and the end result will be whatever it will be.

The existence of a GH effect is the _starting_ point in the investigation of what happens to climate due to GHG emissions, so it _cannot_ be used to _terminate_ discussions about global warming.

Hence my request to drop it as an argument, just like the existence of gravity doesn’t mean that flying is impossible.

Advertisements
  1. Anon
    2010/02/16 at 22:33

    Screwed up the blockquote in the comment above. sorry/

    I still can’t remember my name bro, or maybe don’t think it’s relevant here.

    So you can delete this if you want, that’s fine. I’m supporting your blog,and giving you comments, so that should be considered a plus. Anyway, none of the numbered points you wrote have much to do with my comment. And that was part of my point — it really seems you are simply bent on fighting arguing with anything, rather than learning about the subject, or simply being able to go “yeah I messed up on that one.” It seems you want for us not to be able to effect the climate. Again, ask yourself (you don’t have to tell me.) Is this not true?

    My comment was that the Harry Eager commenter was attacking scientists (in this case the scientist who had made the original comment.) You argued rather passionately, if not a little pejoratively, with some still irrelevant Ediacaran fossil analogy, that he was doing nothing of the sort. As pointed out in the comment above, he fairly clearly was. And “he” (Harry Eager) even came on here and pointed out how he was. (I know also in my comment above at one point I think I confused Eagar’s actual comment with you, something irrelevant to the points I was making, but still my mistake.)

    IN other words, it was an attack upon Raypierre, a scientist. That was point one. Point two was that Eagar’s comment had nothing to do with Raypierre’s original comment. We can play word games and pretend like we are really trying to “figure stuff out” by throwing out big generalities like “things are complex,” or focus on the points being made. Eagar’s obfuscated the point, whether intentionally (or more likely unintentionally), confused it, and mislead about what Raypierre was trying to say.

    Re your point about not being able to replicate exactly what will happen in a lab, I agree. Sorry if I misunderstood you to say you were disparaging the reality of the greenhouse effect itself. It seemed you were not giving it much credence or relevance.

    As for “effecting frustration,” I was being somewhat gracious, and generous. Raypierre’s paragraph at the end of that comment, where he talks about how it is indicative of the state of knowledge today, is both accurate (in my estimate) and very relevant. You may disagree, but if he feels it is accurate — and scientifically the cases presented to take issue with him have not done that (again, see Anon comment above), then it is pretty to very relevant as well.

    AS for the greenhouse comment you actually did make:

    raypierre (86) and Ivan Carter (109): my original point was that you cannot simply take one effect observed in the lab (for example, the greenhouse effect) and state that it will work as-is in the real world. In the real world, other effects will “sum up” to it, and the end result will be whatever it will be.

    Neither of the comments, from looking at those comments, said anything like “we have observed this in a lab, so this is what happens.” (I also think you meant 80 for Raypierre, as 86, having just gone to the link, is both off topic, and not Raypierre’s comment.)

    Your quote above is a suggestion that the greenhouse effect won’t or doesn’t work in the real world, or something very close to it. Hence the link I provided to you, which you say you are not disputing, by NOAA stating as a matter of incontrovertible that it is the warming effect of the greenhouse effect which is essentially (along with the sun itself, etc) responsible for life as we know it on this planet, and not largely a frozen ball.\

    That would mean that the greenhouse effect is not an abstraction observed “in a lab” but something that is accepted as a basic knowledge unit of science, and what warms the earth. It seems that you want to take issue with the greenhouse effect now, or suggest that making alterations to ghg levels won’t ultimately affect the magnitude of the greenhouse effect (which in turn, by the way, would then effec a lot of other things that drive climate) , which seems scientifically very off base, is it not?

    But you will respond (if you do) in some way to continue to argue, rather than take points of agreement and advance understanding, because it seems while you claim (and really believe) that is what you are trying to do, the fact is you don’t want climate change — in the sense of it being potentially and realistically significant — to be real, you have become convinced that it is not, and seek to further advance this point of view and seek to further reinforce your own beliefs in this regard.

    It’s pretty common, and it takes a lot of internal fortitude for someone to go “maybe I am doing that, hmmm,” rather than just argue back, which is easy, and anyone can do. It shows that someone is secure enough in their own beliefs and thought processes to be wrong. Not a lot of people can do this, and I suspect you will seek to protect your view of your own knowledge on this subject,

    I point this out because when it comes to climate change, this has become an exceedingly common phenomenon. Documenting it is done by repeatedly illuminating the misinformation and misunderstandings on the issue, but of course if one continues to spin it a certain way to continue to fit that into a preconceived notion, that will often not be perceived.

    It’s not really anyone’s fault doing it. Rather, all of the information, a lot of it wrong, and all of the rhetoric out there and rhetoric that is housed as science but is really spin, really adds to the confusion on the issue. and unfortunately something which is fairly objective, if complex, uncertain in many regards, and really not observable at the the point of causation, has become in many ways more of a matter of belief – where spin will then unknowingly be spun to reinforce and promulgate. (The intense attacks on scientists over what was — but you probably don’t see this — a minor event and more importantly irrelevant to the underlying issue itself, is a great example of precisely this.)

    I’m not saying that some shades of belief is completely exclusive to those who don’t want to accept climate change, but I am relating the importance of this phenomenon, to the reality of the science itself. And there really is far less motivation, objectively, for it in this regard. Also, if it is a science logic issue, and if the science tends to line up one way, there is less propensity for such with those who will be more disposed to simply looking at the science (as opposed to those who think they are.)

    • 2010/02/17 at 07:08

      > Neither of the comments, from looking at those comments, said anything like

      the original comment was mine…

  2. Anon
    2010/02/16 at 22:28

    I still can’t remember my name bro, or maybe don’t think it’s relevant here.

    So you can delete this if you want, that’s fine. I’m supporting your blog,and giving you comments, so that should be considered a plus. Anyway, none of the numbered points you wrote have much to do with my comment. And that qas part of my point — it really seems you are simply bent on fighting arguing with anything, rather than learning about the subject, or simply being able to go “yeah I messed up on that one.” It seems you want for us not to be able to effect the climate. Again, ask yourself (you don’t have to tell me.) Is this not true?

    My comment was that the Harry Eager commenter was attacking scientists (in this case the scientist who had made the original comment.) You argued rather passionately, if not a little pejoratively, with some still irrelevant Ediacaran fossil analogy, that he was doing nothing of the sort. As pointed out in the comment above, he fairly clearly was. And “he” (Harry Eager) even came on here and pointed out how he was. (I know also in my comment above at one point I think I confused Eagar’s actual comment with you, something irrelevant to the points I was making, but still my mistake.)

    IN other words, it was an attack upon Raypierre, a scientist. That was point one. Point two was that Eagar’s comment had nothing to do with Raypierre’s original comment. We can play word games and pretend like we are really trying to “figure stuff out” by throwing out big generalities like “things are complex,” or focus on the points being made. Eagar’s obfuscated the point, whether intentionally (or more likely unintentionally), confused it, and mislead about what Raypierre was trying to say.

    Re your point about not being able to replicate exactly what will happen in a lab, I agree. Sorry if I misunderstood you to say you were disparaging the reality of the greenhouse effect itself. It seemed you were not giving it much credence or relevance.

    As for “effecting frustration,” I was being somewhat gracious, and generous. Raypierre’s paragraph at the end of that comment, where he talks about how it is indicative of the state of knowledge today, is both accurate (in my estimate) and very relevant. You may disagree, but if he feels it is accurate — and scientifically the cases presented to take issue with him have not done that (again, see Anon comment above), then it is pretty to very relevant as well.

    AS for the greenhouse comment you actually did make:

    raypierre (86) and Ivan Carter (109): my original point was that you cannot simply take one effect observed in the lab (for example, the greenhouse effect) and state that it will work as-is in the real world. In the real world, other effects will “sum up” to it, and the end result will be whatever it will be.

    Neither of he comments, from looking at those comments, said anything like “we have observed this in a lab, so this is what happens.” (I also think you meant 80 for Raypierre, as 86, having just gone to the link, is both off topic, and not Raypierre’s comment.)

    Your quote above is a suggestion that the greenhouse effect won’t or doesn’t work in the real world, or something very close to it. Hence the link I provided to you, which you say you are not disputing, by NOAA stating as a matter of incontrovertible that it is the warming effect of the greenhouse effect which is essentially (along with the sun itself, etc) responsible for life as we know it on this planet, and not largely a frozen ball.\

    That would mean that the greenhouse effect is not an abstraction observed “in a lab” but something that is accepted as a basic knowledge unit of science, and what warms the earth. It seems that you want to take issue wit the greenhouse effect now, or suggest that making alterations to ghg levels won’t ultimately eafect the magnitude of the greenhouse effect (which in turn, by the way, would then effec a lot of other things that drive climate) , which seems scientifically very off base, is it not?

    But you will respond (if you do) in some way to continue to argue, rather than take points of agreement and advance understanding, because it seems while you claim (and really believe) that is what you are trying to do, the fact is you don’t want climate change — in the sense of it being potentially and realistically significant — to be real, you have become convinced that it is not, and seek to further advance this point of view and seek to further reinforce your own beliefs in this regard.

    It’s pretty common, and it takes a lot of internal fortitude for someone to go “maybe I am doing that, hmmm,” rather than just argue back, which is easy, and anyone can do. It shows that someone is secure enough in their own beliefs and thought processes to be wrong. Not a lot of people can do this, and I suspect you will seek to protect your view of your own knowledge on this subject,

    I point this out because when it comes to climate change, this has become an exceedingly common phenomenon. Documenting it is done by repeatedly illuminating the misinformation and misunderstandings on the issue, but of course if one continues to spin it a certain way to continue to fit that into a preconceived notion, that will often not be perceived.

    It’s not really anyone’s fault doing it. Rather, all of the information, a lot of it wrong, and all of the rhetoric out there and rhetoric that is housed as science but is really spin, really adds to the confusion on the issue. and unfortunately something which is fairly objective, if complex, uncertain in many regards, and really not observable at the the point of causation, has become in many ways more of a matter of belief – where spin will then unknowingly be spun to reinforce and promulgate. (The intense attacks on scientists over what was — but you probably don’t see this — a minor event and more importantly irrelevant to the underlying issue itself, is a great example of precisely this.)

    I’m not saying that some shades of belief is completely exclusive to those who don’t want to accept climate change, but I am relating the importance of this phenomenon, to the reality of the science itself. And there really is far less motivation, objectively, for it in this regard. Also, if it is a science logic issue, and if the science tends to line up one way, there is less propensity for such with those who will be more disposed to simply looking at the science (as opposed to those who think they are.)

  3. Les Johnson
    2010/02/16 at 18:52

    Tell RP that is indeed, a matter of physics.

    The atmospheric lapse rate is usually 6.5 deg C/1000 meter.

    Its measured value is usually between 4 and 10. But it can go negative, in inversions, or zero in an isothermal layer.

    Its also a matter of physics, that CO2 is a GHG only when the lapse rate is 6.0 or greater. Any less than 6.0, its becomes a net negative forcing, through greater convective heat loss.

    • 2010/02/16 at 19:17

      Les – negative forcing at a lapse rate of 6.0 or less? Please provide details. (just asking, uh!)

      • Les Johnson
        2010/02/16 at 19:36

        Maurizio: I don’t have the reference handy, as I am traveling.

        Its in McKittrick’s book Taken By Storm, if you have access to it.

  4. Harry Eagar
    2010/02/16 at 18:14

    Of course my comment at Dot Earth was an attack on a scientist, although not on real science. That one scientist was trying to pull the old priesthood trick.

    It is an actual fact that even if Raypierre knows everything there is to know about the adiabatic lapse rate, he still won’t know how to dress to go up on my mountain. Whereas, with actual, you know, observational knowledge, I can go outside (I’m at sea level now) and look up and — depending upon where the bottom of the cloud deck is this morning — tell within a degree or so what the temperature is a mile and a half above me.

    It will not, except occasionally by chance, match the theoretical slope related to pressure.

  5. Anon
    2010/02/16 at 09:43

    The comment about Raypierre and the mountain top that seems to be reiterated, states this:

    “Raypierre, a big time, scientifically qualified alarmist.” \

    That is pejorative, and right off the bat. That’s a bit of an attack upon scientists, or that scientist, don’t you think?

    Alarmist is absolutely a pejorative, if not condescending term. I think most people would agree.

    In the rest of this short, reiterated comment, it reads:

    “Climate and weather are possibly more complex that people like Raypierre would like hoi polloi to know.”

    So a big time scientist essentially “doesn’t want people to know” how complex climate is. That’s not an attack upon the scientist?

    Two references, two attacks.

    As for the comment you seem to take issue with, by pointing out how (it seems, erroneously) calling someone a big time “scientifically qualified alarmist” who doesn’t want the (ostensibly little people) to “know” basic science is not an attack, but is just like pointing to idiacaran fossils, the rest of it had nothing to do with raypierre’s point. Two attacks, and one irrelevancy, all designed to suggest something which Raypierre apparently was not disputing. Climate is complex.

    Re the last point made above, about greenhouse gases in a lab, and not applying to the real world.

    The greenhouse gas effect is not exactly considered a “lab effect.”
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#q1 That’s the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, one of the more reliable bodies on basic atmospheric science as you will find. Or do you take issue with them too?

    I understand your point about Raypierre’s last comment, but I think he means that many readers don’t know the basic science. Your post was not germane to what he wrote, it appears, came across as if it contradicted what he wrote, when it did nothing of the sort, and took two it seems unwarranted sarcastic shots. I don’t think he was impugning you, but effecting frustration with the lack of knowledge on the subject matter, and apparent desire of commenters to simply recommend anything no matter how misplaced, that seemed to simply attack the idea of climate change itself.

    Which seems, since your writing above seems to evinces a greater conceptual awareness in general than you seem to be exhibiting on the actual scientific issue of climate change, to be what might be prompting you.

    Is it not? Is it truly just objective analysis of the issue? Than why the irrelevant postulations about air halfway up mountains that had nothing to do with Raypierre’s comment, along with the attack (or at least heavy sarcasm or pejorativeness) on Raypierre, and the fact that you seem to take issue with NOAA on the basic greenhouse effect that in essence keeps the earth from being largely a frozen ball.

    We don’t know exactly how precise the correlation is between gases and temperature, or even if it ever can be so measured. We do know greenhouse gases trap heat, have tended to be correlated with temperature over time, and that the earth’s climate, at least as measured by its propensity to fairly easily change quite radically, is from our perspective at least, potentially unstable in the event of any large extraneous forcing (such as excessive solar pulsing, atmospheric alteration, etc.)

    But it seems you want to attack the science itself, while arguing how you are not, no?

    Are you sure you just don’t want the idea that mankind may be significantly altering the future climate to be real, and so, perhaps having already convinced yourself, perhaps not, aren’t just looking for ways, while convincing yourself otherwise, to simply attack the idea? Are you sure??

    • 2010/02/16 at 16:11

      Anon (and this is the first and last time I reply to an anonymous commenter…please do make up a name if you can’t remember your own 😎 )

      (1) An attack against raypierre is an attack against raypierre, not “against raypierre and scientists”. It is not even an attack against raypierre as a scientist. If Prof Pierrehumbert enters a discussion as raypierre…

      (2) The Ediacaran story is relevant indeed. We can now easily dismiss 80 years of tut-tutting by renowned scientists (and Nature magazine) against those quasi-amateurish researchers that discovered, analyzed and presented evidence that (to our eyes) is clearer than clear. That would be not an attack against scientists in general, rather an attack against those scientists as individuals.

      (3) I have not said that the GH effect does not apply to the real world. I have said that the GH effect, observable as-is in the lab, contributes to the behavior of the real-world atmosphere alongside many other effects, so we cannot assume that it will necessarily manifest itself in the real world exactly as in the lab. Starting point, yes, end of discussion, no.

      (4) “effecting frustration with the lack of knowledge”…well, I sure hope he can find better ways to vent his frustrations. I do not think this Fort Apache mentality, as I have called at times in the recent past, will do Prof Pierrehumbert, RC or anybody else on the catastrophical warmism side any good…

      (5) “irrelevant postulations about air halfway up mountains”…I am just trying to clear up the logical air. Later today for example I am posting a blog about another logical fallacy (making an analogy between the smoking/cancer link and the GHG emissions/global waming one). And I do not think there is a better way to convey the problem of moving from the lab to the real world than comparing the temperature profile with height of a room with that of the free atmosphere. Irrelevant?? If I am making a point, it is the relevance to my comment that should be considered.

      For an answer to the rest of your comment, please look at the About Omniclimate page.

  6. kim
    2010/02/15 at 13:36

    We don’t need no stinkin’ temperature records.
    ==========================

  7. ScientistForTruth
    2010/02/15 at 12:34

    Of course, the real issue is that the IPCC assessment reports aren’t science. As Mike Hulme has admitted, the IPCC is “post-normal” in which a search for truth is absent. For a primer on the ‘post-normal’ science or PNS, a philosophy by Ravetz, see here:

    http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/10/31/climate-change-and-the-death-of-science/

    Here are Stephen Schneider’s instructions to lead authors on TAR:

    Moss, R.H. and Schneider, S.H., 2000: Uncertainties in the IPCC TAR: Recommendations to lead authors for more consistent assessment and reporting. In: Guidance Papers on the Cross Cutting Issues of the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC [eds. R. Pachauri, T. Taniguchi and K. Tanaka], World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, pp. 33-51

    “It is certainly true that “science” itself strives for objective empirical information to test theory and models. But at the same time “science for policy” must be recognized as a different enterprise than “science” itself, since science for policy (e.g., Ravetz, 1986) involves being responsive to policymakers’ needs for expert judgment at a particular time, given the information currently available, even if those judgments involve a considerable degree of subjectivity…one recommendation that should be applied throughout the report is that care should be taken to avoid vague or very broad statements with “medium confidence” that are difficult to support or refute. For example, if we know very little, we often are indifferent to whether climate change will cause a positive or negative response in some variable. In this trivial case, we would actually have at least medium confidence (i.e., near 50%–as defined below in Fig 3) that “warming could alter biodiversity”. That says nothing profound unless we add quantitative modifiers on the amount of warming and the direction and severity of the biodiversity change. The point is to phrase all conclusions so as to avoid nearly indifferent statements based on speculative knowledge.”

    The 1986 document referenced is given in the paper’s bibliography:

    Ravetz, J.R. 1986. Usable Knowledge, Usable Ignorance: Incomplete Science with Policy Implications. In Clark and Munn (eds.). Sustainable Development of the Biosphere, New York, Cambridge University Press, pp. 415-432.

    Usable ignorance. Hmm…let’s get some of that.

    Then we have AR4, specifically WG III 10.1.5 Robust Decision-making:

    “The management of uncertainties is not just an academic issue but an urgent task for climate change policy formulation and action. Various vested interests may inhibit, delay, or distort public debate with the result that “procrastination is as real a policy option as any other, and indeed one that is traditionally favoured in bureaucracies; and inadequate information is the best excuse for delay” (Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1990).

    Funtowicz and Ravetz have proposed a highly articulated and operational scheme for dealing with the problems of uncertainty and quality of scientific information in the policy context. By displaying qualifying categories of the information–numeral, unit, spread, assessment, and pedigree (NUSAP)–the NUSAP scheme provides a framework for the inquiry and elicitation required to evaluate information quality. By such means it is possible to convey alternative interpretations of the meaning and quality of crucial quantitative information with greater quality and coherence, and thus reduce distortion of its meaning.”

    So the substance of these lengthy quotes shows that, in the IPCC process:

    “if we know very little…[it] says nothing profound unless we add quantitative modifiers…The point is to phrase all conclusions so as to avoid nearly indifferent statements based on speculative knowledge”

    “By such means [i.e implementing Ravetz’s ideas] it is possible to convey alternative interpretations of the meaning…of crucial quantitative information”

    “quantitative modifiers” “alternative interpretations of the meaning…of crucial quantitative information”. Hmm…what’s all that about?

    “So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have…Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” – Stephen Schneider

    Yes, we understand.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: