The Science Is Not Settled

A quick glance through my posting history will show numerous posts about the proper application of the scientific method and how the current approach to climate science often violates that methodology.  Looking through the comments of the posts will show equally numerous comments that I don’t know what I’m talking about and how dare I–a conservative idiot blogging in his pajamas–question such great and noble minds?

Given that is the typical response I thought I’d go with a different tack.  Recently a group of former NASA scientists and astronauts wrote a letter explaining that the current extreme position taken by NASA with respect to climate change will, in the long run, damage the reputation of the agency.

Nearly 50 former NASA scientists, astronauts and technologists are chastising NASA for its position on man-made climate change.

In a March 28 letter addressed to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, the group of 49 former employees ask NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies to “refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites” because “it is clear that the science is NOT settled.”

“As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate,” the letter reads.

The group said that the statements that “man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated.”

“The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements,” the letter reads.

If these 49 scientists and astronauts are also idiots then I am glad to be counted in their company.

Jackson and Sharpton To Appear in Tulsa
Zimmerman to be charged with 2nd-Degree Murder
  • cirby

    The AGW scientists are trying really hard to get all of their political maneuverings finished before their former (ill-treated) grad students hit retirement age.

    You know that there’s some guy sitting in a government lab somewhere with a hard drive full of original data and a manuscript for a tell-all book, just waiting for that last day of work…

  • GarandFan

    Well there’s another 50 ‘candidates’ for the re-education camps.

  • ackwired

    Some of the science is settled.  We are producing a lot of CO2 and CO2 is a greenhouse gas.  The chemistry is basic and undeniable.  There is also evidence that the climate is changing.  What is not settled, and it is difficult to imagine how it could be, is how much of the change in climate can be attributed to the increase in CO2. 

    • UOG

      I can’t tell you how many times over the course of my lifetime coffee and red wine have been declared either good or bad for you based on “a linkage.” Every time the media has gone all in to report these “new findings.” It is appropriate here to repeat the admonition that a linkage does not demonstrate causality, and such is the case with any relationship between AGW and CO2 levels.

      • jim_m

         Leftists do not understand the difference between correlation and causality.  To the left causality exists whenever anything correlates with their political agenda.

      • ackwired

        The examples you cited (I was devastated to find out that red wine does not actually help) were cases where corelations were discovered.  Further experimentation brought into question whether there was a cause and effect relationship. 

        The basic science for greenhouse gasses is that burning fossil fuel produces water vapor and CO2,  Both H2O and CO2 retain heat.  To say the basic science is unsettled is to deny the laws of physics and chemistry.  What we do not know is how much burning of fossil fuels is contributing to the warming of the planet.  Extremists on the right tell you that it is not contributing at all and extremists on the left tell you that the effect is overwhelming and will soon result in catastrophe.  As usual., both have virtually no basis for their assertions.

        • jim_m

           I think that you conflate “not contributing at all” with contributing so little that we are unable to distinguish the difference.  All CO2 contributes, but CO2 generated by industrial activity (I think we can exclude breathing) is only a tiny fraction of that amount and the total effect of CO2 is in dispute as other factors are being shown to have far greater effect.

          The genius of the left resides in an ability to ignore further scientific developments. Real science moves on and builds understanding. The left grabs on to a moment in time and declares that everything must be decided based on what is known at that sliver in time. 

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            I’m not sure I would describe that as “genius.”

        • cirby

          The problem is that, while CO2 is definitely a greenhouse gas, it’s not THAT much of a greenhouse gas.  The water vapor increase from fossil fuel emissions is extremely small, to the point of being undetectable in the climate at large.

          The big problem with the AGW hypothesis is that they did the basic math for CO2 greenhouse effects, and it wasn’t that big.  So they came up with positive feedback “multipliers” for that effect (assuming that it caused a huge increase in atmospheric H2O) due to increased heat (and evaporation from lakes and seas).  They also decided that there would be no negative feedbacks in their models (!).

          By adding all of the possible (and imagined) positive feedbacks and completely ignoring all of the known negative feedbacks (starting with increases in cloud cover when water evaporates), they came up with a climate sensitivity of about 2.4 to 3.0 times the base CO2 greenhouse effect.  Without a high sensitivity (of at least 2.0), catastrophic global warming will not happen, according to the warmists’ own computer models.

          Other people (who aren’t pushing the high-sensitivity CO2 number) looked at the known effects of temperature increase and came up with climate sensitivities of between 0.3 and 0.6 – between one-tenth and one-fifth the sensitivity that the AGW “warmists” keep using.

        • herddog505

          ackwiredBoth H2O and CO2 retain heat.  To say the basic science is unsettled is to deny the laws of physics and chemistry.  What we do not know is how much burning of fossil fuels is contributing to the warming of the planet.

          That’s QUITE a leap, though, don’t you think?  It’s akin to saying, “We know that people can drown in water, so we must ban water.”  The basic science is indeed “settled”.  But to take one little fact, extrapolate it to such a huge degree, AND base massive policy changes on it is beyond ridiculous.  Consider some more “basic science”:

          Mercury is toxic.  Thanks to the AGW crowd, we have increasing amounts – mandated by law, no less – in our houses.  How’s THAT for “science”?

        • herddog505

          ackwiredBoth H2O and CO2 retain heat.  To say the basic science is unsettled is to deny the laws of physics and chemistry.  What we do not know is how much burning of fossil fuels is contributing to the warming of the planet.

          That’s QUITE a leap, though, don’t you think?  It’s akin to saying, “We know that people can drown in water, so we must ban water.”  The basic science is indeed “settled”.  But to take one little fact, extrapolate it to such a huge degree, AND base massive policy changes on it is beyond ridiculous.  Consider some more “basic science”:

          Mercury is toxic.  Thanks to the AGW crowd, we have increasing amounts – mandated by law, no less – in our houses.  How’s THAT for “science”?

          • ackwired

            I don’t think it is a leap at all to say that producing more H2O and CO2 causes warming because they retain heat.  I think that we are wrapped up in semantics here, though.  It is not the science that is in question.  It is the interpretation and extrapolation of the data.  Unfortunately this process has become politicized.  As I said before, extremists on the right tell you that it is not contributing at all and extremists on the left tell you that the effect is overwhelming and will soon result in catastrophe. As usual., both have virtually no basis for their assertions.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            We have recently discovered (thanks to more man hours in space and more observation) that the Earth is constantly pelted with icy meteorites and is essentially an open and growing system when it comes to water content.

          • herddog505

            An important difference is that those of us “extremists on the right” aren’t looking to pick pockets on a global scale based on our view.

            Further, the lefty “extremist” position is not an extremist position at all but rather “settled science”.

          • ackwired

            Since you mentioned financial incentive, can you tell me who is paying for all of the research and publicity for the extreme right?

          • herddog505

            Probably many of the same people who are paying for the left.  At any rate, what’s the point of your question?  “Bad people fund your side, while GOOD people fund my side?”

            Now, I can’t tell you who funds ME.  Oh, wait: NOBODY does.  I just use that thing between my ears (honed by years taking chemistry classes in college and grad school) to smell BS being paraded as “science”.

          • ackwired

            “what’s the point of your question? “Bad people fund your side, while GOOD people fund my side?”

            The point is that a lot of time money and effort is being spent on both sides since this thing became politicized.  It is pretty rare for such an effort to just mushroom out of the soil.

            Something to think about.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            Well, I don’t know if I’m a member of the ‘extreme right’, but I’m pretty much against the AGW furor – it’s been a massive waste of resources through pretty dubious reasoning.

            Who pays for my objections, and my researches on the net?

            I do.  (Or, rather, my employment, which has pretty much nothing to do with weather, weather forecasting or climate science – if you want to get very technical about where my ‘funding’ comes from.)

            I pay my web hosting fees with 1and1.com, I look up information with Google, I look to other people who actually have a weather background and both the statiscial knowledge and the analytical resources to give me a more complete view of the subject than what the warmist worriers would like.  

            It doesn’t take a whole lot of money, Ackwired.  Not a lot at all.  What it DOES take is an enquiring mind, and the will to search for truth – and not be satisfied with a ‘the science is settled’ pronouncement when it’s very clear that it’s no such thing.

            Over at Wattsupwiththat.com, the owner of the site is a meteorologist, who also has a consulting business on the side.  He makes use of publically available records. He actually analyzes them, and spots things that are ‘off’.

            For instance, a paper is published linking volcanoes to global cooling.  Okay – but if you look at the paper closely, it says “The PDF peak [in ice growth] between 1430 and 1455 AD corresponds with a large eruption in 1452 AD …”  – so to maintain the premise that volcaones cause cooling the eruption in 1452 caused cooling back to 1430. Obviously kinda off, ain’t it?

            There’s also the Surfacestations.org project, where volunteers went out to find surface weather stations and see whether they might be influenced by local environmental conditions.  (Such as barbeques, heating vents, parking lots, new sidewalks…)  A lot of them were. 64% were listed as having an error potential greater than 2C. 6% have an error greater than 5C. Only about 8% have an environmenal error LESS than 1%.

            Supposedly such ‘errors’ are ‘adjusted’ out of the raw data, but if you don’t know how far off your sensors are, how can you know which way and how much to adjust the data you get from them?

            The phrase “Garbage in, Garbage out” is very applicable. You CAN’T take bad data and get accurate results from it.

            If you’re doing forecasts to a tenth of a degree, you’ve GOT to have good info going in.

            Just my take on things, for what it’s worth.  The folks being skeptical aren’t massively funded by big oil, big coal or whatever – they’re looking for truth, and not finding it in the AGW ‘Science is Settled’ mantra. The old “I’m a climate scientist and my word is the authoritative one on my subject” isn’t going to hold any more, especially if they’re saying 2+2 =13, through computer modeling.

          • ackwired

            Thanks.

          • jim_m

             Why does opposition to AGW make you part of the extreme right?  I thought that this was about science and not politics.

            Silly me.  It was never about science to the leftist goons.  It was always about finding some BS excuse to ram their political agenda down everyone’s throat.

        • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/MN5IHXUW2PMIDTIAEHSDC5MNNA Robert

          Don’t be silly. We all know that warming by carbon dioxide is real, but not a big deal. That’s the basic science upon which we all agree. The problem comes with the AGW assertion that CO2 is a primary driver of climate, and there is no credible science that shows that. The 20 ft sea level increases; increased violent weather events; and other catastrophic speculations are not scientific, at all. 

          The “science is settled” stuff is about the basics of CO2 and radiation. We all know that. But, the AGW politicos are trying to say that the earth’s climate has a net positive feedback mechanism which multiplies the effect of CO2. That is basic BS. Therein, the science is not settled. Period.

          As a matter of fact, a lot of AGW is anti-science.

          • ackwired

            Thanks for explaining the semantics of the arguments.  Some of the things I’m hearing now make more sense.

    • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

      Carbon Dioxide has 1% of the “green house” effect of water vapor.  Water vapor is, on average, 1% of the atmosphere.  Carbon Dioxide is 0.039%, or about 1/25th the concentration (average) of water vapor.  That makes Carbon Dioxide ~0.0004% of the green house effect of earth’s atmosphere.

      Furthermore, measurement of atmospheric Carbon Dioxide has tracked with IPCC predictions (increasing as predicted), while measured global average temperature has fallen (not as predicted) over the last decade.

      • iwogisdead

        Further, as I understand it, almost all of the energy absorbed by CO2 is also absorbed by H2O, and the level of absorption of H2O is nowhere near 100%. IOW, almost all energy absorbed by CO2 will only take away from what would otherwise be absorbed by H2O. Reduce CO2, and the level of energy absorbed by H2O will increase in nearly equal correlation.

    • Gmacr1

      You, are sadly ill informed and terribly under educated.

    • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/HL3635XCHO7RVRN2JMXPUJQXUY Steven

      How much is attributable to CO2? 0.02%, according to MIT. The Rest is attributable the white-hot ball of fire you see in the middle of the sky at noon-time. 

      If CO2 is causing climate change here on Earth, what is causing the exact same rate of change observed on Mars, the Moon, Jupiter & it’s moons, etc. etc. etc…. 

      Why is the correlation of solar activity more closely tied to temperature fluctuations than CO2, which has done nothing but increase? 

      Why is the temperature going down while CO2 continues to go up?

      Could it be that it’s about power, control and money, not the environment?

      If not, then why are the solutions to any and all these problems consist of demands for my money, my freedoms and my liberties?

  • Walter_Cronanty

    What’s also unsettled is whether any of our horribly expensive efforts to curb CO2 will do anything at all to stop “climate change” or “CAGW.”  Also, what hasn’t been settled is why, for the last 10-15 years there hasn’t been any warming despite the fact that CO2 emissions have been rising.  Do natural cycles, or natural forcings, or just the general nature of climate on this planet totally overwhelm whatever effect man made CO2 has on our climate?  There’s also the fact that, for human beings and plant life, warmer is far more preferable than cooler.  Thus, it is certainly unclear what, if anything, we should do.
    But, there is one thing we do know – if the green bureaucrats have their way, we will lose more our liberty and our money, for “the cause” has devolved into nothing but a power/money grab.

    • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

      Spend trillions now to avoid spending millions later?  That’s about what it boils down to in the end.

  • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

    The problem I’ve had all along with the ‘Science is settled’ crowd is the methodology.

    You take temperature info from proxies that may or may not have a significant error, and from station that (thanks to being next to blacktop parking lots or roofs, or next to air conditioning units) may have a built-in error of up to 5c.

    You adjust that info to supposedly eliminate errors.  Some years you adjust up, some you adjust down.  Starting from a nominal value of, say, 5 – by the end of the process you’ve got a 3 to a 9. 

    You then use that reading to approximate the temperatures in an area of from 25 to 500 square miles, depending on the location and proximity of other temperature sensors.

    THEN you feed that information into a computer model.

    Depending on the results you get (as in, how well does it model PAST behavior) you tweak the model until it conforms to your expectations.

    You smooth out the recorded warming and cooling periods in your model, because those aren’t relevant.  You also disregard any possibility of solar input variability because (again) those aren’t relevant.

    THEN you use that model to extrapolate out 5-10-100 years – and pass the result off as above any sort of possibility of error, because it was derived from ‘science’.  (Well, more technically ‘science fiction – IE a fiction made up from some scientific information, but quite unrealistic in its extrapolations.)

    Now we’ve got folks speaking out who have had to take reality-derived numbers that were not to their liking and do amazing things with them.  Where there isn’t a fudge-factor in orbital calculations, where an error of a ten thousandth of a degree can mean the difference between success and failure. 

    If they say the ‘science’ is bogus, I’ll give ‘em credibility for knowing what they talk about.

    • herddog505

      JLawsonDepending on the results you get (as in, how well does it model PAST behavior) you tweak the model until it conforms to your expectations.

      As I understand it, the dirty secret about the models is that they DON’T model past behavior.  Indeed, I don’t think that the con artists who wrote them even tried to prove that they could because they KNEW going in that the models would fail.  It’s like a snake oil salesman who won’t take his own product because he KNOWS that it’s worthless.

      JLawsonWell, more technically ‘science fiction – IE a fiction made up from some scientific information, but quite unrealistic in its extrapolations.

      Exactly.

      • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

        Re the models – I was giving them the benefit of the doubt.  Probably I shouldn’t – but the key thing about models is that they’re not reality, any more than a plastic model C-5M can haul a couple of real-world M-1 tanks into the air and fly ‘em pretty much anywhere.

        This seems to be forgotten in the rush to ‘manage’ the forecast global warming – which, amusingly enough, seems to require massive amounts of money spent by politically connected companies making cheap-ass shoddy goods that don’t produce what they’re supposed to.

        Go figure.

        Seriously, if someone tried to forecast the overall future temperature (say, 8 months down the road)  within a large building with multiple air conditioning inputs, rooms and doors and windows, with varying random numbers of people in and out to a tenth of a degree with only a handful of poorly calibrated sensors, they’d be laughed at for even trying.  Would you want to make financial decisions on their ‘results’, like buying a new and improved climate control system, when the old one seems to be working just fine?

        (We swapped out our air conditioning last year, BTW, but it was a 20 year old system with a compressor that finally packed it in.  Figured it was time.)

        Yeah, I kind of like that ‘Science Fiction’ line.  I’ll have to remember it – along with the ‘spending trillions now to save millions later’.

        • herddog505

          Well, it would be different if the work was done by Building Comfort Scientists and supported by 96.54312% of all other Building Comfort Scientists.  You can take THAT sort of thing to the bank.

          / sarc

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            Of COURSE you could! LOL…

    • herddog505

      JLawsonDepending on the results you get (as in, how well does it model PAST behavior) you tweak the model until it conforms to your expectations.

      As I understand it, the dirty secret about the models is that they DON’T model past behavior.  Indeed, I don’t think that the con artists who wrote them even tried to prove that they could because they KNEW going in that the models would fail.  It’s like a snake oil salesman who won’t take his own product because he KNOWS that it’s worthless.

      JLawsonWell, more technically ‘science fiction – IE a fiction made up from some scientific information, but quite unrealistic in its extrapolations.

      Exactly.

  • Tanuki Man

    Different tack, not tact. Tack as in sailing.

    • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

       Ready About…

    • DanKaripides

       Thanks.  As much as I hate proofreading errors, you’d think I would be better at it.

      • jim_m

        You’re more accurate than the NYT.  Not that that is saying much…

        • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

          Test Reply for Functionality Check.

  • Vagabond661

    If they were really serious about reducing our carbon footprints and reducing pollution, they would ban all drive-thrus.

    • LiberalNightmare

       A better idea would be to tax the drive thru’s.

      That way we could take the money and use it to fund the uhm… uhm…Ok, we could just take the money. yeah.

      • herddog505

        Jebus, don’t give ‘em any ideas!

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

    I’d appreciate it greatly if my statements weren’t deleted when they prove the article false.  As stated before:

    When you have 97% of climate scientists that believe that climate change is man made, feel free to show how many people are against it.

    Kind of sad that some people don’t like debating points, instead opting to delete other’s comments in childish displays of egotism.

    • herddog505

      First, I agree that posts should not be deleted unless they are abusive, spam, or that sort of thing.  If they are being deleted, all I can say is, “FOR SHAME!”

      Now:

      1.  Claiming that “97% of climate scientists that believe that climate change is man made” is not a debating point so much as an appeal to authority.  And, in the wake of Climategate and investigation of the “hockey stick model”, very dubious authority at that.

      I could claim that “100% of Jesuit professors at Notre Dame and Georgetown believe in the existence of God”, but that don’t prove that He exists, does it?

      2.  Who ARE these “climate scientists”?  What are their academic credentials?

      3.  The point of the article is that other scientists are critical of the “climate scientists” that you champion because they consider their work shoddy and sensationalistic.

      Incidentally, one of the most notorious “climate scientists”, Dr. Phil Jones, had this to say to the BBC in the wake of Climategate:

      It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don’t believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well. [emphasis mine - hd505]

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm

      Now, in fairness, Dr. Phil makes it QUITE clear elsewhere in the interview the he believes that the earth is warming and that man is the cause.  Sounds like the science is “settled” in his mind.

      The damned fraud.

    • Walter_Cronanty

       You might look at what was actually measured, you know, the data, before proclaiming what the data means.  That bit of advice goes for all CAGWers.

      “In a similar way, we need to ask ourselves what actual proposition do
      the 97% of climate scientists agree with.  And, we need to understand
      what it is, exactly,  that the deniers are denying.
      It turns out that the propositions that are “settled” and the
      propositions to which some like me are skeptical are NOT the same
      propositions.  Understanding that mismatch will help explain a lot of
      the climate debate.”

      http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2012/02/09/understanding-the-global-warming-debate/

      Read the whole article to see what the 97% actually agree on, and understand why 97% of skeptics might also agree.

      • jim_m

        Oh, why bother actually paying attention to what people said when you can so easily twist it to serve your purposes?

    • Jwb10001

      This is an interesting comment:

      “Kind of sad that some people don’t like debating points, instead opting to delete other’s comments in childish displays of egotism”

      Considering the usual response from your side is to question the funding sources of people that disagree, do you consider that a legimate debating point?

    • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/MN5IHXUW2PMIDTIAEHSDC5MNNA Robert

      Jay, If you were to check out where that 97% comes from, I think you will discover that it relates to a questionaire mailed to thousands of scientists. Of the few hundred that responded, only about 90 or so claimed to be climate scientists, and of that number, 97% believed that climate change is man made. It is a real stretch to claim that 97% of all climate scientists believe that. The sample is much too small. However, we seem to be deluged with exaggerations and outright lies from the AGW folks who still can’t seem to follow the scientific method. 

    • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/MN5IHXUW2PMIDTIAEHSDC5MNNA Robert
    • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

      Per disqus there are no comments by Jay on this thread which are pending, marked as spam, or which have been deleted.

      One might suspect that the issue is Error Code: ID10T.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

        False.  I specifically put up a comment that stated something similar to what was posted before.  Also, you seem to have a history of deleting posts you don’t particularly like.  That is shameful and wrong.  Whether you disagree with me or not is your own reasoning.  Deleting comments is an entirely different matter.

        • jim_m

           For what it’s worth I have noticed some funky things going on with comments and I’d swear that I saw a comment from you in the sidebar recently that I never could find in the comment thread.  I was particularly perturbed in this case because I wanted to say something rude in response.  ;)

          I think that there are some ghosts in the machine and have sent screen shots to the moderators.

        • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

          Your allegation is false.

          Disqus leaves a full audit trail.  There are no comments from you on this thread that have been marked as spam, placed in moderation queue, or deleted.

    • Brucehenry

      Deleting others’ comments in childish displays of egotism? Naah, couldn’t happen here!

      The question is, for loyal readers and reasonable commenters who find this happening, is there any recourse other than just going elsewhere? And would Kevin appreciate loyal readers and reasonable commenters being run off?

      • jim_m

         I have voiced concerns through the email tip address and, for the record, I did make a personal statement in your favor.

        • Brucehenry

          You are a mensch, Jim. Thanks.

          • jim_m

             Yeah, well don’t let it get around.

        • Brucehenry

          BTW, Rodney seems to be implying above that ALL allegations of comment-deleting are false. It’s possible that Jay is mistaken about which thread he posted a comment in that he now can’t find.

           I wonder if Rodney would go so far as to declare he has NEVER deleted a comment simply because it pissed him off, or cast him in a negative light. ‘Cause I’d have to call BS on that.

           Or if he would declare that it is a worthy practice to do such a thing.

          If Disqus leaves a full audit trail it should be easy for the moderators to check.

          • jim_m

            No. He’s just saying he hasn’t deleted any of Jay’s.  I think we all know that he deleted at least one of yours a week or so ago. 

            My experience recently has been that comments appear in the side bar but not in the thread.  I have also clicked links in the sidebar and been misdirected.  I don’t know what is going on, but it could conceivably be independent of Discus.  It also seems to be intermittent, which will make it difficult to trace and fix.

          • Brucehenry

            Technical glitches are one thing. Purposeful editing and deleting of comments, capriciously, on a personal whim, is something else. 

            I think we can all agree the latter practice is disreputable and should be discontinued.

            Which do you think is the more likely explanation for comments appearing in the sidebar but not in the thread?

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/MN5IHXUW2PMIDTIAEHSDC5MNNA Robert

    Sorry, the survey was an online survey. So much for science.

    Here’s the link:
    http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf 

Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE