There are a number of numbers that people compute which appear to be due solely to the fact that with so much computing power at people's fingertips, the urge to calculate cannot be restrained. Thus people calculate for every stock in the stock market its "200-day moving average." The point eludes me. You can't sell for the 200-day average. That 200 days is significant suggests that the dynamics of the stock market are somehow driven by base-10 arithmetic. Why not a 128-day (200 in octal) average?
But I digress. The ability to compute has led climatologists to calculate smoothed trends for climate changes. A well known German named Stefan Rahmstorf has determined that with his secret smoothing technique, a long-term global warming trend is obvious. Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit is arguing that Rahmstorf's method is actually a 15-year triangular filter with some serious defects.
I have a more fundamental point. A 15-year smoothed trend isn't anything real. It's a construct. If it were a construct that helped, it would be one thing. Kinetic energy is defined as one half mass times speed squared. Why not the whole shebang? Because at one half, and with a well chosen definition of potential energy, you get an extremely valuable principle of conservation.
So artificial constructs are not automatically to be discarded, but one has to wonder what value there is in an oddly weighted 15-year average of temperature. Temperature at a given moment is a valuable piece of knowledge. Temperature over a 24-hour period can give a reasonable estimate of the need for heating a home, for instance. There may be some physical significance to the average of a year, but I'm not sure.
But a weighted number over 15 years? It's gibberish. The granularity becomes 15 years. You can do the computation once and then repeat 15 years later, although it's then no clear why you wouldn't just do an equal weight average.
But to get an annual trend out of a 15-year smoothing, as climatologists now do and announce breathlessly to the press, is preposterous. There is no physical reason, no theoretical formula, that depends on the period or the smoothing method. It's a construct without purpose except to impress the ignorant reporters of the mainstream media.
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Joseph Romm, Zealot Extraordinaire
My first, and evidently only, encounter with Dr. Joseph Romm of the Climate Progress blog ended on Sunday with my being banned. For the record, I ran across an old posting from last December where Dr Romm, in separate places, first proposed a $1000 bet that the second decade of the millenium would be warmer than the first and later said that it was "certainly likely" that the increase would be .25C. I challenged him to make the bet at .25 C rather than .1 C, which was his formulation.
When I realized that I had posted to something that nobody was watching any longer, I switched the comment to a current subject. Romm replies that I was making up his statement. I clarified several times but he just got angrier and finally banned me at the end of an irrational rant. You may still be able to read it. It's been there for two days so I guess it doesn't embarrass him.
Reading the blog extensively, I've been struck by how much Joe Romm sounds like the Reverend Billy Bob at the Saturday night tent revival. They have a book, which I can't remember, in which everything is explained. Anyone who doubts the absolute certainty of AGW should simply read The Book. Switch AGW for the Second Coming of Christ and there's an eerie parallel.
Ordinary people can make mistakes. Romm made a mistake by remarking that .25 C in the next decade is certainly likely. In the end, he effectively retracted the statement by criticizing it, but in such a way that it seemed as though I had made the claim rather than him.
Romm is plainly in the hysterical wing of AGW enthusiasts, and he's probably making a good living at it. He's a zealot. Zealotry isn't always bad. Zealots brought about the American Revolution. However, they also brought about the French, Russian and (perhaps first) Iranian revolutions, along with the Spanish Inquisition. On balance, they are to be feared.
Romm and his crowd need to start delivering, or the rabble will grow unruly. We are seeing very little actual warming, none for a few years. The oceans are rising but they have been rising on a geologic time scale and the current increase is minimal. There have been no tropical islands disappearing under the waves. There has been no outbreak of tropical disease in northern climes. Crops are not failing. Hurricanes are not becoming more common.
Maybe this will all happen. Most rational skeptics agree that the basic physics favors some degree of AGW, and since this is a poorly understood process, it's possible that everything claimed for it is true and the current slow progress is a long term trend masked by a short term anomaly. All this is possible.
But it's not certain, and it's bad science to claim that science knows more than it does. It's also bad for science to risk its long-established reputation for sober and non-political investigations. If in a few years, Rush Limbaugh and his ilk will be able to accurately portray the scientific community as having abandoned objectivity for activism, it will be a sad day.
When I realized that I had posted to something that nobody was watching any longer, I switched the comment to a current subject. Romm replies that I was making up his statement. I clarified several times but he just got angrier and finally banned me at the end of an irrational rant. You may still be able to read it. It's been there for two days so I guess it doesn't embarrass him.
Reading the blog extensively, I've been struck by how much Joe Romm sounds like the Reverend Billy Bob at the Saturday night tent revival. They have a book, which I can't remember, in which everything is explained. Anyone who doubts the absolute certainty of AGW should simply read The Book. Switch AGW for the Second Coming of Christ and there's an eerie parallel.
Ordinary people can make mistakes. Romm made a mistake by remarking that .25 C in the next decade is certainly likely. In the end, he effectively retracted the statement by criticizing it, but in such a way that it seemed as though I had made the claim rather than him.
Romm is plainly in the hysterical wing of AGW enthusiasts, and he's probably making a good living at it. He's a zealot. Zealotry isn't always bad. Zealots brought about the American Revolution. However, they also brought about the French, Russian and (perhaps first) Iranian revolutions, along with the Spanish Inquisition. On balance, they are to be feared.
Romm and his crowd need to start delivering, or the rabble will grow unruly. We are seeing very little actual warming, none for a few years. The oceans are rising but they have been rising on a geologic time scale and the current increase is minimal. There have been no tropical islands disappearing under the waves. There has been no outbreak of tropical disease in northern climes. Crops are not failing. Hurricanes are not becoming more common.
Maybe this will all happen. Most rational skeptics agree that the basic physics favors some degree of AGW, and since this is a poorly understood process, it's possible that everything claimed for it is true and the current slow progress is a long term trend masked by a short term anomaly. All this is possible.
But it's not certain, and it's bad science to claim that science knows more than it does. It's also bad for science to risk its long-established reputation for sober and non-political investigations. If in a few years, Rush Limbaugh and his ilk will be able to accurately portray the scientific community as having abandoned objectivity for activism, it will be a sad day.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Encounters with the radical wing of AGW
I chanced on a Web site about climate change through a link at a blog that I pay a lot of attention to. It's Climate Progress and the guru is Joe Romm. After running through some links, I found a posting from December that included the following two items:
So for all the deniers and delayers touting the coolest year of the decade (if the decade starts in 2001) meme, I stand by my offer to bet $1000 that the decade from 2010 to 2019 will be warmer than the decade from 2000 to 2009. I’ll even give you 2-to-1 odds or spot you 0.1°C. And I’ll even agree to use the HadCRUT3 global mean surface temperature data set (but, no, I can’t agree to use the satellite data, since it covers parts of the atmosphere that are projected to cool).
Any takers?
And later, "JR" made a response to "Charlie":
Lots of things tweak warming, but barring another major volcano soon, the next decade is certainly likely to be above 0.25°C warmer than this decade.
So I posted a comment, and JR replied:
"“Denier” is a loaded word, bringing to mind the phrase “holocaust denier.” A good many of us are simply skeptical. The physics looks promising and it’s possible to dismiss the less than stellar correlation between CO2 and global temperature as noise, but there is an awfully poor signal-to-noise ratio here for the sort of pompous dogmatism that I read.
I’m not a physicist but I’ve got a good grip on math and I’d be quite willing to take up the offer of a $1000 bet on the second decade versus the first that was proposed back in December. I posted that response to what I then discovered was a December posting, so probably nobody has noticed. I’ll repeat it.
In December, the statement was made that it was “certainly likely” that the second decade would be warmer by .25 C than the first. I’d be happy to take that as a bet, $1000 straight up odds. It seems that $1000 is an acceptable amount to risk, and the statement implies that the odds strongly favor the hotter temperature. If that’s the case, this should be acceptable. If it isn’t, the statement should be withdrawn.
[JR: You deniers kill me -- or at least future generations. That statement was never made -- to clarify, you wrote "I'd be quite willing to take up the offer of a $1000 bet on the second decade versus the first that was proposed back in December." That statement of yours refers to a bet offer that was never made. I just can't waste time with people who misstate what is easily read on this blog.
Since you all think it's cooling, then the fair bet is whether the next decade (starting in 2010) will be warmer than this one. I'll bet $1000 it is and I'll give you 2-to-1 odds, and I'll even give you the Hadley data, even though the NASA data is probably more accurate. I'll also give you a straight up $1000 bet that the next decade will be 0.1°C warmer, with an extra $100 to the winner for each 0.01°C above or below that. If that isn't acceptable, you really should stop with your disinformation spreading.]"
You do not see part of the exchange, because I immediately responded that I was challenging him to bet at .25C, not that he had done so. He suppressed my comment and edited his own, reiterating that I was suggesting that he had already made the bet.
So I responded again, and so did he:
"JR, since you are now editing my posts before anyone gets to see what I say, this is probably a waste of time, but let me make myself unamiguously clear. You said in December that you would take a bet based on the second decade versus the first. You offered to wager $1000. In the same post, you said that it was “certainly likely” (with the caveat about a volcano) that the rise would be at least .25 C.
I don’t intend to take your bet as offered. I’m just saying that if you have $1000 to risk and think this is an odds on proposition, why aren’t you accepting it?
[JR: Shame on you. Let me make myself unambiguously clear. You are banned. I offered two wagers for deniers. Later on, I made a statement that I believe it is certainly likely that the rise next decade would be 0.25 C warmer than this one. The fact that you refuse to take a two-to-one bet that the next decade will be warmer than this one, or an even money bet that the next decade will be 0.1°C warmer than this, but are fabricating a claim that I offered a wager that the next decade would be 0.25 °C than this one, which is of course beyond the very upper end of recent decadal warming or most GCM predictions -- is proof that you are conceding that the planet is warming much faster than the models suggested and that your denial-oriented posts are pure B.S. Please go elsewhere to post comments. I'm only interested in people here who actually believe what they are posting, even if it is crap.]"
I said once, I thought, and then clarified twice that I did not claim that he had already made the bet, only that he should. For this he restates for the third time that I have misrepresented him and so he bans me.
It certainly seems that climateprogress.org is interested in "deniers," as they call all who disagree with them, but only the idiots. There are plenty of idiots who don't believe in AGW and if you're selective, you can swat away the straw men that they set up by the dozen.
However, when someone calls you on the fact that you have both said that a .25C rise is "certainly likely" and later that it is higher than even his most supportive science claims, he kicks me off the site. I think even Rush Limbaugh, someone I personally loath, has more integrity.
So for all the deniers and delayers touting the coolest year of the decade (if the decade starts in 2001) meme, I stand by my offer to bet $1000 that the decade from 2010 to 2019 will be warmer than the decade from 2000 to 2009. I’ll even give you 2-to-1 odds or spot you 0.1°C. And I’ll even agree to use the HadCRUT3 global mean surface temperature data set (but, no, I can’t agree to use the satellite data, since it covers parts of the atmosphere that are projected to cool).
Any takers?
And later, "JR" made a response to "Charlie":
Lots of things tweak warming, but barring another major volcano soon, the next decade is certainly likely to be above 0.25°C warmer than this decade.
So I posted a comment, and JR replied:
"“Denier” is a loaded word, bringing to mind the phrase “holocaust denier.” A good many of us are simply skeptical. The physics looks promising and it’s possible to dismiss the less than stellar correlation between CO2 and global temperature as noise, but there is an awfully poor signal-to-noise ratio here for the sort of pompous dogmatism that I read.
I’m not a physicist but I’ve got a good grip on math and I’d be quite willing to take up the offer of a $1000 bet on the second decade versus the first that was proposed back in December. I posted that response to what I then discovered was a December posting, so probably nobody has noticed. I’ll repeat it.
In December, the statement was made that it was “certainly likely” that the second decade would be warmer by .25 C than the first. I’d be happy to take that as a bet, $1000 straight up odds. It seems that $1000 is an acceptable amount to risk, and the statement implies that the odds strongly favor the hotter temperature. If that’s the case, this should be acceptable. If it isn’t, the statement should be withdrawn.
[JR: You deniers kill me -- or at least future generations. That statement was never made -- to clarify, you wrote "I'd be quite willing to take up the offer of a $1000 bet on the second decade versus the first that was proposed back in December." That statement of yours refers to a bet offer that was never made. I just can't waste time with people who misstate what is easily read on this blog.
Since you all think it's cooling, then the fair bet is whether the next decade (starting in 2010) will be warmer than this one. I'll bet $1000 it is and I'll give you 2-to-1 odds, and I'll even give you the Hadley data, even though the NASA data is probably more accurate. I'll also give you a straight up $1000 bet that the next decade will be 0.1°C warmer, with an extra $100 to the winner for each 0.01°C above or below that. If that isn't acceptable, you really should stop with your disinformation spreading.]"
You do not see part of the exchange, because I immediately responded that I was challenging him to bet at .25C, not that he had done so. He suppressed my comment and edited his own, reiterating that I was suggesting that he had already made the bet.
So I responded again, and so did he:
"JR, since you are now editing my posts before anyone gets to see what I say, this is probably a waste of time, but let me make myself unamiguously clear. You said in December that you would take a bet based on the second decade versus the first. You offered to wager $1000. In the same post, you said that it was “certainly likely” (with the caveat about a volcano) that the rise would be at least .25 C.
I don’t intend to take your bet as offered. I’m just saying that if you have $1000 to risk and think this is an odds on proposition, why aren’t you accepting it?
[JR: Shame on you. Let me make myself unambiguously clear. You are banned. I offered two wagers for deniers. Later on, I made a statement that I believe it is certainly likely that the rise next decade would be 0.25 C warmer than this one. The fact that you refuse to take a two-to-one bet that the next decade will be warmer than this one, or an even money bet that the next decade will be 0.1°C warmer than this, but are fabricating a claim that I offered a wager that the next decade would be 0.25 °C than this one, which is of course beyond the very upper end of recent decadal warming or most GCM predictions -- is proof that you are conceding that the planet is warming much faster than the models suggested and that your denial-oriented posts are pure B.S. Please go elsewhere to post comments. I'm only interested in people here who actually believe what they are posting, even if it is crap.]"
I said once, I thought, and then clarified twice that I did not claim that he had already made the bet, only that he should. For this he restates for the third time that I have misrepresented him and so he bans me.
It certainly seems that climateprogress.org is interested in "deniers," as they call all who disagree with them, but only the idiots. There are plenty of idiots who don't believe in AGW and if you're selective, you can swat away the straw men that they set up by the dozen.
However, when someone calls you on the fact that you have both said that a .25C rise is "certainly likely" and later that it is higher than even his most supportive science claims, he kicks me off the site. I think even Rush Limbaugh, someone I personally loath, has more integrity.
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
Government Motors is Inaugurated
God, that was fast! Hardly had David Brooks' words about why the auto bailout will lead to lousy auto companies died away when Congress announces it will interfere in the management of its newly nationalized subsidiaries.
Is this going to be just the first instance? Probably. Certain Brooks thinks so and he is a pretty smart guy. The logic is strong. So here's a prediction. We have not seen the last bailout money. Once the taxpayers own most of GM, it becomes nearly impossible to let it actually die.
Since GM has spent half a century assiduously driving away innovators and risk takers, who exactly is now going to lead the innovation and risk taking that the company needs if it hopes to compete? We now own the equivalent of a manufacturing post office. Good luck to us!
Is this going to be just the first instance? Probably. Certain Brooks thinks so and he is a pretty smart guy. The logic is strong. So here's a prediction. We have not seen the last bailout money. Once the taxpayers own most of GM, it becomes nearly impossible to let it actually die.
Since GM has spent half a century assiduously driving away innovators and risk takers, who exactly is now going to lead the innovation and risk taking that the company needs if it hopes to compete? We now own the equivalent of a manufacturing post office. Good luck to us!
The soot is falling, the soot is falling!
The following two paragraphs appear in a NYT article by Felicity Barringer on soot and mortality:
"A new appraisal of existing studies documenting the links between tiny soot particles and premature death from cardiovascular ailments shows that mortality rates among people exposed to the particles are twice as high as previously thought." and ...
"The review found that the risk of having a condition that is a precursor to deadly heart attacks for people living in soot-laden areas goes up by 24 percent rather than 12 percent, as particle concentrations increase."
The mortality did not double. The estimate of "health risk," i.e. precursor conditions, increased from 112% of normal to 124% of normal, a rise of 11% not 100%. I've scanned the actual report and I can't find a direct correlation between HR and mortality, although it's a long report and I haven't read it all. However, the precursor condition is definitely not the same as mortality.
Furthermore, buried deep within the research paper is a statement that did not make its way into the New York Times. It seems that the particulates in question have declined by a third since the oldest part of the study, so that while it is true that the EPA hasn't lowered its standards for particulates, they are falling anyway. That the story gives the impression that the risk is seen as greater and nothing is ameliorating it is scandalous.
Researchers need headlines to maintain funding, so it's no use to say that you're studying an issue that is taking care of itself. Also, the New York Times is always inclined to favor more regulation of anything, so even if it's a declining problem, they think we should hire more EPA bureaucrats to harass American businesses. Judge for yourselves.
"A new appraisal of existing studies documenting the links between tiny soot particles and premature death from cardiovascular ailments shows that mortality rates among people exposed to the particles are twice as high as previously thought." and ...
"The review found that the risk of having a condition that is a precursor to deadly heart attacks for people living in soot-laden areas goes up by 24 percent rather than 12 percent, as particle concentrations increase."
The mortality did not double. The estimate of "health risk," i.e. precursor conditions, increased from 112% of normal to 124% of normal, a rise of 11% not 100%. I've scanned the actual report and I can't find a direct correlation between HR and mortality, although it's a long report and I haven't read it all. However, the precursor condition is definitely not the same as mortality.
Furthermore, buried deep within the research paper is a statement that did not make its way into the New York Times. It seems that the particulates in question have declined by a third since the oldest part of the study, so that while it is true that the EPA hasn't lowered its standards for particulates, they are falling anyway. That the story gives the impression that the risk is seen as greater and nothing is ameliorating it is scandalous.
Researchers need headlines to maintain funding, so it's no use to say that you're studying an issue that is taking care of itself. Also, the New York Times is always inclined to favor more regulation of anything, so even if it's a declining problem, they think we should hire more EPA bureaucrats to harass American businesses. Judge for yourselves.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Sotomayor the opening step in a Latina Woman majority
The right wing press seems to be in a great huff over Sotomayor's comments about the positive impact of a wise Latina woman on the U.S. Supreme Court. Let me make her defense for her, although she'll probably work this out in time for her testimony before the Senate. She was noting that one wise Latina woman on a bench with a bunch of old white guys might bring a perspective not otherwise available.
If there were already eight such and she was saying that only another wise Latina woman would work, I think we would have reason to criticize her. But that is not the case now and the likelihood that it will ever be a concern is minimal.
What we should be concerned about is that this will make six Catholics out of nine. Salon seems quite complacent, noting that we have had a majority of white Protestant men almost all the time since the founding of the Republic. Perfectly OK, except that I might note that until recently law schools graduated virtually no women so it would have been remarkable to have seen any on the Supreme Court, and that the country has always had a Protestant majority. Hardly surprising that this group formed a constant majority.
Frankly, I think the group most unrepresented is the unchurched. There are nine justices and, going by strict proportionality, you'd expect one of the justices to coincide with the number who publicly deny any religious affiliation. If you went further and accounted for the number who in practice have none, you'd expect a far larger number.
But it's impossible to get to the top of the judiciary, any more than to get elected to high office in this country, unless you publicly profess your faith. Any faith, it seems, is better than none, even though this is logically contradictory for those who seriously believe in the infallibility of their own inspiration.
Someday, a candidate for something important will state, when queried about his faith, "None. It's all rot and poppycock." But I'm not holding my breath.
One final point. English has no inflections for gender. If we're going to go beyond English, should we be saying "Latinas women?" Do we say "francaises women?" What do we do with languages we can't transcribe?
I don't mind importing words, but when they come ashore they should follow the rules. Latino is an English noun/adjective for people, primarily from this hemisphere, who speak or whose ancestors spoke, Spanish. It's the only word we need.
If there were already eight such and she was saying that only another wise Latina woman would work, I think we would have reason to criticize her. But that is not the case now and the likelihood that it will ever be a concern is minimal.
What we should be concerned about is that this will make six Catholics out of nine. Salon seems quite complacent, noting that we have had a majority of white Protestant men almost all the time since the founding of the Republic. Perfectly OK, except that I might note that until recently law schools graduated virtually no women so it would have been remarkable to have seen any on the Supreme Court, and that the country has always had a Protestant majority. Hardly surprising that this group formed a constant majority.
Frankly, I think the group most unrepresented is the unchurched. There are nine justices and, going by strict proportionality, you'd expect one of the justices to coincide with the number who publicly deny any religious affiliation. If you went further and accounted for the number who in practice have none, you'd expect a far larger number.
But it's impossible to get to the top of the judiciary, any more than to get elected to high office in this country, unless you publicly profess your faith. Any faith, it seems, is better than none, even though this is logically contradictory for those who seriously believe in the infallibility of their own inspiration.
Someday, a candidate for something important will state, when queried about his faith, "None. It's all rot and poppycock." But I'm not holding my breath.
One final point. English has no inflections for gender. If we're going to go beyond English, should we be saying "Latinas women?" Do we say "francaises women?" What do we do with languages we can't transcribe?
I don't mind importing words, but when they come ashore they should follow the rules. Latino is an English noun/adjective for people, primarily from this hemisphere, who speak or whose ancestors spoke, Spanish. It's the only word we need.
Monday, May 18, 2009
What now in Sri Lanka
It has been announced that Vellipulai Prabhakaran is dead. The LTTE is finished as a semi-conventional military force.
In 1864, Lincoln ordered Sherman to march through Georgia to the sea. In 1865, after victory of the Confederacy, he aimed for reconciliation although he didn't live to achieve it.
In 2005, Mahinda Rajapaksa became leader of Sri Lanka with a hard-line view towards the LTTE. Now in 2009, he has succeeded in his own march to the sea. Will he take this opportunity to look on his devastated and divided country as Lincoln did in 1865? We can hope, but history has provided us with very few Lincolns.
In 1864, Lincoln ordered Sherman to march through Georgia to the sea. In 1865, after victory of the Confederacy, he aimed for reconciliation although he didn't live to achieve it.
In 2005, Mahinda Rajapaksa became leader of Sri Lanka with a hard-line view towards the LTTE. Now in 2009, he has succeeded in his own march to the sea. Will he take this opportunity to look on his devastated and divided country as Lincoln did in 1865? We can hope, but history has provided us with very few Lincolns.
Monday, May 11, 2009
The Error of Peak Oil
There is a lot of worry that the world has reached its maximum petroleum production level and will now, or soon, begin to reduce the annual production. Given the assumed increase in world demand, led by China and India, this produces an alarming scenario.
First, of course, if production drops, prices will rise, and demand will fall. As prices rise, production sources that were previously uneconomical are brought online, although not immediately. To a considerable extent, this is a self-liquidating problem.
But more than that, there would be no tight supply situation except that Americans have been allowed to buy more than half their requirements on credit from foreigners. We have just about maxxed out that credit card. It's been a great run for people like the Chinese, as they have used America's feckless disregard for its own interests to excise most of our manufacturing capacity, but pretty soon, they're going to realize that they are taking worthless paper in exchange. The United States and Zimbabwe have more in common than we like to admit.
For years, we lived high by liquidating our capital. The capital is gone and we owe foreigners much more than they owe us. We are now living on their forbearance. With the federal deficit now above 10% of GDP, the myth that the federal government takes its debt obligations seriously isn't going to wash. When that bubble bursts, the greenback is heading sharply south and Americans will be paying record oil prices even if the rest of the world isn't. When Americans only consume the oil they can pay for, there won't be a peak oil problem.
First, of course, if production drops, prices will rise, and demand will fall. As prices rise, production sources that were previously uneconomical are brought online, although not immediately. To a considerable extent, this is a self-liquidating problem.
But more than that, there would be no tight supply situation except that Americans have been allowed to buy more than half their requirements on credit from foreigners. We have just about maxxed out that credit card. It's been a great run for people like the Chinese, as they have used America's feckless disregard for its own interests to excise most of our manufacturing capacity, but pretty soon, they're going to realize that they are taking worthless paper in exchange. The United States and Zimbabwe have more in common than we like to admit.
For years, we lived high by liquidating our capital. The capital is gone and we owe foreigners much more than they owe us. We are now living on their forbearance. With the federal deficit now above 10% of GDP, the myth that the federal government takes its debt obligations seriously isn't going to wash. When that bubble bursts, the greenback is heading sharply south and Americans will be paying record oil prices even if the rest of the world isn't. When Americans only consume the oil they can pay for, there won't be a peak oil problem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
