tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post1718149201576409471..comments2024-02-12T15:25:44.028+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Deconstructing the 97% self-destructed Richard TolSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger183125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-86691795303370281612015-05-01T05:18:45.097+10:002015-05-01T05:18:45.097+10:00Perhaps Tol should try attacking this poll:
https...Perhaps Tol should try attacking this poll:<br /><br />https://niskanencenter.org/blog/oil-gas-industry-opinions-about-climate-change/jqbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07510836914645398165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-61876504243970911492015-04-30T18:25:49.464+10:002015-04-30T18:25:49.464+10:00Gary, why aren't there any intelligent, knowle...Gary, why aren't there any intelligent, knowledgeable, intellectually honest septics?jqbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07510836914645398165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-46369637819533553672015-04-30T17:55:37.715+10:002015-04-30T17:55:37.715+10:00"The number of papers omitted is sufficiently..."The number of papers omitted is sufficiently high to reduce the consensus (as defined by Cook) to a minority."<br /><br />Even from your own beliefs about the level of consensus, that is highly implausible.<br /><br />Here's a very plausible alternative: you are grossly incompetent.jqbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07510836914645398165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-35563810746599272202015-04-30T17:48:04.411+10:002015-04-30T17:48:04.411+10:00" perhaps most are simply repeating the '..." perhaps most are simply repeating the 'current state of play', and not necessarily indicating their own opinion or view."<br /><br />And perhaps the moon is made of green cheese. Do you have any evidence?<br /><br />Also, perhaps you and all other science rejectionists are deeply intellectually dishonest people. For that that we *do* have plenty of evidence. <br /><br />"I'd have thought climate may be the far more complicated issue in regard to monitoring, measuring and interactions between myriad factors, but we are now absolutely sure we have it (well, the role of CO2) fully understood?"<br /><br />Who's "we"? *You* should go learn some climate science.jqbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07510836914645398165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-86355026699588843742015-03-31T19:00:18.479+11:002015-03-31T19:00:18.479+11:00hmm.. I would have thought the following is equal...hmm.. I would have thought the following is equally appropriate:<br /><br />One is a simple, single dimensional issue that was virtually unstudied but was discovered by an insightful individual tour de force and was accepted rather quickly (once proper trials for the association of H pylorii with peptic ulcer disease were completed by early 1990's there was widespread acceptance) <br /><br />The other is a simple single dimensional issue (the origin of easily measurable and persistent accumulation of heat in the climate system over many decades) studied as a major research imperative by 1000's of scientists that is effectively uniformly accepted by scientists due to a robust evidence base. chrisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-91110204242052327102015-03-31T16:40:45.336+11:002015-03-31T16:40:45.336+11:00Yes, I agree Bernard. It annoys the heck out of me...Yes, I agree Bernard. It annoys the heck out of me, too, when people blame scientists. And I agree wholeheartedly that's not where the bottleneck lies.<br /><br />Especially in climate science and related, which have to be *the* most transparent, public-friendly of sciences there are today.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-42630315117698753332015-03-31T16:29:36.824+11:002015-03-31T16:29:36.824+11:00Oh, I agree with everything that you've said S...Oh, I agree with everything that you've said Sou!<br /><br />It's just that I think the real problem is actually something else and the science communication topic is used as a a smokescreen by some, one which is easily set as <i>the</i> issue when there's actually a greater problem standing in the corner.<br /><br />My suspicion, having seen things explained to the general public, to media, to politicians and to deniers and having no more action arise as a result of optimised communication is that just as you can lead a horse to water and not be able to make it drink, you can communicate as much as you like but that's not the bottleneck that's preventing action.<br /><br />I suspect that better communication will be just like pushing the horse's nose into the water. What we need is the psychological/political salt that will make it <i>want</i> to drink...Bernard J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16299073166371273808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-28462673756900513572015-03-31T16:15:56.939+11:002015-03-31T16:15:56.939+11:00Bernard, in my experience there are some scientist...Bernard, in my experience there are some scientists who are able to write for the general public and some who are less able. <br /><br />The issue is not one of "blaming scientists". I would be the last person to do that. It's buck-passing. Scientists are doing a fantastic job - at their job.<br /><br />And it is not even how politicians and the media *receive* the messages. It's how they *convey* the messages they receive.<br /><br />Journalists are meant to report science (when they write about it). Their job is to translate what scientists find and explain it in terms the general public can understand.<br /><br />If the IPCC reports are for the scientific community alone - that's fine. But they aren't. The audience is policy makers primarily, and then the media, and then the general public. The SPM is the main document for general consumption and sometimes they are fantastically good, and sometimes they do a poor job of explaining things.<br /><br />Research scientists are expert at doing science, and need to be able to report their findings so that *other scientists* can understand it. That's where any reasonable expectation of their role ends. They don't *have* to report to the general public. That's the job of science communicators. <br /><br />Some scientists have a talent for communicating directly with laypeople, but that's a rare skill and not an expectation.<br /><br />I recall arguing with the CEO of an R&D corporation, who wanted all the researchers his organisation funded, to have marketing and PR and journalistic skills - and saying that's a different set of skills to doing scientific research, and that there are specialists in communication, marketing and PR, including some who specialise in and understand science.<br /><br />When I worked in depts of agriculture, we employed journalists to write / edit articles and press releases about scientific research and agricultural policy. I wrote the corporate plans and annual reports etc - after talking with the scientists themselves. Translating from their jargon into language the general public and politicians could understand.<br /><br />Scientists can only go so far. It's up to other professionals (communications experts etc) to do the job of communicating the science to the general public and government etc.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-71569949805545077482015-03-31T15:33:13.732+11:002015-03-31T15:33:13.732+11:00To follow on from my previous post, I've had t...To follow on from my previous post, I've had this discussion with a colleague who posited that it was <i>still</i> an issue of communication because it mattered <i>how</i> the science was communicated as much as the <i>what</i> of the science that was communicated. My response it that these are not the same thing, and that what it implies is that all scientists are all supposed to have majors in psychology as well in order to get maximal response to their work.<br /><br />But this is not what scientific communication is supposed to be about - this is the domain and purvue of a very separate industry - marketing and advertising.<br /><br />Sure, if you need marketeers to promote your work then have at it, but acknowledge in the process that what we're fighting for is not just a competition to maximise market share. There's an active campaign by vested interests to resist loss of their own profitability, and there's a resistance by people in general to making hard choices. And as I said in the previous post, simply explaining the science better isn't going to remove these obstacles to action.<br /><br />It's the reason why we have so much obesity and smoking and sexually-transmitted disease even when people <i>know</i> that it's bad for them...Bernard J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16299073166371273808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-45286133705007628572015-03-31T15:21:13.389+11:002015-03-31T15:21:13.389+11:00You know, I was thinking about the "scientist...You know, I was thinking about the "scientists are poor communicators" last week and I'm more convinced than ever that the actual problem is not with how scientists communicate the message. Instead I thnk that the problem is with how people - politicians, vested interests, the media and society in general - <i>receive</i> the message.<br /><br />We have no <i>extreme</i> difficulty in other areas of scientific endeavour beyond the hurdles of laiety <i>vs</i> expertise and tinfoil-hat nuttery that inevitably follows any subject. It's just that the magnitude of the message and the required responses in the case of human-caused climate change sends most people's minds scurrying into the dark burrows of denial, whether of the science or simply of the need to respond.<br /><br />I think what we need more than a better communication of the science is a managed response to the psychological phenomenon that arises when people are confronted by the science. The scientific communication stuff is front-of-shop stuff, but the current problems are all occurring in the political/psychological back rooms which are all guarded by "staff only" signs.<br /><br />If people follow the "if only the scientific message was better communicated" line and focus too much on that I reckon that we'll lose another 5 to 10 years. We don't all need to be post-docs in climatology to respond, just as we didn't all need to be immunologists to understand that vacination works. Bernard J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16299073166371273808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-77500190925129018262015-03-31T15:06:15.207+11:002015-03-31T15:06:15.207+11:00I think we are in complete agreement.
As an exam...I think we are in complete agreement. <br /><br />As an example of 'no conspiracy needed', it is quite apt.<br /><br />As an example of 'matching levels of science', very different. <br /><br />One is a simple, single dimensional issue which nonetheless took years to be fully accepted.<br /><br />The other is a multifaceted, highly interactive, chaotic system where there is apparently a majority consensus that it is reasonably well understood.markehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06387629308058823374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-80709055374527166262015-03-31T15:05:27.565+11:002015-03-31T15:05:27.565+11:00Marke.
1) The polar C=O bonds of CO2 have been we...Marke.<br /><br />1) The polar C=O bonds of CO2 have been well demonstrated to absorb and reradiate infrared radiation. This is the basis of thermal imaging technology as well has the fundamental phenomenon responsible for the greenhouse effect. The polarity of and the radiative properties associated with these carbon-oxygen bonds has been studied to death and there's never been any indication that there's another explanation for what is occurring.<br /><br />This is one phenomenon that needs to be accounted for when contradicting human-caused climate change.<br /><br />2) Humans are burning fossil carbon that was sequestered over hundreds of millions of years, and as a result they are increasing the atmospheric concentration of CO2. The increase in CO2 is demonstrated many times by isotopic sigature analysis, and by a stoichiometric relationship with the amount of burned carbon and a knowledge of the contemporary sequstration rates by natural sinks. It's also corroborated by the stoichiometric decrease in oxygen in the atmosphere.<br /><br />CO2 increase is another phenomenon that must be considered when challenging the scientific consensus. People who dispute that the increase of CO2 (and indeed other, <i>artifical</i> 'greenhouse' gases) have not been able to defensibly explain how this apparent non-increase occurs, nor have they been able to account for the evidence that it does occur.<br /><br />3) The effect of CO2 on the planet has been demonstrated and repeated tested by considering the paleoevidence. Oh, many people try to point at squirrels and claim that CO2 follows warming or that it doesn't have the warming effect that is indicated by the evidence, but again they have failed to produce anything defensible.<br /><br />Overall, the amount of work that looks at the 'greenhouse' effect is staggering, and it has been conducted by many, many independent groups and using many, many techniques independent of each other and that are considering different aspects of radiative physics. In all of this, the professional work <i>consistently</i> reinforces the consensus on the nature of this radiative physics, and nothing that claims to indicate the contrary has withstood any cursory scrutiny. There are the occasional quacks and very occasionally they even managed to get through the quality assurance of peer review and to be published, but nothing that claims to refute the paradigm has been able to be successfully defended.<br /><br />Had this amount of work been applied to the issue of gastric ulcers <i>Helicobacter</i> would probably have been implicated 50 years earlier than it otherwise was, and at the same time we'd probably have in use now antibiotics and gene therapies that are stil decades away.<br /><br />If your argument is about sensitivity then there is certainly a lot of discussion about the range that encompases the actual value, based in part on the fact that different interests define it in different ways, but even a range of 2-4.5 C is no cause for claiming that the understanding of the effect of warming is in any way significantly misplaced. All it means if it is lower rather than higher is that the time to serious damage to the planet is delayed by decades and to perhaps a century or two at the most (tinfoil hat) extreme, but unfortunately the most parsimonious understanding of the most defensible work on climate sensitivity to CO2 is that the ECS is in the vicinity of 3 C. Those arguing for an ECS of less than 2 C or even less than 1.5 C are shown to have problematic issues with their determinations, and pointing to this as a get-out-of-jail card for the "consensus is wrong" cannard is much more a case of wishful thinking than one of scientific conservatism and rationality.<br /><br />But there's one way to unravel my statements, and Sou's above - what your best evidence that the consensus is wrong? What is your best single paper that undermines the understanding of the whole discipline of climate science? We can start from there and see where it leads us...Bernard J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16299073166371273808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-77610849653466408562015-03-31T14:48:01.825+11:002015-03-31T14:48:01.825+11:00BTW - I don't blame Gary. The IPCC paragraph i...BTW - I don't blame Gary. The IPCC paragraph is awkwardly phrased and could be confusing to people. <br /><br />The first sentence with the "extremely likely" is probably to use their probability scale, but it only confused people. They see that before they read the "best estimate" sentence - and ignore the latter - or scratch their head.<br /><br />I'm pleased that the IPCC is going to make use of science communicators in future. I think at this stage it's only for the SPM. It would be good if they got expert writers editing the main reports, too.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-25819612664102787172015-03-31T14:43:06.558+11:002015-03-31T14:43:06.558+11:00Gary wrote:
-----------
Sou . . I find it "r...Gary <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/03/deconstructing-97-self-destructed.html?showComment=1427751949538#c7103198728724921697" rel="nofollow">wrote</a>:<br />-----------<br /><br />Sou . . I find it "really, really odd," that you can actually go from here: <br /><br /><i>"It is extremely likely that 'more than half' of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic"</i><br /><br />to here:<br /><br /><i>"In other words, the best estimate is that we've caused all the warming."</i><br /><br />Must be the 'new math,' where, 75%, 85% or even 99.1% is suddenly 100%.<br /><br />-------------<br /><br />I think this is what he was referring to, <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/01/what-never-occurred-to-judith-curry-and.html" rel="nofollow">from my link</a>. Part of it was actually a quote from Judith Curry who was quoting the IPCC. Here is the section he queried:<br /><br />-------------------<br />As most people who follow climate science would know, the IPCC attributes virtually all of the warming since 1950 to human causes. Judith quotes the following statement:<br /><br /><i>It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. <b>The best estimate of the human induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period.</b></i><br /><br />In other words, the best estimate is that we've caused all the warming.<br />----------------<br /><br />If the best estimate of the human induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period [1951 to 2010], that means that the best estimate is that we've caused all the warming over that period.<br /><br />As others have pointed out, it's likely to have caused more than all of it, offset by some aerosols and a less active sun.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-41622366711026481782015-03-31T14:04:56.067+11:002015-03-31T14:04:56.067+11:00marke, you are still comparing Bernard's apple...marke, you are still comparing Bernard's apples and coconuts. You are talking about one bacteria in one spot and the research of two scientists.<br /><br />You couldn't even use that as a comparison with soil microbes, let alone with the entire earth system. Maybe you could compare it with a plant pathogen on a single plant species - or variety.<br /><br />The role of CO2 as a greenhouse gas is well understood. The complexity of the impact of having a warmer world - well there's a lot still to be learnt there. How long will it take for the ice sheets to collapse? What will be the impact of losing or gaining massive bodies of water in different parts (earth tremors and such); how will storms and cyclones behave in the future (more, more intense? fewer but more intense?)<br /><br />This is one reason there are thousands (possibly hundreds of thousands) of people involved in one aspect or another in researching the earth systems - researchers, tech officers etc.<br /><br />If the role of CO2 was found wrong, then some of those people would have noticed by now.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-12063274747093382302015-03-31T13:41:20.581+11:002015-03-31T13:41:20.581+11:00Just a comment on Bernard J.March 30, 2015 at 4:15...Just a comment on Bernard J.March 30, 2015 at 4:15 PM<br /><br /><i>The human cause of global warming is a very different case to that of ulcers. <br /><br />The science has been meticulously tested and retested again and again by thousands of scientists for many decades, and all pretenders to usurping the consensus understanding have fallen at the first hurdle. </i><br /><br />I agree with your first point, but I am not sure it points me to the same conclusion.<br /><br />Gastric ulcers and the evidence associated with their causes are relatively simple science. Yet a couple of associated and correlated factors (and a rather entrenched and profiting practice/industry) were enough to confuse the issue for decades.<br /><br />I'd have thought climate may be the far more complicated issue in regard to monitoring, measuring and interactions between myriad factors, but we are now absolutely sure we have it (well, the role of CO2) fully understood?markehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06387629308058823374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-68267434579844101352015-03-31T13:28:56.463+11:002015-03-31T13:28:56.463+11:00Oh gawd, yet another pausist who's hell-bent o...Oh gawd, yet another pausist who's hell-bent on demonstrating to the world that he doesn't understand either statistics or physics.<br /><br />The "pause" is <i><b>not</b></i> a halting of warming/heat accumulation by the planet, it is simply a reflection of the <i>statistical description of the short-term variability</i> of heat distribution around the planet, a distribution that is largely independent of the 'greenhouse' effect. Technically there is <i><b>ALWAYS</b></i> a <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=11&p=5#89115" rel="nofollow">statistical "pause" for the preceeding decade and a half or so</a>, even when in reality there is no cessation at all in the warming and indeed even when there are new record global highs being set.<br /><br />Let me repeat my opening comment for clarity - anyone who says that there is no actual warming is simply displaying their ignorance of statistics and physics.<br /><br /><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2014/03/01/march-2014-open-thread/comment-page-3/#comment-176291" rel="nofollow">http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2014/03/01/march-2014-open-thread/comment-page-3/#comment-176291</a><br /><a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/01/maurice-newman-utter-nutter-science.html?showComment=1390053378689#c4323224175767811493" rel="nofollow">http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/01/maurice-newman-utter-nutter-science.html?showComment=1390053378689#c4323224175767811493</a>Bernard J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16299073166371273808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-63992030942711541222015-03-31T09:39:36.164+11:002015-03-31T09:39:36.164+11:00Gary - Clearly you didn't read my reply, or So...Gary - Clearly you didn't read my reply, or Sou's emphasis, or for that matter the IPCC reports or summaries. The center of the attribution PDF is 110% <i>(with cooling natural forcings)</i>, and there is according to the evidence less than a 5% chance of the anthropogenic influence being as low as 50% of the warming. Which is where the <i>"extremely likely"</i> term came from. <br /><br />Or perhaps you're not interested in listening?KRnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-40941870979106662152015-03-31T09:22:10.705+11:002015-03-31T09:22:10.705+11:00Gary H, did you know that paragraphs sometimes con...Gary H, did you know that paragraphs sometimes contain more than one sentence? Why did you excerpt the first sentence, and ignore the second sentence that Sou emphasized in bold italics?numerobisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-71031987287249216972015-03-31T08:45:49.538+11:002015-03-31T08:45:49.538+11:00Sou . . I find it "really, really odd,"...Sou . . I find it "really, really odd," that you can actually go from here: <br /><br />"It is extremely likely that 'more than half' of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic"<br /><br />to here:<br /><br />"In other words, the best estimate is that we've caused all the warming."<br /><br />Must be the 'new math,' where, 75%, 85% or even 99.1% is suddenly 100%. Gary Hnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-67101338889180705982015-03-31T05:25:58.119+11:002015-03-31T05:25:58.119+11:00Actually, Gary, you're wrong on both points.
...Actually, Gary, you're wrong on both points. <br /><br />Attribution studies indicate that we are indeed causing <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/97-v-3-how-much-global-warming-humans-causing.html" rel="nofollow">roughly 110% of recent warming</a> <i>(with natural forcings imposing a slight cooling summing to the 100% temperature change)</i>. And as Sou points out, despite short term variations in atmospheric temperatures the <a href="http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/" rel="nofollow">ocean heat content</a> <i>(representing ~93% of the climate thermal mass)</i> continues to rise, KRnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-60740158921441598282015-03-31T04:59:28.897+11:002015-03-31T04:59:28.897+11:00Yes, at least all of it, Gary. And yes, it's a...Yes, at least all of it, Gary. And yes, it's a long road we're traveling.<br /><br />http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/01/what-never-occurred-to-judith-curry-and.html<br /><br />If you don't think that the planet has been warming then p'raps you've not been keeping up.<br /><br />http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/08/whats-happened-to-global-warming-in.html#charts<br /><br />Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-53615879786266416122015-03-31T04:51:26.464+11:002015-03-31T04:51:26.464+11:00" There is no doubt that the current global w..." There is no doubt that the current global warming is caused by us. Richard himself doesn't doubt it."<br /><br />" . . the current warming?"<br /><br />1.) . . actually the current staying warm (not warming - not cooling)<br /><br />2.) Implying all of it? It's a long road from having a footprint on the global temperature - to, 'causing all of it.'<br />Gary Hnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-14481050098171548622015-03-30T21:10:09.362+11:002015-03-30T21:10:09.362+11:00"Surely PG shows (the retreat of Pielke Jnr f..."Surely PG shows (the retreat of Pielke Jnr from the climate discussion) a prime example of how any dissenting, correcting or querying debate on this topic is received."<br /><br />Not quite, Marke. I know of climate scientists who gladly keep out of the public debate because they know they will be attacked even more than they already are. The attacks on Phil Jones, for example, are amazing, considering that you will be hard pressed to find *any* statement from him in the media, especially before climategate. And yet he already was a target before this happened. <br /><br />We also all know the one scientist who had to sit through a whole congressional hearing about two of his papers. <br /><br />Let us also not forget that Pielke Jr received more and more pushbacks because of the way he was behaving. For example, I remember him not apologizing when he was thrown off an Editorial Board for not doing what he had promised to do when he accepted to become a member of that Editorial Board, and had suggested they threw him off because of a critical blog post he wrote. Or his repeated misrepresentations of Stefan Rahmstorf's responses to Pielke Jr's claims.<br /><br />In most other scientific fields people like Pielke Jr would have been largely ignored and not get any flak. It just isn't worth the effort in those other fields. Climate science (and some other fields, e.g. HIV/AIDS) are different, because the dissenters are darlings of a significant group of people in power.Marconoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-53904567287572300652015-03-30T16:40:55.357+11:002015-03-30T16:40:55.357+11:00This comment has been removed by the author.PGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10807913317731807617noreply@blogger.com