Policy?

ATTP has a post discussing Mapping the sceptical blogosphere (which I’m sure I read (the paper, I mean) and had the same reaction: “whaat? You mean they’re taking these jokers seriously?” But I don’t seem to have written it down anywhere). Anyway, ATTP then asks, of the septics:

So, why do these sites focus on the science (which isn’t really up for debate) and not on policy (which – in my view – is up for debate)? Is it because if one broadly accepts the science, it means that we should be taking some of the more unpalatable policy options more seriously?

Its a good question, which has been asked before. I was going to reply in the comments there, but then realised my answer was rather long and not at all snappy, and why should I waste a decent posting as a comment elsewhere ;-?

If you want to be charitable to them, the answer is that since they don’t believe the science, talking about policy is irrelevant. I’m not charitable though.

Another possible answer is that dissing the science is these sites’ ecosystem niche – they have nothing to say on policy, because they’ve never got that far. Their only opinion is “no”. And they can’t, now, go on to the interesting discussion of policy, because they wouldn’t carry their readership.

Further, this may reflect they and their readership buying a large part of the “green argument” if I can put it that way: they’re afraid that science implies policy. In fact the connection isn’t at all definite (in my opinion). As I’ve tried to say before, to no great applause.

A better one though is, I think, a variation of incompetence. They can’t interpret the science properly (if they could, they wouldn’t be taking the stance they are) and I think they are uneasily aware of that. So they have no certainty, no confidence. So they can concede or admit nothing, because their defence, so to speak, is multiple layers of fluff; not a single layer of iron. Its also a variation of what VV complained about Curry: the deliberate use of ambiguous language and the avoidance of making testable statements; because that’s the aim: chaff (or fluff), not certainty. But you need a thick layer of chaff, or people will see though it.

All this is nothing new. People have been saying it since sci.env.

But, given this is how the denialospheere is almost by definition, there’s not a lot of point complaining about it. There *are* people out there who are prepared to accept the IPCC science (or, if you prefer, take it as the basis for argument) and then discuss policy. For example Timmy; e.g. this one. And for the hard of thinking: no, you don’t have to agree, but if you want to discuss policy, you can.

Advertisements

133 thoughts on “Policy?”

  1. WMC wrote: “To me, [fringe] means “a small number of people at the edges”.” Well, sure, but in this case the claim “you can’t capture US politics if you’re the lunatic fringe” is just a tautology.

    [Yes. That’s exactly what I meant -W]

    Like

  2. W at #99:

    [I don’t think it helps to redefine the word “fringe” as “people you don’t like”. Or perhaps we’re jut using different meanings. To me, it means “a small number of people at the edges”. Having more than 100 people in Congress or whatever, is a non-small number of people at the center -W]

    So, the science deniers in Congress came in through the Overton window?

    Like

  3. There are a lot fewer ‘fringe’ opinions among the populace than you’d think from just counting elected politicians. Like there are a lot fewer septics than you’d imagine just looking at blogs. Dominating the visible forum is a tactic, not a representation.

    Like

  4. While not exactly an indicator of the fringe taking over, it is true that 7% of the presidential elections in the US have been lost by the candidate winning a plurality of the vote.

    Gerrymandering has long been used in some places to ensure that a state’s representation doesn’t represent the party membership of the residents. Both parties have done it. Currently, the Republicans have been doing it very visibly the past two decades.

    In addition, conservatives (currently represented almost exclusively by the Republican party) have been passing state laws to make it more difficult for poorer people, and non-whites, to vote, for the simple reason that they tend to vote for Democrats.

    Then add the fact that many people tend to vote for the party that their parents and other ancestors have voted for, and these affiliations often date back to our Civil War.

    When all the factors are added up, fringe extremists aren’t that difficult to elect, especially when they’re new on the scene and not fully understood. The Republican Party hierarchy is unhappy with the rise of the Tea Party precisely because they’re expecting a backlash as the extreme positions of many who were elected on the coattails of the backlash against Obamacare become better known. The extreme positions only held by a fringe minority of the electorate, that is. I trust the political savvy of the Republican Party leadership more than I trust William’s, when it comes to US politics. William will disagree, of course.

    Like

  5. Apropos the fringe:
    http://www.locusmag.com/Perspectives/2014/03/joan-slonczewski-field-of-discovery/

    —- quote follows—

    ” One response is to embrace the new discoveries, whatever they are, no matter how shocking. To some extent people are willing to do that. For instance,…. If you need to eat shit in order to save your digestive track – a digestive bacterial transplant, or fecal transplant – people will do that.

    ‘‘But on the other hand, if you need to accept that the world is 4.5 billion years old, that’s too shocking for some people. I live in a community where we had a middle-school teacher that was fired after teaching creationism for 11 years. The community I live in, the community surrounding the college, includes some people with this cultish view of rejecting science, rejecting climate change. …

    … people who live in a city, they can say ‘That’s fringe,’ but it’s not fringe, because to be a presidential candidate in one of our two major parties you have to deny evolution. What’s up with this?

    ‘‘The trouble is that some people think false science has no consequence….
    … Forests, as part of their response to increasing carbon dioxide, now draw less water from the earth. The problem with that is that if they draw less water from the earth, then they make fewer clouds. Trees make rain – you think rain makes trees, but trees make the clouds…..

    ‘‘People who reject good science don’t realize they are manipulated by powers that earn money off their disbelief. The people who have churches that believe this stuff sincerely don’t realize they are manipulated ….”

    Like

  6. I wish you would offer more examples, William, in conversation. I sense you have some examples in mind about growth which might not increase resource depletion. Posed as a puzzle, I am thinking. As well you don’t often discuss your best conclusions on level of carbon tax and prudent path forward while implementing it. You hint. (And you hint well, so far as that goes: that’s why I read your writing here.) Searching for “carbon tax” here is fun, but you spend time slaying dragons. (Again, this is a good thing.)
    In any case, thanks for running this show.

    [Thanks. As for the economics, well, I don’t know economics very well, certainly not nearly as well as I know climate. I know enough to know that lots of people are badly wrong / not-even-wrong, but I’m very reluctant to try to [pr|t]each. https://wmconnolley.wordpress.com/2012/05/11/on-getting-out-more/ -W]

    Also on my mind is this: is there any fruitful thought experiment that could be constructed in which all the ice melts, the temperature remains the same, and deniers suddenly realize “where the heat went?”

    Like

  7. I really need to stop following these links that end up with Worstall blathering on about economics. “Finally, think of it from the point of view of the whole society. No, don’t start thinking about “full employment” and the like just yet. Think instead about labour as being a scarce resource.” He wrote that in September of 2013. Really, he did.

    A) Last I checked labor *isn’t* a scarce resource.
    B) Last I checked wage earners could use some labor scarcity to reverse the (decades long) trend in wages.
    C) Last I checked “green jobs” aren’t really a luxury we can decide are economically sub-optimal.

    Is UKIP the British equivalent of America’s Tea Party? If so, it all starts to make sense.

    Like

  8. [I don’t think its a free market idea. It has nothing to do with markets -W]

    Self imposed taxes may be paid in whatever way the payer desires. Payments put into the market could have as direct effect on the market as a government imposed tax.

    Both taxes seek to overcome the principle impediment to a market solution., the cost of fossil fuels vs their replacement. One tax hopes to make the replacements a better economic decision by raising the cost of fossil fuels. The other hopes to do it by lowering the cost of the replacements.

    We live at an incredible time of worldwide connectivity and ability to work collectively. A carbon tax must be imposed, collected ans disbursed through a political process. A voluntary tax does it through a social process. The advantage of a social process is that political majorities are not required for success.

    Like

  9. Kevin O’Neill,

    We share a Midwest upbringing. I’m from Illinois and voted for Anderson in 1980. I think you are in what William calls a trap. See, anyone reading your comments about Worstall would conclude he is an economic incompetent who is just wrong, wrong, wrong. There’s no reason to believe he isn’t also wrong about a carbon tax. Yet you support a carbon tax too. Your comments our counterproductive to your shared goal of reduced emissions. That’s the trap. The misplaced focus on economic orthodoxy makes an enemy out of an ally.

    Like

  10. Paul, as the old saying goes – even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes. Still doesn’t change the fact the squirrel is blind. And it shouldn’t stand as rationale to anoint the blind squirrel as head of the foraging party.

    Like

  11. Is UKIP the British equivalent of America’s Tea Party?

    Not really in terms of specific policies, but there are some parallels… They’re where the nutters who are too extreme for the right-wing end of the most right-wing mainstream party, but who aren’t quite full-on swastika-tattooed neo-fascists, tend to end up. Their particular animus is somewhat different (they’re principally driven by a desire to leave the EU, at least nominally) but if you’re looking for a place which can provide a happy home for someone who thinks that climatology is a Marxist plot, feminism and “Islamofascism” are the Scylla and Charybdis both simultaneously threatening to destroy “Western Civilisation”(tm), and that gay marriage causes flooding (no, really), they’re just the ticket. (In fairness, the guy who said that gay marriage causes flooding did eventually get the heave, once he attracted too much adverse publicity. It is an EU election year, after all…)

    Like

  12. Paul Kelly:

    We live at an incredible time of worldwide connectivity and ability to work collectively. A carbon tax must be imposed, collected ans disbursed through a political process. A voluntary tax does it through a social process. The advantage of a social process is that political majorities are not required for success.

    You’d get some support from the late Elinor Ostrom for that:

    The literature on global climate change has largely ignored the small but positive steps that many public and private actors are taking to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. A global policy is frequently posited as the only strategy needed. It is important to balance the major attention on global solutions as the only strategy for coping with climate change. Positive actions are underway at multiple, smaller scales to start the process of climate change mitigation. Researchers need to understand the strength of polycentric systems where enterprises at multiple levels may complement each other. Building a global regime is a necessity, but encouraging the emergence of a polycentric system starts the process of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and acts as a spur to international regimes to do their part.

    Notice, though, that she says building a global regime is a necessity, and that “polycentric systems” are a spur to international regimes.

    I’d argue that a U.S. carbon tax, carefully designed, would strongly spur the rest of the world. If a domestic tax on fossil-fuels from all sources were complemented by a carbon tariff (by whatever name) on imported goods, China for example would be under enormous pressure to accelerate its own de-carbonization.

    Yes, “a carbon tax must be imposed, collected ans disbursed through a political process”, but tax collection and disbursement, at least, are solved problems. Political opposition is still high (I’m not forgetting those 163 AGW deniers in Congress), but emphasizing revenue-neutrality should help. IMO the carbon-tax idea is gaining momentum. I’m taking every opportunity to talk it up in the “real world.”

    Like

  13. As far as I can tell, Imhoff’s book is a CAGW denier book. He accepts radiative physics and just has a problem with the one-sided feedback and the unsubstantiated peer-reviewed doom and gloom.

    Making Policy requires consensus across political divisions. Calling the very people who are absolutely necessary to help you successfully implement policy “lunatics” is, by definition, crazy. Dehumanizing ones neighbors into an “enemy” causes a psychological shift that makes it easier to condone extreme and tyrannical measures.

    The Lewandansky research may be rubbish,

    [Not according to the journal. It was retracted due to legal threats, not scientific flaws -W]

    but the conclusions are true. This is why the WUWT crowd is up in arms. However, his conclusions are equally applicable to many bloggers and commentators on SkepSci, RealClim, etc.

    So if you really want to talk policy, the first step is to empathize with the people who disagree with you.

    Like

  14. Mal Adapted,

    “Notice, though, that she says building a global regime is a necessity”

    A global regime may be a necessity, but it seems silly to wait for it. A voluntary tax doesn’t have to be imposed instead of a carbon tax. but it can and should be imposed until a carbon tax. It is very easy to pay a voluntary mitigation tax. As Elinor Ostrom points out private actors are taking positive actions at multiple, smaller scales to start the process of climate change mitigation.

    Question: Why would anyone willing and hoping to pay a government imposed carbon tax be unwilling to pay a self imposed one?

    Like

  15. “Question: Why would anyone willing and hoping to pay a government imposed carbon tax be unwilling to pay a self imposed one?”

    Lack of confidence that other players will volunteer to do the same and the fear of thus making yourself voluntarily uncompetative. An imposed carbon levy provides a level playing field, fairness for all players and the confidence to prioritise invest in carbon cutting practices.

    Like

  16. I think part of the problem is that we can’t actually agree what the “science” is, or at least where the boundary between science and policy actually lies.

    “the scientific view that the increase in global temperature should be below 2 degrees Celsius” (Copenhagen Accord 2009)

    Well is that the “science” or not? It’s Jim Hansen’s view certainly, but is what Jim Hansen, or others, think now what we are all supposed to accept as being the “science”?

    There’s a lot of what I’d call “policy” being pushed as “the science” in an attempt to channel the options to a predetermined conclusion.

    Like

  17. Paul Kelly

    A global regime may be a necessity, but it seems silly to wait for it. A voluntary tax doesn’t have to be imposed instead of a carbon tax. but it can and should be imposed until a carbon tax. It is very easy to pay a voluntary mitigation tax. As Elinor Ostrom points out private actors are taking positive actions at multiple, smaller scales to start the process of climate change mitigation.

    If by “voluntary mitigation tax” you mean “investments in energy-efficiency and renewable sources, by individuals and private organizations, that pay off for them in the long run”, then the Ostrom article I linked supports you.

    If by “voluntary mitigation tax” you mean “voluntarily payment, by selfless individuals and private organizations, of higher prices for goods and services in order to internalize their own share of AGW costs”, then Jason’s answer to your question is as good as any I could give. Ostrom [my emphasis]:

    Whenever actions taken by some individuals or organizations benefit a larger group, a risk exists that some participants will free-ride on the efforts of others and not contribute at all or not contribute an appropriate share. At the current time, there are many governmental and private entities at multiple scales that are increasing their greenhouse gas emissions substantially—especially in the developing world—without adopting any policies to reduce emissions. This is a major problem. Current debates over who caused the human threat and thus who should pay the most in the future are legitimate debates. At the same time, they may also cover a free-riding strategy by at least some of those involved.

    So, what do you mean by a voluntary mitigation tax, Paul?

    Like

  18. “can’t actually agree what the science is”

    Similarly, can’t agree what economics is, or should be:

    “… The search for culprits proved frustrating. There existed no equivalent of the Justice Department or the Securities and Exchange Commission to actually police the economists, just as there were no detectives and DAs to do the hard investigative work. And it dawned upon some that (unlike medicine and even sociology) there was not even a professional code of ethics to which bona fide economists were enjoined to subscribe. You can’t transgress a law that doesn’t exist. Contrary to first impressions, then, it was going to be a long hard slog to make any indictments stick. Furthermore, some of the self-appointed cops (and not a few of the political protagonists) turned out to be card-carrying economists themselves. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

    Hence the jejune American habit of dividing up the dramatis personae into the “good guys” and “bad guys” ran smack dab into the journalists’ nightmare, namely, the Sargasso Sea of Ambiguity, where all shadows were gray and all doctrines context-laden. That didn’t stop the attacks on economics, but it did encourage certain lazy journalistic practices ….”
    http://www.iasc-culture.org/THR/THR_article_2010_Summer_Mirowski.php

    [Its a long article, with lots of words, insufferably self-regarding, but apparently without any meaning at all -W]

    Like

  19. Mal Adapted,

    Closer to the Ostrom article. The second definition: payment by selfless … of higher prices for goods and services in order to internalize their own share of AGW costs is not close at all. The free rider problem doesn’t impact a voluntary taxpayer any more than a book buyer is impacted by those reading for free at the library.

    I see a heretofore unavailable opportunity to connect large groups of people for the purpose of funding specific alternative energy and efficiencies deployments. So many people desire a 21st century energy transformation.

    Like

  20. Had not noticed the inline comments.

    WMC: “I don’t believe this. If you don’t want to import someone else’s food cos it dangerous then you ban it, not tax it. But conversely, lots of “bans for safety reasons” are just politicking trade disputes – see Russia / Ukraine recently -W”

    Banning is not fundamentally different as taxing. A high tax has the same effect as a ban. And, as you already indicate, is used for similar reasons. For trade wars and for gaining the ability to enforce rules on the market fitting to the morals of a certain democracy (in the best case) or to protect the local industry in its initial stages like all(?) or most now rich countries did when they were poor. In a non-functioning democracy bans and import taxes can naturally be abused by special interests. That is a reason to implement a good democracy and get away from winner takes all district systems.

    [I disagree. For example, you’re banned from killing people. If there’s someone you don’t like, it doesn’t matter how rich you are, you can’t just kill them and pay Danegeld later. That’s a pretty fundamental difference -W]

    WMC: “Sorry, but trying to “read” by listening to speaches on youtube is too annoying. Does he not write this down anywhere except behind paywalls? Has he no blog? Happily, Timmy does have a blog and has written about Chang’s book. He doesn’t like it: http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/economics/23-things-were-telling-you-about-capitalism-i -W”

    Oh, my, my I ask do you stand behind your linked post?

    [Yes -W]

    Maybe it is because I am no libertarian, but I can only discover the cheapest kind of rhetoric and in the end the guy is even forced to agree with the main point of the chapter of Chang he is attacking. So embarrassing.

    [I disagree. He begins by attacking Chang for making the assertion “there is no such thing as a free market” as though it meant something. It doesn’t; Timmy is correct -W]

    He acknowledges that a democracy can determine the extend of the free market and can disallow voluntary agreements between capitalists needing workers and kids wanting to work. Once he is on that slippery slope away from pure libertarian thought, I wonder what keeps him from other sensible policies.

    [No-one realistic believe that “pure libertarian thought” can work in the real world. You have to be disconnected from what they are actually saying to think otherwise -W]

    Like

  21. WMC: I disagree. For example, you’re banned from killing people. If there’s someone you don’t like, it doesn’t matter how rich you are, you can’t just kill them and pay Danegeld later. That’s a pretty fundamental difference.”

    We were talking about free trade over national borders. There the difference between a high tax and a ban does not matter in practice.

    [We were (well, not free trade exactly, because we were talking about the difference between bans and taxes; free trade would ideally involve neither), but I was trying to provide an example where there *is* a clear difference between a ban and taxes, in order to demonstrate the concept -W]

    Your friends, the economists, use the income over a life time to compute how much a human is worth.

    [People struggle to find ways to translate human life into monetary terms, but I think you’re wrong to assert that is the only way used -W]

    If some policy, e.g. more coal power plants and less mitigation, could earn the Koch Brothers a few billion more and as a consequence hundreds of people die in Africa, their policy advice would be: go for it. As long as you do not directly pull the trigger, you apparently pay Danegeld.

    [Sorry, I don’t understand. Taking what you say as valid, in what way are the Koch’s paying Danegeld in your example? -W]

    I disagree. He begins by attacking Chang for making the assertion “there is no such thing as a free market” as though it meant something. It doesn’t; Timmy is correct -W

    Depends on how well you think your audience understands the issue. If everyone already understands that the limits of the market are an arbitrary social construct, you are right. However, I do not think that most people in the general public think that way and then it is good to explain that to them.

    [Its good to explain it; I agree with you that most people don’t understand these points. But to explain it in such a way as to suggest that this isn’t well known to anyone, including your opponents, who has studied the matter, is dishonest -W]

    No-one realistic believe that “pure libertarian thought” can work in the real world. You have to be disconnected from what they are actually saying to think otherwise -W

    So what is the libertarian argument against child labor? Why should the guv’mint restrict voluntary contracts in this case? Isn’t that social engineering? Or is this an ad hoc exception to pacify popular opinion and not look to much out of touch with reality with the bizarre claim that libertarianism has nothing to do with politics just “logic, or rights, or civil liberty”. People might start to think whether this logic is really so impeccably logical.

    [I don’t speak for the libertarian, nor do they speak with one voice. My best guess would be that strict libertarians would argue that there is no call for the gummint to restrict child labour. In the West, child labour is of little value anyway. Its not clear to me what this has to do with what has gone before -W]

    Like

  22. It feel a bit like discussing with a climate ostrich today. 😦 Every small mistake in my comments is used to evade the topic.

    I should have written: “We were talking about trade over national borders. There the difference between a high tax and a ban does not matter in practice.”

    [I’m very dubious that’s true. But its not my field. Thing like the US embargo on Cuba spring to mind -W]

    And the real topic was that having some friction at the border gives a democracy some room to develop policy for the common good.

    [That’s the usual excuse people offer. But I’m very doubtful its true -W]

    The Danegeld in this case is the tribute the poor (in Africa) would have to pay not to be killed by the rich (Koch, danish Vikings) and in the example they unfortunately do not have the money and the invisible hand will choke them to death.

    [Ah, my apologies. I used entirely the wrong word: Danegeld is not correct. The concept I was trying to get across was paying “death money” to the relatives of people you’ve killed. This, I’m saying, is not permitted any more: murder is banned, not taxed -W]

    This is somehow seen as okay as long as the invisible hand does so and no person pulls the trigger directly. It would be easier to free markets if there was more equality. If the world were more equal it would be less likely that the “bio”-fuel for a test drive with the latest BMW is valued more than the food for a poor person that could have been grown on the same plot of land.

    I find child labor an interesting example because libertarians claim that their idea of freedom is the highest good and in case of child labor, at least some libertarians seem to notice to there is more and limit the freedom to make voluntary contracts between employers and kids. I would be curious what these higher values are to a libertarian. Why child labor can be an exception. Could be the photo-electric effect of libertarianism; well if i were a science and not an ideology. Tim Worstall does not make many exceptions, wants free trade in organs and all narcotics (makes the tern voluntary contracts somewhat cynical). I almost start to wonder whether he also would like to have free trade in weapons of mass destruction.

    [If you want to know what Timmy thinks, then one obvious solution is to go and ask him. He has a blog. Its not a very pleasant place to talk, though, as his commentators are uncivilised and he does nothing to restrain them. In fact he very rarely answers comments at all, so you’re better off emailing him directly.

    As to child labour and contracts, I’m fairly sure that even the most ardent of libertarians would agree that children of age, say, 4 are unfit to sign contracts and are under the authority of a parent or guardian, who would make the decisions and be responsible for the contracts for them. I’m sure there would be disagreement as to whether 14 year olds are also unfit, and indeed if a hard limit or case-by-case was appropriate. Hobbes also discusses this -W]

    Like

  23. er, that Daily Express is from some blog I stumbled into — that seems mostly to be about the need to deploy ecologically-friendly neutron bombs, featuring insights including:

    “(1) WWI and WII were due to our lack of a credible war-fighting proved nuclear deterrent in the years 1914 and 1939”

    Don’t go there.

    If you are mapping the fringes, it’s sometimes useful to know how far out there some of them are.

    [The Daily Express is a typical trashish UK tabloid newspaper. Nothing they say is to be taken seriously, other than it provides some evidence of what they think people are likely to want to buy -W]

    Like

  24. Just for the record, on policy fringe size:
    http://cleantechnica.com/2014/04/22/kansas-really/

    The Electrical Freedom Act, which ALEC’s Board of State Legislators adopted on October 18, 2012, was a model of the legislation that state legislatures could use to repeal their renewable energy mandates and ends with this clause:

    BE IT THEREFORE ENACTED, that the State of {insert state} repeals the renewable energy mandate and as such, no electric distribution utilities and electric services companies will be forced to procure renewable energy resources as defined by the State of {insert state}’s renewable energy mandate.

    On page four of the attached document, ALEC claims their Electricity Freedom Act became the model for legislation in “approximately 15 states across the country.”

    Like

  25. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/gop-science-deniers-threaten-us-national-defense-2014-05-28

    “… here’s the likely scenario if the GOP takes back the Senate. The senator most likely to head the Senate Armed Services Committee is ranking GOP Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, “a vocal skeptic of the established science that greenhouse-gas emissions contribute to global warming.” Inhofe “scoffed at the idea that climate change is linked to national security threats.”

    Inhofe dismissed the updated Pentagon report by personally attacking retired Air Force Gen. Charles Wald, one of the 16 contributors. “There is no one in more pursuit of publicity than a retired military officer,” said Inhofe. “I look back wistfully at the days of the Cold War. Now you have people who are mentally unbalanced, with the ability to deploy a nuclear weapon. For anyone to say that any type of global warming is anywhere close to the threat that we have with crazy people running around with nuclear weapons, it shows how desperate they are to get the public to buy this.” …”

    Let’s see your not-a-Peer match that for crazy.

    Like

  26. ok, last one from me on this topic, it’s too good not to quote:

    Steering our outrage in wrong directions
    “… I thought the House “science” committee was run by troglodyte science-hating morons. Clearly they include at least a few troglodyte science-hating geniuses… or else (more likely, given past behavior) the morons have a pub-relations genius on their staff.  (They do!  Several veterans of the successful 30 year campaign to obfuscate and delay any regulation of Big Tobacco.)

    This ain’t science fiction.

    Like

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