Comments Duke has made

  • This has clarified my thinking

    Scientific method begins with a hypothesis which implies testable predictions. Experiments are performed to test the hypothesis by testing the predictions. One negative experimental outcome is sufficient to disprove the hypothesis. No amount of positive experimental outcomes can ever conclusively prove it . That is not my principal point. I merely include it for completeness of discussion about scientific method.

    A hypothesis which passes several tests becomes a theory, like The Theory of Relativity. A hypothesis which passes many tests becomes a law, like The Law of Gravity. A law of science is properly regarded as established truth. We put men on rockets and launch them into space, confident that our calculations can place them in the correct orbit. That confidence is justified. We have tested those calculations in many, many experiments; and they have always proved true, without one single exception.

    Isaac Newton would be the first to tell you that even today, one single negative experimental outcome would be sufficient to disprove The Law of Gravity. But that is not my principal point. My point is that scientific method is based on empirical experiments. A properly constructed scientific experiment is the most powerful evidence in the world. It puts to silence all dispute, being incontrovertible. No matter how many times the experiment is performed, it always produces the same result. Any scientist who performs it will obtain the same measurements.

    Dr. Naomi Oreskes is trying to persuade us that The Global Warming Theory is established with an authority equal to The Law of Gravity. But she does not cite a large number of experiments without one single negative outcome. She cites a large number of peer-reviewed papers without one single disagreement against the consensus.

    When The Theory of Relativity was new and controversial, some of the most prominent scientists in the world wrote a book entitled, "Fifty Scientists Against Einstein". The author of Relativity Theory replied, "Why fifty? If I were wrong, one would be enough to prove it."

    Isaac Newton would certainly agree that one good experiment is worth more than all the consensus in the world. But The Global Warming Theory is not even a real theory. It is merely a hypothesis. There  has never been one experiment to provide that first tentative confirmation. It is not possible to perform such an experiment. In the first place, the uncertainties are so great that scientists disagree vigorously about the measurements. In the second place, there are many other variables involved, any one of which has sufficient force to completely change the magnitude and direction of any experimental outcome. You will rarely get the same result twice from any experiment.

    Climate catastrophe happens, sometimes catastrophically. We recover more quickly than our ancestors because of our wealth and technology, both of which are critically dependent upon an inexpensive and abundant supply of energy.On An excerpt from a new book by George Monbiot posted 3 years ago 36 Responses

  • An example of what I mean

    Here is an article that I just read in the Tampa Tribune. I cannot figure out how to do hyperlinks on this site. Here is the URL:

    http://www.tbo.com/news/metro/MGBHKNBE0VE.html

    It is a short article, so I will post the whole thing here. It demonstrates my point that the behavior of the climate involves so many variables that it is impossible to devise meaningful experiments or to make reliable predictions.

    Begin quote from Tampa Tribune:

    It was not the hurricane season we expected, thank you.

    With cataclysmic predictions that hurricanes would swarm from the tropics like termites, no one thought 2006 would be the most tranquil season in a decade.

    Barring a last-second surprise from the tropics, the season will end Thursday with nine named storms, and only five of those hurricanes. This year is the first season since 1997 that only one storm nudged its way into the Gulf of Mexico.

    Still, Florida was hit by two tropical storms, Alberto and Ernesto. But after the pummeling of the previous two years, the storms barely registered on the public's radar.

    So what happened? Lots.

    Storms were starved for fuel after ingesting masses of dry Saharan dust and air over the Atlantic Ocean. Scientists say the storm-snuffing dust was more abundant than usual this year.

    In the season's peak, storms were curving right like errant field goals. High pressure that normally hunkers near Bermuda shifted far eastward, and five storms rode the clockwise winds away from Florida.

    Finally, a rapidly growing El Nino, a warming of water over the tropical Pacific Ocean, shifted winds high in the atmosphere southward. The winds left developing storms disheveled and unable to become organized.

    As they say about the stock market: Past results are no indication of future performance.

    This year's uneventful season provides no assurance that next year will be as calm:

    *The Atlantic remains in a 20- to 30-year cycle of high hurricane activity that started in 1995. Water temperatures are above normal.

    *El Nino probably won't be around to decapitate storms.

    *There's no promise that the Saharan dust will be as abundant.

    End quote from Tampa TribuneOn An excerpt from a new book by George Monbiot posted 3 years ago 36 Responses

  • You misunderstand my point

    You misunderstand my point, namely, that there is no way to test the global warming hypothesis. There never  has been any empirical evidence to support it. There are simply a lot of "peer-reviewed" papers alleging the opinions of "most scientists". Post-modern scientific method is based on consensus, not empirical verification. For Naomi Oreskes, the global warming theory has been "proved" because she and her colleagues have formed a "consensus" about it.

    My point is that the global warming theory does not fall within the class of hypotheses which can be proved or disproved by empirical experiment. Let me repeat the argument from my previous post:

    "In all likelihood the climate is a chaotic system which cannot be represented by a mathematical model. Probably we will never know for sure. There are so many variables that we cannot devise competent experiments to test our hypotheses. Suppose that you could accurately measure atmospheric carbon dioxide. You cannot, but suppose you could. Suppose that you could accurately measure the effect of human emissions on atmospheric carbon dioxide. You cannot, but  suppose you could. Suppose that you could accurately measure the change in global temperature. You cannot, but suppose you could. You still could not know whether any particular change in temperature was caused by a corresponding change in atmospheric carbon dioxide, because you cannot know what the change in temperature would have been if there were no change in atmospheric carbon dioxide."On An excerpt from a new book by George Monbiot posted 3 years ago 36 Responses

  • Modern science, good; post-modern science, not so

    There are narrow, particular facts of climate science which can be proved by narrow, particular experiments. When I say that there is no such thing as climate science, I mean that there is no body of theoretical knowledge supported by a history of successful predictions about climate change. Climate science has not made the leap from knowledge of particular facts to an understanding of universal causes. It is not possible to make that leap without transcending the boundaries of science. By the very definition of scientific method, science is limited to the narrow and the particular. It is limited to hypotheses which can be proved or disproved by empirical experiment. Climate change does not fit within that class of hypotheses.

    Since the beginning of official record-keeping in the late 19th century, climate scientists have made dire predictions with emphatic certainty. None of those predictions has happened. That is merely fortuitous, of course. There are only two possible outcomes, so you have a 50% chance of being right. Either the current trend reverses itself, or it continues to catastrophe. Someday one of these dire predictions will come true. It happens periodically throughout history. We do not know why.

    Maybe the ultimate cause is pure chance. But if, within the framework of an integrated philosophical vision, you understand the full implications of everything that exists, then sin makes more sense than anything else. That is Al Gore's position. Climate catastrophe happens because man has sinned against the environment. That is consistent with biblical teaching. But the proper response to sin is repentance before God and prayer to God. Modern man has arbitrarily defined science to include everything, so he no longer has any language to contemplate God. For Al Gore, the environment is God; but big as the environment is, it is not THAT big. There is not much point in praying to the Impersonal Everything. It makes more sense to pray to yourself or to your neighbor. At least you would be praying to a personal being. (That is the end result of Gore's agenda, incidentally. One man will be worshipped as God. But I am getting off the topic.)

    Science is trying to explain things which are beyond the ability of science to explain. But the philosophical presuppositions of modern science do not permit the existence of such a category. So scientists publish their explanations anyway. At this point we have moved beyond science into philosophy. In the debate about global warming, none of the general conclusions has any foundation in empirical verification. Nor do modern climate scientists see any need for such a foundation.

    No one disputes the physics of the greenhouse effect, although it is misnamed. A greenhouse works by blocking convective air flow, not by trapping radiation. This can be proved by experiment. It is possible to construct a greenhouse which allows convective air flow, but which would still trap radiation. There is no greenhouse effect in a greenhouse. But there is a greenhouse effect in the Earth's atmosphere.

    The greenhouse effect is logarithmic, which is the inverse of exponential. There is a saturation level. As the concentration of a greenhouse gas increases from zero, the greenhouse effect increases rapidly, then quickly levels off at the saturation level. Any further increase in concentration has no further effect. Furthermore, each greenhouse gas absorbs energy only within a certain spectrum. 95% of the greenhouse effect is from water vapor, which absorbs energy in the same spectrum as carbon dioxide; so that spectrum is already near saturation. However large the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide might become, its total greenhouse effect is forever limited to a small value; and most of that effect is already present in the atmosphere.

    The statements in the preceding paragraph are not controversial. But this is one of those points in this bizarre debate where climate scientist abandon all pretense of objectivity. They compete with each other to see who can devise the most outrageous imaginary mechanism to amplify that small effect into a large effect more suitable to their political purposes. It is nonsense. The amplification factor would apply with equal force to any increase in temperature from any other cause. In previous centuries the Earth has been much warmer than today, and the amplification factor did not happen.

    This is one of several facts, each one of which taken alone is sufficient to disprove the global warming theory. That is why it was so imperative for the hockey stick graph to dispose of the Medieval Warm Period. But that period is so firmly established in history, and the hockey stick was such an egregious scientific fraud, that in the end it could not be defended, despite the fact that until the very end it enjoyed the full and unwavering support of the entire monolithic peer-review establishment.

    As a matter of science, the global warming theory is disproved. But nothing is ever disproved in philosophy. God can do whatever He chooses to do. So climate scientists continue confidently on their course, undismayed by any amount of contrary scientific evidence.

    In all likelihood the climate is a chaotic system which cannot be represented by a mathematical model. Probably we will never know for sure. There are so many variables that we cannot devise competent experiments to test our hypotheses. Suppose that you could accurately measure atmospheric carbon dioxide. You cannot, but suppose you could. Suppose that you could accurately measure the effect of human emissions on atmospheric carbon dioxide. You cannot, but  suppose you could. Suppose that you could accurately measure the change in global temperature. You cannot, but suppose you could. You still could not know whether any particular change in temperature was caused by a corresponding change in atmospheric carbon dioxide, because you cannot know what the change in temperature would have been if there were no change in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

    Climate scientists do not understand this fundamental principle of high school physics. They need remedial work before beginning to study science at the college freshman level. This is a professional scandal of the first magnitude. I used to think that these scientists were simply lying to further their political agenda. I did not think it possible for anyone with a Batchelor's Degree in science to be so incompetent. But as I read more of their arguments, I am beginning to suspect that I might have been wrong.
     On An excerpt from a new book by George Monbiot posted 3 years ago 36 Responses

  • You do not understand science

    Coby Beck is a master debater. I am no match for his rhetorical skills. He makes the worse argument seem like the better. But I understand science better than he does.

    Scientific method begins with a hypothesis which makes testable predictions. Experiments are performed to test those predictions. One failed experiment is sufficient to disprove a hypothesis, while no amount of successful experiments can ever conclusively prove it. If a hypothesis survives several tests, it becomes a theory; if it survives many tests, it becomes a law; but even a law, like the law of gravity, might be disproved on the next experiment.

    There is no such thing as climate science. There is no body of theoretical knowledge which has been painstakingly verified by scientific method. There is no body of hypothetical predictions which have been proved by experiment. The branch of human knowledge which will one day be known as climate science is still struggling to develop adequate methods for measuring basic parameters.

    Climate science is not ready for prime time. Policy makers should pay no attention to it. Your job is to warn us that a hurricane is coming whenever you actually see a hurricane coming. I engage this debate not from an interest in urgent policy matters, but from an interest in the advancement of an infant science. I urge Coby Beck and his members to do the same. Abandon your political agenda to enact international laws for controlling climate change. Listen to my arguments with an open mind, and see if you do not agree that I am presenting the best methodology for evaluating a body of data that is full of uncertainties and inaccuracies in measurements.

    It is possible to cite peer-reviewed articles,  piecemeal and out-of-context, to support an erroneous point. But the OISM paper does not do that. Each article is cited with sufficient completenes that the context is preserved. An example is my post earlier in this thread, when I  mentioned the graph of weather stations in California. That graph makes two points: 1) when you look at the California stations, the Urban Heat Island Effect is very evident and is quite significant; and 2) when you look at the station-values which NASA/GISS selected for their study, it is clear that they ignored this well-documented effect, and have produced a study biased towards  high warming rates. Coby Beck does not allege that the data is wrong, or that we have interpreted it wrong. He simply says that the highest warming rates are found in non-urbanized parts of the world, where the Urban Heat Island Effect is not operative. But the OISM paper says plainly that the Urban Heat Island Effect cannot account for all the warming in the NASA/GISS study. Our point is that the study uses a flawed methodology that is biased towards high warming rates. Remember, in this infant science, we are still struggling to develop adequate methods to conduct basic measurements.

    Different studies need to measure different things. The global warming hypothesis has two parts: 1) human activity is causing an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide; and 2) that increase is causing an increase in global temperature. In this particular study, we are interested in the effect which global atmospheric carbon dioxide has on global temperature. Therefore we want to eliminate all local factors. It would not be sufficient to average rural and urban temperatures. The NASA/GISS study does not even do that; but for this particular type of analysis, the rural stations give the most accurate measurements, period.

    Most of the Earth's surface is ocean, and those temperatures are especially problematic. Some studies use sea water inlet temperatures, but different ships have their inlets at different depths. Some have seamen put buckets over the side, but some use wooden buckets and some use leather. Measurements from buoys have similar problems. Sea water temperatures are an important part of climate science, but for this particular study they are neither interesting nor relevant. We are interested in the temperature of the atmosphere above the ocean.

    I once saw the data from a weather station on a coral atoll in the Pacific, just barely above sea level, for from any human habitation. It showed a flat profile for temperature during the 20th century. The source which produced that can show a large number of stations with similar results. That agrees with the rural stations in California. It agrees with the data from the National Climate Data Center for annual mean temperature of the contiguous United States. It agrees with the satellites and weather balloons. Any objective, unbiased analyst would surely conclude that this is our best measurement of global temperature trends: during the 20th century, there was very little warming or cooling.

    Soon the Earth will begin warming or cooling again, as it  has always done throughout its history. When the temperature does begin to change significantly, the primitive condition of climate science today is nowhere near being able to determine the cause of that change. You can theorize about it, but you cannot conduct measurements to test your theories.

    Modern scientists do not really understand scientific method. Their methodology is based not on empirical verification, but on consensus. The leaders in climate science have agreed on a consensus among themselves, and they peer-review each other's publications. For a scientific paper which challenges this consensus, it is almost impossible to pass peer review.

    Two examples are the hockey stick graph, and the article by Naomi Oreskes in Science  magazine. Everyone in this thread is certainly armed with the consensus argument on those two cases, but I will not get into that. These debates have raged on the internet until even the ultra-liberal National Academy of Science has been forced to admit that the hockey stick is wrong; but through all that heated debate, Science magazine serenely refused to give its readers the slightest indication that there was anywhere any challenge to the peer-reviewed consensus.On An excerpt from a new book by George Monbiot posted 3 years ago 36 Responses

  • Maybe after the holiday I will read all of this

    It is a fact that 40 years ago the alleged crisis was global cooling.  There was just as much passion and certainty in the rhetoric, with just as much uncertainty and flawed logic in the underlying science. The prediction did not happen. The hypothesis is disproved. That is scientific method. Climate science is not able to make these kinds of predictions.

    With the current primitive state of climate science, it is absurd to make emphatic predictions 100 years into the future, much less to make radical policy recommendations based on those predictions. Climate scientists are going to predict what the weather WILL BE in the NEXT century? They cannot agree about what the weather WAS in the PREVIOUS century. Whether or not our best temperature records are in fact the true measurement, it is a fact that our best temperature records show that during 20th century there was very little warming or cooling. That in itself is unusual. For most of its history, the Earth has been warming or cooling, causing by turns hardship or better conditions for its biological inhabitants.

    1000 years ago the Earth was much warmer than today, and the warmer temperatures were beneficial for biological life. The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) is documented by hundreds of studies. The evidence is all over the place, both in the natural record and in written human history. There is no question in the scientific literature that the MWP existed- no question until modern scientists realized that to prove the global warming theory, they would have to get rid of the MWP. Studies which purport to do that fall into two classes. Some demonstrate mathematical virtuosity, introducing methodology which produces the desired result from any raw data, even random numbers. Others simply lie about their results, and refuse to make their raw data available. In any scientific community characterized by competence and integrity, it would not be so easy to dispose of an event which is so well established in  history.

    1000 years ago,fig trees grew in France and wine grapes grew in England. When the Vikings landed in Greenland, the land was green. They planted farms and grew crops. Then the Earth began cooling, and those colonies had to be abandoned.

    How do you know when to abandon those colonies? Modern science knows no better than the Vikings. It seems to be getting colder, year by year; but the variation is so great that we cannot be sure. And suppose it is cooling. Is it a five year, ten year, or 20 year cycle? Or is it a 100 year or 1000 year cycle? Science does not know. Maybe you stay a year too long and die. Maybe you leave a year too soon, and lose a valuable outpost unnecessarily. Science cannot relieve this burden of the human condition. Science does not know the answer.

    What science can do is to help you stay warm in an inhospitable climate. You will not help yourself by restricting your fuel supply. That is religious superstition, not science. We have sinned by burning fossil fuels. We have angered the gods of weather, whom we do not understand and cannot predict, much less control. But perhaps if we stop burning fossil fuels, the weather gods will have mercy. I guarantee you it will make no difference. The weather will do whatever it is going to do. Man can freeze to death or build a fire, as it suits him.On An excerpt from a new book by George Monbiot posted 3 years ago 36 Responses

  • Okay, that's real science

    Okay, that's real science. I would have to ask Dr. Robinson of OISM to respond. The OISM paper includes a graph of the weather stations in California, with their recorded warming rates. The warming rate is clearly proportional to the population. It is a very significant effect. The rural counties show very little warming, and some rural counties show a cooling trend. The graph also shows the uncorrected station values chosen for the NASA/GISS study, and they are clearly biased towards the high-population, high-warming rate areas. Competent climate scientists will tell you that in California and everywhere else, the rural stations give the most reliable indication. The NASA/GISS study clearly was interested not in the most reliable stations, but the ones with the highest warming rate. The OISM paper says that the Urban Heat Island Effect is not sufficient to account for all of the warming in the NASA/GISS study. It is merely cited as an example of the sorts of factors that can affect local temperature measurements, and shows that NASA/GISS deliberately ignored those factors to create a study biased towards high warming rates.

    The graph of warming rates versus geographical areas for the NASA study deserves a scientific response which I am not qualified to give at this point. I would first want a scientist that I trust to verify that the graph is an accurate representation. It is very clear that the advocates of the global warming theory have abandoned all objectivity, and they sometimes publish studies which are fabricated our of whole cloth. With my present state of knowledge, I will simply note that the best temperature monitoring systems in the world are in Europe and the United States, and these do not show the high warming rate found on the NASA/GISS study. Any objective analyst would conclude that the best temperature records give the most accurate measurements. Apparently NASA/GISS finds the greatest warming rates in areas which have very poor temperature records, and therefore allow the scientist to use his creativity in estimating the warming rate.

    The best surface records are in agreement with the satellite measurements (troposphere) and with the weather balloons. In other words, our three best independent measurements do not show the high warming rate. Rather than accept this straightforward result, advocates of global warming are manipulating the data in every way that they can. There is no reason to doubt the original satellite calculations. They are very complex, but they agree with the weather balloons, which are direct temperature measurements. The only reason to manipulate the satellite results is because these scientists will not be satisfied until they have found some way to fabricate evidence for their theory.

    40 years ago the alleged crisis was global cooling. I have seen the articles from that period in Time and Newsweek. It does not really matter which it is. The important thing is that we need a strong international government to enact strict socialistic regulations.

     To regulate energy is to regulate all human activity. The draconian energy policy these people have in mind will cause tens of millions of deaths around the world.

    We need inexpensive, abundant energy to respond to unpredictable climate change.

    Yes, a few global warming zealots inserted phony signatures into the petition. But it is only a few, and the science stands on its own merits. Every statement is footnoted to research which was peer-reviewed and published.

    What is your response to this? "Oceans and land emit 210 GT of carbon dioxide per year. Total atmospheric concentration is 750-830 GT. The uncertainty in the measurement is 80 GT. Annual human emissions are 3-6 GT." The uncertainties are so great, and human emissions are so small relative to natural sources, that we cannot even measure the human contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide. So every argument after that builds on a foundation of quicksand.On An excerpt from a new book by George Monbiot posted 3 years ago 36 Responses

  • No, I cribbed from the rebuttal to this

    It is you who have not read the scientific rebuttals to these arguments. I will only address the first point. The link above, "How to talk to a climate skeptic", cites a NASA/GISS study of global surface temperatures which show warming in recent decades. The reason that this poorly-constructed study shows warming is that it uses uncorrected temperatures. Surface temperature readings are affected by a variety of local factors. The type and location of thermometers changes over time, for example. One of the most prominent effects is the Urban Heat Island Effect. It is thoroughly documented, and is uncontroversial. Local temperature reading is directly proportional to population. More people means more asphalt and concrete, which causes thermometers to read higher. The effect is understood with mathematical precision, and can be compensated for. The warming shown on the NASA/GISS study does not appear in the surface record for any region with comprehensive, high-quality temperature records. The National Climate Data Center in the United States, for example, shows a warming during the 20th century of about 1 degree Fahrenheit. If anything, the warming rate has decreased slightly in recent decades.

    The most reliable indicator of global temperature is satellite measurements in the troposphere, the lowest level of atmosphere nearest to Earth. Those readings are not affected by local factors, and the satellites circle the Earth rapidly enough to give a meaningful global average. These measurement indicate a slight cooling in recent decades. That reading agrees with the weather balloons, which are a completely independent measurement of the same tropospheric temperature.

    No advocate of the global warming theory is even attempting to refute this evidence. Some  have argued that temperatures in the stratosphere are rising. That may or may not be the case, but the computer models cited by the United Nations IPCC predict warming in the troposhere. That prediction did not happen, so the hypothesis is disproved.

    Some scientists are manipulating the satellite data, trying to show warming in the troposphere. The arguments are so technical that they are difficult to evaluate, but it is clear that these scientists have lost their objectivity. The original satellite calculations agreed with the weather balloons, and therefore are almost certainly correct. Even with their manipulated figures, they cannot produce the high warming rate shown on the NASA/GISS study. The best that they can massage into the statistics is a warming rate similar to the National Climate Data Center.

    These guys are not honest. Any climate scientist worth a fraction of his salary knows about the Urban Heat Island Effect, for example, and knows that the NASA/GISS study deliberately ignores that effect.

    I am quoting from "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide". A link to that paper can be found at

     www.oism.org/pproject.

    Every statement is that paper is foot-noted to research which was peer-reviewed and published in scientific journals. Over 17,000 scientists have signed the petition agreeing with the conclusions of that paper. The advocates of global warming have had eight years to produce a rebuttal, but they have not even tried. Everywhere we find outrageous slanders against these fine scientists, nowhere a scientific rebuttal. I am beginning to suspect that the advocates of the global warming theory are simply incompetent to understand the arguments and issues.On An excerpt from a new book by George Monbiot posted 3 years ago 36 Responses

  • You still are not doing science

    We do not know why the climate changed before the Industrial Revolution, but we know that it did change, regularly and dramatically; and that it could not have been caused by human carbon emissions. Therefore, when the climate changes today, we do not know and cannot know whether it is caused by human activity, or by the same factors which caused climate change before the Industrial Revolution. But the orders of magnitude make it virtually certain that the very minor climate change in the 20th century (about one degree Fahrenheit) was not human-caused.

    Oceans and land emit 210 gigatons of carbon dioxide per year. Total atmospheric concentration is 750-830 GT. The uncertainty in the measurement is 80 GT. Annual human emissions are maybe 3 GT. Earth is continually emitting and reabsorbing carbon dioxide in amounts that make the human emissions insignificant. It is a dynamic equlibrium, and we cannot know what part of that equilibrium is contributed by humans. But 3-6 gigatons per year? With an uncertainty of 80 gigatons, the effect of human emissions cannot even be measured.

    It is absurd to suggest that carbon dioxide is the principal cause of climate change. The main cause is variations in the Sun's brightness. As to the greenhouse gas effect, 95% of that effect is from water vapor.

    40 years ago the geniuses at the National Academy of Science, as well as NASA's notorious James Hansen, were warning us in apocalyptic tones about global cooling.

    Those idiots cannot even define scientific method. In a brief to the Supreme Court, the NAS argued that scientific method assumes everything has a scientific explanation. Bull*it! Or, if you prefer, bullsh*! Scientic method assumes nothing. It subjects every hypothesis to the rigorous test of empirical verification.

    Computer Climate models are worthless. They are not empirically verified. They do not accurately predict measured weather patterns. They have so many adjustable parameters they can be arbitrarily tweaked to produce any result. On An excerpt from a new book by George Monbiot posted 3 years ago 36 Responses