Doing Advance Work

News that doesn't receive the necessary attention.

Monday, October 20, 2014

Political Correctness demands the West surrender everything achieved in past 2000 years and is perfectly exemplified by US Ebola policies-O'Connell

10/19/14, "A Plague on Both Houses: Insane Ebola Policy Exposes American Suicide Culture," Kelly O'Connell, Canada Free Press

"How is it possible that persons fresh from the site of outbreak of one of the world’s worst viruses, simply walk off airplanes into American cities?
Or, consider the dangerous, utterly indefensible policy of allowing the border to stay open, and illegal entries to cross, allowed to stay, even when criminal convictions for violent crimes are proved....
A question which Americans should be actively pondering is whether we are a nation that now loathes ourselves and our past so much that we feel we should be judged and decimated? This is the rationale of Political Correctness. That is, to perpetually accuse the West of the most horrific crimes, and in response—demand the West surrender everything achieved over the last 2000 years. Ultimately, as in Frazer’s epic study of magic and folklore, the Golden Bough—a new king kills the old, and so replaces the old society—or so the Marxist PC thinkers believe....

"We tell ourselves that pestilence is a mere bogy of the mind, a bad dream that will pass away. But it doesn’t always pass away and, from one bad dream to another, it is men who pass away.—The Plague"Albert Camus"  

"Kelly O’Connell is an author and attorney. He was born on the West Coast, raised in Las Vegas, and matriculated from the University of Oregon. After laboring for the Reformed Church in Galway, Ireland, he returned to America and attended law school in Virginia, where he earned a JD and a Master’s degree in Government. He spent a stint working as a researcher and writer of academic articles at a Miami law school, focusing on ancient law and society. He has also been employed as a university Speech and Debate professor. He then returned West and worked as an assistant district attorney. Kelly is now is a private practitioner with a small law practice in New Mexico. Kelly is now host of a daily, Monday to Friday talk show at AM KOBE called AM Las Cruces w/Kelly O’Connell"


Sunday, October 19, 2014

Beijing marathon runners wore masks to cope with heavy particulate matter in the air. WHO says 25 micrograms per cubic meter of fine particulate matter max., US embassy monitor said Beijing air had 400 micrograms-BBC

10/19/14, "Beijing marathon runners don masks to cope with smog," BBC

"Thousands of runners have taken part in the 34th Beijing International Marathon, many wearing face masks amid concerns about pollution.

The organisers warned runners to expect slight or moderate smog, but the US embassy in Beijing said air quality early on Sunday was "hazardous".

One resident in the city told the BBC that the air smelt like burnt coal.

Estimates said that pollution soared above the maximum recommended World Health Organization levels.

The WHO says daily pollution levels should not exceed an average of 25 micrograms per cubic metre of fine particulate matter. 

Yet the US embassy's monitor at one point reported peaks of up to 400 micrograms per cubic metre, which it said would be hazardous if a human was exposed to it over a 24-hour period.

Fine particulate matter, the kind of pollution in smoke, damages the body as it moves deep into the lungs and can even enter the bloodstream.

'Should have been cancelled'
Some athletes gave up the race because of the pollution.

British runner Chas Pope tweeted that he was only able to do 10km (6 miles) of the race in a mask before he was forced to pull out. 

He said that race should have been cancelled because the air quality was "not suitable for outdoor activities".

China's Gong Lihua, who came third in the women's race, said the smog had caused some difficulties....

Beijing resident Neil Holt told the BBC that although the air quality was better than last year, "it was still very polluted".

"You can hardly see [the stadium] through the smog. It's really hard to breathe when it is like this," he said.

The men's race was won by Ethiopian runner Girmay Birhanu Gebru and another Ethiopian, Fatuma Sado Dergo, won the women's race."



Jason Samenow was a lead EPA author on CO2 Endangerment Finding as well as denials of its reconsideration while also employed by the Washington Post which "absorbed" Samenow's blog in 2008. $1 billion a day is "invested" in notion of CO2 endangerment as of 2012

J. Samenow
For the last two of Samenow's years with the EPA, 2008-2010, his "weather" blog was hosted by the Washington Post:

"Jason is currently the Washington Post’s weather editor. From 2000 to September 2010, he worked as a climate change analyst for the federal government, monitoring, analyzing and communicating the science of climate change. He founded in early 2004, the first professional weather blog on the Internet which was absorbed by the Post in 2008."...


$1 billion a day is invested in the notion of global warming as of 2012. 


EPA's Jason Samenow was a lead author of the agency's CO2 Endangerment Finding as well as denials of petitions to reconsider it. The post below from Climate Audit is mainly concerned with the involvement of Gavin Schmidt. Jason Samenow is connected with some of Schmidt's activities. Subhead, "Schmidt correspondence:"
10/18/14, "Gavin Schmidt and the EPA Denial Decision," Climate Audit, Steve McIntyre

"About eight weeks ago, Jean S postulated that Gavin Schmidt had been involved in writing the documents supporting EPA’s decision denying various petitions for reconsideration of the Endangerment Finding (the RTP documents“), documents that Mann had cited to the D.C. Court as a supposedly  “independent” investigation into allegations against him. 

Obviously, if Schmidt had been involved in the evaluation of evidence for EPA, any claim to “independence” of the EPA’s supposed investigation would be risible.

Jean S directly asked Schmidt, but Schmidt ignored the question.

However, Jean S’ post led to the discovery of new and convincing evidence on Schmidt’s involvement in the RTP documents, which I’ll report today for the first time. Searching for an answer also revealed that EPA appears to have violated federal peer review policies in respect to the peer review of the RTP documents supporting the denial decision.

Background to FOI Request

In his CA post, Jean S noted that language in the RTP documents (noting Responses 1-2, 1-9, 1-16 and 1-70) showed a familiarity with some very fine details of Real Climate positions on past controversy that even Jean S had not been previously aware of. From this, Jean S speculated that Schmidt (and perhaps even Mann) had been involved with the RTP documents. Jean S directly asked both Mann and Schmidt as follows:
@ClimateOfGavin @MichaelEMann Were you involved in writing of EPA’s Denial of Petitions?
The comment thread to Jean S’ post is worth re-reading.  Among other things, AMac reminded readers of EPA’s reliance on Mann’s contaminated nodendro reconstruction (an issue that I had noticed in my only near-contemporary comment on the EPA documents.)

FOI Request

Subsequently, one of the parties in Mann v Steyn (CEI) made an FOI inquiry to EPA asking for 

(1) correspondence between EPA and Gavin Schmidt between February 2010 and August 2010; and (2) a list of authors and a list of reviewers of the RTP documents

Schmidt Correspondence

EPA produced emails between Schmidt and Jason Samenow of EPA (copied to Marcus Sarofim and Rona Birnbaum of EPA.) Samenow and Sarofim had been lead authors of the Endangerment Finding, of which Schmidt had been a reviewer. Other FOI information (see discussion here) provides evidence that Samenow,  Sarofim and Birnbaum were also lead authors of the RTP documents

On May 21, 2010, Samenow and Schmidt exchanged emails in which the EPA officials scheduled a meeting with Schmidt at Schmidt’s office in New York on June 10. Samenow and Sarofim planned to take a train to New York and meet with Schmidt and Reto Ruedy for a half-day, finishing in early-to-mid afternoon. Sarofim and Birnbaum were copied on the correspondence.

On June 8, Samenow sent a “document” via overnight courier to Schmidt in preparation for their half-day meeting on June 10. Emails were exchanged on the day prior to the meeting arranging details.

Under the circumstances, there can be little doubt that Schmidt had been sent draft versions of documents connected to the denial decision and that Schmidt’s meeting with Samenow and Sarofim was for the purpose of reviewing these documents. Jean S’ question can therefore be answered in the affirmative: Schmidt had been involved.

No Peer Review Documents

EPA’s answer to the other question was equally interesting. They stated that they had no documents listing either authors or reviewers of the RTP documents. This is hard to understand given U.S. federal policies requiring peer review and peer review records for influential scientific information disseminated by the U.S. federal government.

Both federal and EPA policies require EPA to carry out peer review of “influential scientific information” in accordance with the EPA Peer Review Handbook,  as clearly stated in the following EPA policy memo linked on their webpage concerning peer review:

"Influential scientific information, including highly influential scientific assessments, should be peer reviewed in accordance with the Agency’s Peer Review Handbook. All Agency managers are accountable for ensuring that Agency policy and guidance are appropriately applied in determining if their work products are influential or highly influential, and for deciding the nature, scope, and timing of their peer review. For highly influential scientific assessments, external peer review is the expected procedure. For influential scientific information intended to support important decisions, or for work products that have special importance in their own right, external peer review is the approach of choice."

The EPA definesinfluential” scientific information as follows:

.3. EPA will generally consider the following classes of information to be influential, and, to the extent that they contain scientific, financial, or statistical information, that information should adhere to a rigorous standard of quality:
Information disseminated in support of top Agency actions (i.e., rules, substantive notices, policy documents, studies, guidance) that demand the ongoing involvement of the Administrator’s Office and extensive cross-Agency involvement; issues that have the potential to result in major cross-Agency or cross-media policies, are highly controversial, or provide a significant opportunity to advance the Administrator’s priorities. Top Agency actions usually have potentially great or widespread impacts on the private sector, the public or state, local or tribal governments. This category may also include precedent-setting or controversial scientific or economic issues.
Similar language is set out in the EPA’s Peer Review Handbook in its  section entitled “2.2.3 How Does One Determine Whether a Scientific and/or Technical Work Product is Influential Scientific Information?”.

The decision to deny the petitions for reconsideration was clearly a “top Agency action” that provided “a significant opportunity to advance the Administrator’s priorities”, was “highly controversial”,  had “potentially great or widespread impacts on the private sector, the public or state, local or tribal governments” and/or included “precedent-setting or controversial scientific or economic issues”. Indeed, it’s hard to contemplate how one would even begin to argue otherwise.

The EPA’s Peer Review Handbook requires the agency to maintain a “peer review record”, which, at an inconceivable minimum, would contain the names of authors and reviewers of the document. So how is it that the EPA had no responsive documents? Odd."....via Climate Depot

Image of Jason Samenow from Washington Post


Among comments at Climate Audit:


"EPA’s Jason by Michel Mann on Facebook."


July 2010, "Denial of Petitions for Reconsideration of the Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act,"

"EPA determined in December 2009 that climate change caused by emissions of greenhouse gases threatens the public's health and the environment. Since then, EPA received ten petitions challenging this determination. On July 29, 2010, EPA denied these petitions....



    Thursday, October 16, 2014

    Two worst North American droughts in past 1000 years were 1934 and 1580 per NASA study through 2005. 1934 drought covered 71.6% of western N. Am., 2012 drought only 59.7%

    10/15/14, "1934 Drought in Dust Bowl Days Was Worst in Thousand Years for U.S.: NASA,", Gil Aegerter

    "The drought of 1934 wasn’t just bad, it was the worst. That’s the finding of a reconstruction of North American drought history over the past 1,000 years, done by scientists from NASA and Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. Their study, to be published in the Oct. 17 issue of Geophysical Research Letters, concludes the drought of 1934 during the Dust Bowl years in the North American Plains was 30 percent more severe than the next worst, which occurred in 1580, NASA said. 

    The scientists used tree ring records from 1000 to 2005 along with modern observations. They found that the 1934 drought extended across 71.6 percent of western North America, compared with 59.7 percent during the 2012 drought. "It was the worst by a large margin," said Ben Cook, climate scientist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York and lead author of the study. 

    The scientists found two main reasons: a winter high-pressure system over the West Coast that blocked precipitation and spring dust storms that suppressed rainfall."


    From NASA link above:

    "A new study using a reconstruction of North American drought history over the last 1,000 years found that the drought of 1934 was the driest and most widespread of the last millennium.

    Using a tree-ring-based drought record from the years 1000 to 2005 and modern records, scientists from NASA and Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory found the 1934 drought was 30 percent more severe than the runner-up drought (in 1580) and extended across 71.6 percent of western North America. For comparison, the average extent of the 2012 drought was 59.7 percent.

    "It was the worst by a large margin, falling pretty far outside the normal range of variability that we see in the record," said climate scientist Ben Cook at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York. Cook is lead author of the study, which will publish in the Oct. 17 edition of Geophysical Research Letters.

    Two sets of conditions led to the severity and extent of the 1934 drought. First, a high-pressure system in winter sat over the west coast of the United States and turned away wet weather – a pattern similar to that which occurred in the winter of 2013-14. Second, the spring of 1934 saw dust storms, caused by poor land management practices, suppress rainfall....

    "What you saw during this last winter and during 1934, because of this high pressure in the atmosphere, is that all the wintertime storms that would normally come into places like California instead got steered much, much farther north,” Cook said. “It's these wintertime storms that provide most of the moisture in California. So without getting that rainfall it led to a pretty severe drought."

    This type of high-pressure system is part of normal variation in the atmosphere, and whether or not it will appear in a given year is difficult to predict in computer models of the climate. Models are more attuned to droughts caused by La Niña's colder sea surface temperatures in the Pacific Ocean, which likely triggered the multi-year Dust Bowl drought throughout the 1930s. In a normal La Niña year, the Pacific Northwest receives more rain than usual and the southwestern states typically dry out.

    But a comparison of weather data to models looking at La Niña effects showed that the rain-blocking high-pressure system in the winter of 1933-34 overrode the effects of La Niña for the western states. 

    This dried out areas from northern California to the Rockies that otherwise might have been wetter. As winter ended, the high-pressure system shifted eastward, interfering with spring and summer rains that typically fall on the central plains. The dry conditions were exacerbated and spread even farther east by dust storms.

    "We found that a lot of the drying that occurred in the spring time occurred downwind from where the dust storms originated," Cook said, "suggesting that it's actually the dust in the atmosphere that's driving at least some of the drying in the spring and really allowing this drought event to spread upwards into the central plains."

    Dust clouds reflect sunlight and block solar energy from reaching the surface. That prevents evaporation that would otherwise help form rain clouds, meaning that the presence of the dust clouds themselves leads to less rain, Cook said.

    "Previous work and this work offers some evidence that you need this dust feedback to explain the real anomalous nature of the Dust Bowl drought in 1934," Cook said.

    Dust storms like the ones in the 1930s aren't a problem in North America today. The agricultural practices that gave rise to the Dust Bowl were replaced by those that minimize erosion. Still, agricultural producers need to pay attention to the changing climate and adapt accordingly, not forgetting the lessons of the past, said Seager. "The risk of severe mid-continental droughts is expected to go up over time, not down," he said."


    Much dust over US comes from China:  "On some days, almost a third of the air over Los Angeles and San Francisco can be traced directly to Asia."...

    7/20/2007, "Huge Dust Plumes From China Cause Changes in Climate," Robert Lee Hotz, Wall St. Journal

    Image caption: "A satellite view from 2001 shows dust arriving in California from Asian deserts. Concentrations of dust are visible to the south, near the coastline (lower right); To the west the dust is mixed with clouds over open ocean. This dust event caused a persistent haze in places like Death Valley, California, where skies are usually crystal clear."

    "Courtesy SeaWiFS Project, NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center and ORBIMAGE"

    "One tainted export from China can't be avoided in North America-- air. An outpouring of dust layered with man-made sulfates, smog, industrial fumes, carbon grit and nitrates is crossing the Pacific Ocean on prevailing winds from booming Asian economies in plumes so vast they alter the climate. These rivers of polluted air can be wider than the Amazon and deeper than the Grand Canyon.

    "There are times when it covers the entire Pacific Ocean basin like a ribbon bent back and forth," said atmospheric physicist V. Ramanathan at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, Calif.

    On some days, almost a third of the air over Los Angeles and San Francisco can be traced directly to Asia. With it comes up to three-quarters of the black carbon particulate pollution that reaches the West Coast, Dr. Ramanathan and his colleagues recently reported in the Journal of Geophysical Research....

    Asia is the world's largest source of aerosols, man-made and natural. Every spring and summer, storms whip up silt from the Gobi desert of Mongolia and the hardpan of the Taklamakan desert of western China, where, for centuries, dust has shaped a way of life. From the dunes of Dunhuang, where vendors hawk gauze face masks alongside braided leather camel whips, to the oasis of Kashgar at the feet of the Tian Shan Mountains 1,500 miles to the west, there is no escaping it....
    Once aloft, the plumes can circle the world in three weeks. "In a very real and immediate sense, you can look at a dust event you are breathing in China and look at this same dust as it tracks across the Pacific and reaches the United States," said climate analyst Jeff Stith at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado. "It is a remarkable mix of natural and man-made particles.
    This spring, Dr. Ramanathan and Dr. Stith led an international research team in a $1 million National Science Foundation project to track systematically the plumes across the Pacific. NASA satellites have monitored the clouds from orbit for several years, but this was the first effort to analyze them in detail.

    For six weeks, the researchers cruised the Pacific aboard a specially instrumented Gulfstream V jet to sample these exotic airstreams. Their findings, to be released this year, involved NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and nine U.S. universities, as well as the National Institute for Environmental Studies in Japan, Seoul National University in Korea, and Lanzhou University and Peking University in China.
    The team detected a new high-altitude plume every three or four days. Each one was up to 300 miles wide and six miles deep, a vaporous layer cake of pollutants. The higher the plumes, the longer they lasted, the faster they traveled and the more pronounced their effect, the researchers said."...


    Image caption: "A satellite image from 2005 shows a plume of dust flowing from China to the north of the Korean Peninsula and over the Sea of Japan. Such plumes can cross the Pacific and scatter dust across the Western U.S." "Courtesy SeaWiFS Project, NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center, and ORBIMAGE."


    Ed. note: I copied the above 2007 WSJ article including maps several years ago. As of 2014 the maps may no longer appear in the archived article. Susan

    Dept. of Homeland Security personnel ordered by Obama to complete "greenhouse gas" survey about their daily commute to work. No mention of ISIS, Ebola, etc.

    10/14/14, "Obama Homeland Security: “Greenhouse Gases” Biggest Security Prob; Hassles Agents About Energy Usage,"

    "Barack Obama’s Department of Homeland Security apparently believes the most pressing security issue facing the “Homeland” is “climate change.” That’s why, last week, the agency sent federal law enforcement agents the e-mail message, below. One of my agent friends sent me a copy of the absurd message.

    My agent friend writes:
    • Hey Debbie,
    Just thought you might find this funny. While the world is going to sh*t with Ebola and ISIS, my agency is more concerned with my greenhouse gas emissions. Nero truly is fiddling while Rome is burning...or is it the Captain of the Titanic rearranging the deck chairs as she sinks?
    Either way…at least I don’t work for the Secret Service! Nyuk nyuk nyuk [DS: For those of you in Dearbornistan, that's a "Three Stooges" sound effect]. Be well! 


    Actual Homeland Security Recruitment Ad

    Amen. you think ISIS or Al-Nusra Front or Hezbollah is asking its terrorists about their carbon footprint?

    America . . . Desperate But Not Serious."


    Comment: Thanks again to George Bush and "the Republicans" for adding more bloat to the federal bureaucracy by creating the Dept. of Homeland Security and also for perpetuating the $1 billion a day global warming racket.


    Monday, October 13, 2014

    New PNAS study finds climate models overestimated CO2 by sixteen percent, underestimated CO2 absorbed by plants-BBC

    10/13/14, "Climate change: Models 'underplay plant CO2 absorption'," BBC, Matt McGrath

    "Global climate models have underestimated the amount of CO2 being absorbed by plants, according to new research.

    Scientists say that between 1901 and 2010, living things absorbed 16% more of the gas than previously thought.

    The authors say it explains why models consistently overestimated the growth rate of carbon in the atmosphere. 

    But experts believe the new calculation is unlikely to make a difference to global warming predictions.

    The research has been published in the journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Working out the amount of carbon dioxide that lingers in the atmosphere is critical to estimating the future impacts of global warming on temperatures. 

    About half the CO2 that's produced ends up in the oceans or is absorbed by living things. But modelling the exact impacts on a global scale is a fiendishly complicated business. 

    In this new study, a team of scientists looked again at the way trees and plants absorb carbon [dioxide]. 

    By analysing how CO2 spreads slowly inside leaves, a process called mesophyll diffusion, the authors conclude that more of the gas is absorbed than previously thought.

    Between 1901 and 2100 the researchers believe that their new work increases the amount of carbon [dioxide] taken up through fertilisation from 915 billion tonnes to 1,057 billion, a 16% increase

    "There is a time lag between scientists who study fundamental processes and modellers who model those processes in large scale model," explained one of the authors, Dr Lianhong Gu at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the US.

    "It takes time for the the two groups

    to understand each other."

    The researchers believe that Earth systems models have over estimated the amount of carbon [dioxide] in the atmosphere by about 17%, and think their new evaluation of plant absorption explains the gap.

    "The atmospheric CO2 concentration only started to accelerate rapidly after 1950," said Dr Gu.

    "So the 17% bias was achieved during a period of about 50 years. If we are going to predict future CO2 concentration increases for hundreds of years

    how big would that bias be?"

    Model revamp
    Other researchers believe the new work could help clarify our models but it may not mean any great delay in global warming as a result of increased concentrations of the gas. 

    "The paper provides great new insights into how the very intricacies of leaf structure and function can have a planetary scale impact," said Dr Pep Canadell from the Global Carbon Project at CSIRO Australia
    "It provides a potential explanation for why global earth system models cannot fully reproduce the observed atmospheric CO2 growth over the past 100 years and suggests that  
    vegetation might be able to uptake more carbon dioxide in the future than is currently modelled. 

    "Having more carbon taken up by plants would slow down climate change but there are many other processes which lay in between this work and the ultimate capacity of terrestrial ecosystems to remove carbon dioxide and store it for long enough to make a difference to atmospheric CO2 trends."

    Many experts agree that the effect is interesting and may require a recalibration of models - but it doesn't change the need for long-term emissions cuts to limit the impact of carbon dioxide.

    "This new research implies it will be slightly easier to fulfil the target of keeping global warming below two degrees - but with a big emphasis on 'slightly'," said Dr Chris Huntingford, a climate modeller at the UK's Centre for Ecology and Hydrology.

    "Overall, the cuts in CO2 emissions over the next few decades will still have to be very large if we want to keep warming below two degrees.""


    10/10/2014, "Impact of mesophyll diffusion on estimated global land CO2 fertilization,"
    1. Ying Suna, Lianhong Gub,1, Robert E. Dickinsona,1, Richard J. Norbyb, Stephen G. Pallardyc, and Forrest M. Hoffmand


    "In C3 plants, CO2 concentrations drop considerably along mesophyll diffusion pathways from substomatal cavities to chloroplasts where CO2 assimilation occurs. Global carbon cycle models have not explicitly represented this internal drawdown and therefore overestimate CO2 available for carboxylation and underestimate photosynthetic responsiveness to atmospheric CO2. An explicit consideration of mesophyll diffusion increases the modeled cumulative CO2 fertilization effect (CFE) for global gross primary production (GPP) from 915 to 1,057 PgC for the period of 1901–2010. This increase represents a 16% correction, which is large enough to explain the persistent overestimation of growth rates of historical atmospheric CO2 by Earth system models. Without this correction, the CFE for global GPP is underestimated by 0.05 PgC/y/ppm. This finding implies that the contemporary terrestrial biosphere is more CO2 limited than previously thought."


    photo from BBC


    In 2012 $1 billion a day was spent on the notion of "global warming."  

    Will the science be heeded? Will only $800 million a day now be spent on global warming?

    Saturday, October 11, 2014

    Bill McKibben will give a talk about "math and science of climate change" at Grace Cathedral in San Francisco, 10/14/14. Tickets only $15!!!

    Per Grace Cathedral's website, on Oct. 14, 2014, Bill McKibben will explain the "math and science of climate change."...

    Bill McKibben: Updates from the Front Lines of the Climate Fight
    On October 14, acclaimed environmentalist and author Bill McKibben will visit Grace Cathedral to describe the current state of global warming through an explanation of the math and science of climate change. He will share updates on the movement working to end our reliance on fossil fuel energy and create a world powered by renewable sources. 
    *Photo: Nancie Battaglia
    Tickets are on sale now and cost $15.
    Where: Grace Cathedral
    - See more at:

    (Above about Bill McKibben appearance is screen shot from Grace Cathedral website).

    Above, Grace Cathedral in San Francisco, image from Grace Cathedral website

    Above, Bill McKibben photo at Grace Cathedral website advertising his appearance 10/14/14 to speak about the "math and science of climate change."...

    Below, Grace Cathedral is an Episcopal Church:

    Below, screenshot of McKibben ad at Grace Cathedral website:



    Blog Archive

    About Me

    My Photo
    I'm the daughter of an Eagle Scout (fan of the Brooklyn Dodgers and Mets) and a Beauty Queen.