The title of this post is actually the title of a post I want to point you to. It is HERE.

The post is the outcome of a bit of a competition a couple of us have going to make an effective meme (in this case, the girl with the thermometer in her hair) to underscore the fact that “global warming” is different than “surface warming” (or at least, that’s how I’d put it). The former includes the oceans, sea surface, air, ice. The latter includes all that but not the deeper oceans. Since the VAST majority of the excess heat building up because of AGW is in the deeper oceans (below the SST), this should not be forgotten. But it also is. Anyway, so far this is the winning meme. I admit defeat. Temporarily.

Comments

  1. #1 Kevin
    April 7, 2014

    If the atmospheric temperature were not important, then why did all the IPCC warnings start with, in 2100, the atmospheric surface temperature will be…

  2. #2 Ryan
    April 7, 2014

    Because we live there, Kevin.

  3. #3 CelloMom
    April 7, 2014

    “Defeat”? Whoa: I didn’t know about any competition? Anyway, it was your post on the dog versus the tail that got me thinking about this in the first place: love that one. (For those who have forgotten this cool post, it’s here: http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2013/06/19/the-earth-is-the-dog-atmospheric-temperature-is-the-tail/).
    Anyway, thanks for featuring my post!

  4. #4 catweazle666
    April 7, 2014

    Funny how you lot only started rabbiting about the energy being stored in the deep oceans (with, I note, no explanation of how it got there, or why is suddenly decided to go there instead of warming the surface) after the surface had stopped warming, isn’t it?

    Do you ever wonder why public opinion is turning against CAGW?

  5. #5 Greg Laden
    April 7, 2014

    catweazle, is it possible for you to demonstrate what you just said to be in any way at al true? Because not one thing you just said is.

  6. #6 cosmicomics
    Denmark
    April 8, 2014

    “Funny how you [sic] lot only started rabbiting about the energy being stored in the deep oceans (with, I note, no explanation of how it got there, or why is [sic] suddenly decided to go there instead of warming the surface) after the surface had stopped warming, isn’t it?”

    Funny how climate septics repeatedly demonstrate that they know nothing of climate research or the scientific process. Funny how their definitive assertions repeatedly display their ignorance.

    “The scientists calculated that warming of the ocean below about 700 m now accounts for about 30 per cent of the total heat entering the oceans. The new paper also suggests a reason why more heat is being transported out of the surface ocean. Trenberth tells us:
    “The cause of the change is the change in winds, especially in the Pacific Ocean where the subtropical trade winds have become noticeably stronger, thereby increasing the subtropical overturning in the ocean and providing a mechanism for heat to be carried down into the ocean.”
    http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/03/worlds-oceans-are-getting-warmer-faster

    “Here we show that a pronounced strengthening in Pacific trade winds over the past two decades—unprecedented in observations/reanalysis data and not captured by climate models—is sufficient to account for the cooling of the tropical Pacific and a substantial slowdown in surface warming through increased subsurface ocean heat uptake. The extra uptake has come about through increased subduction in the Pacific shallow overturning cells, enhancing heat convergence in the equatorial thermocline. At the same time, the accelerated trade winds have increased equatorial upwelling in the central and eastern Pacific, lowering sea surface temperature there, which drives further cooling in other regions. The net effect of these anomalous winds is a cooling in the 2012 global average surface air temperature of 0.1–0.2 °C, which can account for much of the hiatus in surface warming observed since 2001. This hiatus could persist for much of the present decade if the trade wind trends continue, however rapid warming is expected to resume once the anomalous wind trends abate.”
    http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n3/full/nclimate2106.html

    While it may be warranted to speak of a slowdown in surface warming, there is no indication that the warming has stopped:
    http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~kdc3/papers/coverage2013/background.html#previous
    http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/11/not-so-slow-%E2%80%9Cslowdown %E2%80%9D-new-paper-says-warming-in-last-17-years-may-be-double-what-scientists- thought/
    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/01/30/global-temperature-the-post-1998-surprise/

    As of yet I have never seen a septic attempt to reconcile the fact that 13 of the 14 warmest years have occurred since 2000 or the decadal warming trend – 80s warmer than 70s etc. – with the cherry picked no warming nonsense.

    Finally, it bears repeating that surface temperatures are only a part of the climate system and that all other parts show clear signs of continued warming. Had it only been a question of natural variability, we would have seen cooling.

    “It has — quite rightly — been pointed out that surface air temperature (SAT) isn’t all there is to global climate or global warming. Since 1998 we’ve witness [sic] sizeable warming of the oceans, including the deep ocean. We’ve seen a staggering decline of Arctic sea ice and the continued dwindling of most of the world’s glaciers. Sea level has continued to rise at a rate much faster than the 20th-century average (which itself was much higher than the average over the last several thousand years). It has been emphasized that a lack of “statistically significant” warming is not the same as a lack of warming. It has also been pointed out that the “pause” in SAT is not inconsistent with climate model simulations, that in fact climate models show episodes like we’ve observed “since 1998′′ even in a still-warming world. And it has been shown (as climate scientists knew all along) that greenhouse gases aren’t the only factor influencing temperature, that “since 1998′′ we’ve seen the most prominent known non-greenhouse factors (el Nino southern oscillation, volcanic aerosols, and solar variations) conspire to lower global temperature. It’s obvious to those whose eyes are open that without continued greenhouse-gas warming to offset these natural factors, we would have seen a notable decline in global temperature “since 1998.”

  7. #7 catweazle666
    April 9, 2014

    So, lots of flannel, no definitive reason as to the true cause of the “pause”. Offhand, I can think of around 10 theories, from Cowtan and Way through Trenberth to Mann, none of which are remotely convincing and most of which depend on computer games – sorry – climate models.

    Meanwhile, you still have no answer to my question: “Do you ever wonder why public opinion is turning against CAGW?” I note, and the exploitation of our recently discovered new fossil fuel reserves continues unabated, so it seems that no-one of any consequence shares your alarmism.

  8. #8 Greg Laden
    April 9, 2014

    It’s great to have these messages from someone living on a different planet! Someone should call SETI and let them know about catweazle666.

  9. #9 catweazle666
    April 10, 2014

    Still no answer…

  10. #10 dean
    April 10, 2014

    “Do you ever wonder why public opinion is turning against CAGW?”

    Because lies like yours are easier to fit into a sound bite than scientific explanations.

  11. #11 catweazle666
    April 10, 2014

    I suppose you appreciate that no-one of any consequence takes you seriously any more?

    Around 1,200 new coal fired power stations planned or already under construction, including around 20 in Germany – mostly lignite burners too, the dirtiest sort.

    In the UK, a £1 billion scheme to carry out in-situ gasification of North Sea coal reserves estimated in the trillions of tons is slated to commence this autumn.

    Ever-increasing international interest in shale gas and oil extraction, particularly in China.

    Successful methane hydrate – more there than all the rest of the fossil fuels put together, perhaps by an order of magnitude – extraction pilot off Japan.

    To name but a few of the burgeoning schemes to exploit the massive amount of fossil fuels that modern extraction technology has made available for our use and enjoyment.

    Do you think you’re going to turn the tide against that little lot?

    Are you hoping that the ever-increasing population of Africa, India and China are going to forgo the advantages that we in the developed West take for granted? Are you going to tell those billions of people that they can’t have electric light, air conditioning, cars, flat screen TVs, etc. etc. etc.?

    Good luck with that!

  12. #12 cosmicomics
    Denmark
    April 10, 2014

    “Do you ever wonder why public opinion is turning against CAGW?”

    1. The question is irrelevant and has no bearing on the validity of climate science.
    2. The premise for the (irrelevant) question is undocumented and in all probability confuses American opinion with global opinion.

    Beyond that you seem not to understand that finite resources are not without limits, that resources are not the same as reserves, and that the new wells have decline rates that are far, far steeper than those of traditional wells, so that the flow of energy cannot be maintained without more and more wells extracting energy from poorer and poorer sites. Your celebration of fossil fuels also, predictably, ignores externalities.

    The only thing you have to offer is the smart-ass ignorance that oozes from septic blogs.

  13. #13 Jim Shulmister
    United States
    January 11, 2015

    The problem with the theory of global warming is it’s advocates and it’s every changing hypothesis. If there actually is global warming, then why don’t your predictions come true? The disappearing ice, the lack of snow, the rising oceans, the WARM weather……..nothing you say seems to happen. It’s comical to see advocates of the theories arrange a massive protest only to be shut down by cold weather. Why is it always the coldest day of the year when you protest? I think it makes people believe in god more that global warming. Then on top of all that, you always find another reason for why it didn’t happen and why non believers are still wrong, and now you still change your process with this article “your measuring the temp in the hair, not the butt”. The thing you didn’t mention is that “the scientists” are the ones taking the measurements not the skeptics so again you are saying “don’t listen to me then, listen to me now” and you raise your soapbox and shout to the backs of the shrinking crowd for more attention, but your credibility is shot. You have no one to blame but yourselves. I am not a scientist, but I listen to what you say and I went from being alarmed to being amused and it was because of your inconsistent facts and ever changing theories not because of any skeptics speeches.You had my attention and you lost it just like you are losing a majority of the world. Fool me once shame on you, fool me hundreds of times………you have shown me and educated me, don’t blame me for understanding where the fishy smell is coming from.

  14. #14 Greg Laden
    January 11, 2015

    jim, 4% of the Earth is colder than usual this month. You happen to live there. Do you think the people cooking in Australia right now give a koala about your chillblain right now?

  15. #15 Jim Shulmister
    United States
    January 11, 2015

    Greg, I don’t see your point. Is there one?

  16. #16 Greg Laden
    January 11, 2015

    Yes, I know that yo don’t see the point. If you like, you can take that as the point. Saves time.

  17. #17 Jim Shulmister
    United States
    January 11, 2015

    Yes, as smug as you feel now, why don’t you save your comments for someone on the same arrogance level, but then you won’t feel as smart?

  18. #18 Greg Laden
    January 11, 2015

    Jim, did you have a point, perhaps that I missed, that wasn’t obviated by you being totally wrong on the science?

  19. #19 Brainstorms
    January 11, 2015

    Jimbo,

    “The problem with the theory of global warming is it’s advocates and it’s every changing hypothesis.” In reality, the scientists researching climate change have been rather consistent in their results & conclusions; it has been the deniers and detractors who have been frequently changing their tactics as each one is defeated by the truth revealed through diligent research. This makes it a “problem with the theories of the deniers”.

    “If there actually is global warming, then why don’t your predictions come true? The disappearing ice, the lack of snow, the rising oceans, the WARM weather…nothing you say seems to happen.” In reality, there exists massive amounts of documentation of the reality of disappearing ice, lack of snow, rising oceans, and warming climates — everything the climate scientists have warned us about is happening and has been happening.

    “It’s comical to see advocates of the theories arrange a massive protest only to be shut down by cold weather. Why is it always the coldest day of the year when you protest?” In reality, those who have been doing so during warm weather are rolling their eyes at this ridiculous claim; it’s ‘comical’, really.

    “I think it makes people believe in god more that global warming. Then on top of all that, you always find another reason for why it didn’t happen and why non believers are still wrong, and now you still change your process with this article “your measuring the temp in the hair, not the butt”.” In reality, scientists don’t need another reason for why something didn’t happen if it has already happened and been documented as happening; climate/science deniers, however, are constantly searching for reasons to deny these documented happenings — as though they believe in their denial more than God.

    “The thing you didn’t mention is that “the scientists” are the ones taking the measurements not the skeptics”. In reality, no one is better qualified to take measurements than scientists, and many of them are skeptics seeking the truth; climate/science deniers, however, are not seeking truth, but pushing their version of “how they want it to be”. (Clue: Reality doesn’t care how you want it to be.)

    “so again you are saying “don’t listen to me then, listen to me now” and you raise your soapbox and shout to the backs of the shrinking crowd for more attention, but your credibility is shot. You have no one to blame but yourselves.” In reality, the climate/science deniers are increasingly frustrated by losing their credibility as the science, data, and documentation of the reality of climate change only keeps building and demolishing their arguments — as they find it more & more difficult to convince anyone of their position. ‘They have no one to blame but themselves.’

    “I am not a scientist, but I listen to what you say and I went from being alarmed to being amused and it was because of your inconsistent facts and ever changing theories not because of any skeptics speeches.” In reality, the facts that have been determined by science are consistent, have provided theories that strengthen over time, and do paint an alarming picture of the future of this planet — if nothing is done to mitigate it.

    “You had my attention and you lost it just like you are losing a majority of the world.” In reality, more & more people are becoming aware of AGW and its consequences — and demanding political changes and policies to address the issue.

    “Fool me once shame on you, fool me hundreds of times…you have shown me and educated me, don’t blame me for understanding where the fishy smell is coming from.” And if you have been educated, then why do you spew forth so many falsehoods and empty accusations???

    Little wonder, Jim, that Greg doesn’t want to waste any words on your diatribe…

  20. #20 Jim Shulmister
    United States
    January 11, 2015

    Brainstorms, although I disagree with you I appreciate your response and even your jab at the end. As I said I am not a scientist, but I do not have to be. I have paid attention to the claims and watched them evaporate and although you point to inaccuracy’s in my quotes, I am sure enough about them that I can say for certain that you are wrong.
    I moved into a neighborhood several years ago and the neighbor on the left says ” the lady across the street is a bitch” and a few days later the lady across the street says “that guy to the left of you is an asshole” and I told my wife not to listen because time will tell who is right. I listened to the global warming stuff for a while and it looks like those people are the Bitch 8)

  21. #21 Jim Shulmister
    United States
    January 11, 2015

    Greg, of course I was wrong on the science, otherwise that would make you not look so good. I’m sorry. Maybe you should make a blog on how to eat crow?

  22. #22 Brainstorms
    January 11, 2015

    Jim, people who are uncertain, and who are honestly looking for (correct) answers, should get a response — preferably one without jabs. (I really wasn’t trying to jab, only to get you to see that it’s a lot of work to pick through this kind of stuff point-by-point.)

    I *am* a scientist, and I have been paying attention to both the claims (on the part of the denier crowd) as well as the research and the interpretations of the results (on the part of the climate science community). This includes, at times, reading technical and somewhat esoteric stuff that would confuse/bore most folks.

    I have seem many claims by those who don’t want AGW to be true “evaporate” when subjected to objective evidence, measurement data, historical records, and the studied conclusions from those who have spent their careers learning all the ins & outs of climate and are qualified to be called “experts in the field”.

    Similarly, I have not seen these experts’ results and conclusions “evaporate” — in fact, I’ve not seem them presented as “claims”, but as explanations for the evidence that has been collected over the years — usually after careful analysis and modeling. (The closest to a “claim” might be a climate model and what it implies, but that’s probably stretching things a bit.) Rather than see those results be shown to be inaccurate, I’ve watched as they are instead refined with additional evidence gathered, their models critiqued & improved, and other scientists & sciences cross-correlate and support these conclusions.

    I, personally, really don’t want AGW to be true. I really don’t, because it will be costly for everyone — in terms of lives, finances, ways of life, etc. More than just inconvenient or disruptive — the consequences of unmitigated climate change of this scale will cost lives & fortunes… I really don’t want this to be true. But “how it really is” does not care about how I feel about it. And “how I feel about it” can not change what it is, nor will it enable me to “get different results” if I’m gathering evidence objectively.

    But like your neighbor situation, what can I look to with assurance to know what’s so and what’s not? This is where science (and scientists, as a collective) play an important role for all of us, skeptics, deniers, and those who take it on faith that AGW is real. Science gives humanity knowledge and understanding about the physical world we live in — good news or bad news, for “it is what it is”. Science’s agenda is to learn what that is. (Engineering’s agenda is to leverage that, as possible & practical, to achieve things we may want within its limitations.)

    The body of scientific knowledge, the disciplines & expertise, data gathering, records, and the methodologies all combine to provide the most objective and most certain view of things that we (humanity) can hope to know. Methodologies, reporting, and cross-checks have been implemented and refined over the ages to ensure that human ambition and bias does not pollute or derail this objective: It only takes one scientist to note that “the Emperor has no clothes!” to bring any such deceptions crashing down.

    “Reality” is dispassionate, and the measurements (when not faked or intentionally biased) are equally so, if not without a degree of uncertainty (which magnitude can usually be accurately estimated). Scientists take it as a way of life (if you will) to accept what the data tells us, whether “good” (desired) or “bad” (undesirable).

    There can be no slanting of science and what it tells us, because anything “claimed” as an outcome will be subject to scrutiny and required to be reproducible — by other, outside groups who often do not share the politics, agendas, goals of the original researcher, nor would be subject to the same consequences of the outcomes one way or another.

    That’s the nature of the objectivity of the scientific method to acquire knowledge: It matters not what your intent, your goals, your politics, or your bias may be; Nature will not change itself to conform to your views, and other scientists are free to follow your stated procedures to reach the same ends — ends that will only be in agreement if they are in fact representative of reality.

    In your scenario, each side is voicing an opinion of their neighbor. But science is not a collection of opinions; it’s a collection of verified facts and strongly supported theories (to provide explanations & predictions where the full facts are incompletely known). For the most part, it removes the “human element” and what people think and feel about the “way things are”.

    Judgment is not arbitrary in science; it must be substantiated and validated, and the ways in which this is done allow those who are “disinterested parties” to re-run experiments, re-analyze data, and reproduce the same results — because those results are “reality” and reality remains consistent (even when we understand it only incompletely). It’s the only thing that everyone can come to agreement on, because each “wrong” will go a different direction (and give themselves away), while only a shared “right” will align and align repeatedly regardless of the person/group voicing the conclusions.

    One can maintain the same opinion about something even when presented with differing and even contradictory experiences, but one cannot persuade the scientific community to maintain a view about a science issue when further evidence/inspection reveals contradiction. That results in changes, whether it be for that one group to withdraw their “claims” or the modification of existing hypotheses and adjustment of theories — and then only after thorough and convincing study and consensus.

    Such changes indicate progress towards greater understanding, not the lack thereof, and should inspire confidence, not confusion. Only truth, only reality possesses this quality that anyone/everyone can, if searching honestly and dispassionately, arrive at the same results and conclusions (given sufficient technology and experience in the field).

    So it’s of little wonder that 97% of those who study climate science are in consensus that AGW is real and is serious. That’s not one person’s word against another’s. That’s 97 to 3. In a court of law deciding a civil case in this country, only 10 out of 12 are needed for a conviction. AGW currently has 11-1/2 out of 12 voting in favor of “AGW is real”. That’s enough for me to say “they’re correct”.

  23. #23 Tim
    January 13, 2015

    97 to 3

    And 4 out of 5 dentists agree…

    argumentum ad populum.

    The legal system is often skewed to what is politically expediant; Evidence is often withheld and especially exculpatory evidence if it happens to run counter to government assertions… It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.

    And then there is the ‘sentencing’ and judging of the facts/law itself — Who would dare argue that life imprisonment/stigmatization/ for smoking a joint is just? Who would dare argue that strangling the 3’rd world and murdering its’ peoples with carbon restrictions and decreed new land use because of a predicted few cm of sea level rise and the sins-o-the-west are wrong.

    Juries are usually instructed how to judge and those who raise the former 1’st tenant of *jury nullification* often soon find themselves afowl of the ‘law’ themselves.

    Who really wants to be judged by twelve of their peers too unimaginative to excuse themselves from that farcical, vestigial remenant/remnant ghost of a ‘duty’ anyway?

  24. #24 Brainstorms
    January 13, 2015

    “Argumentum ad doctum”.

    There, fixed that for you. And thank you for (excessively) pointing out the contrast between science and law.

    In the science world, experiment results and laws (“Truth”) are what Nature chooses them to be — and we can only but learn what they are and report them. Mis-reporting is scandalized and weeded out.

    In the legal world, laws & trial results (“truth”) are what we choose them to be — as with climate/science deniers & “sceptics”. Mis-reporting for them is woven in to enhance scandalizing.

  25. #25 Greg Laden
    January 13, 2015

    Don’t forget to divide (US) law into criminal and civil before making the comparison. It actually becomes instructive.

    The preponderance of evidence does not win in a criminal court, but it does in science and civil court.

    But in science, the appeal process is built in, automatic, continuous, and really, the whole ball game.

  26. #26 Brainstorms
    January 13, 2015

    Also, in law, the goal & motivation are to *win* your case, not to “see that justice is served”. (That’s the intended side-effect that the adversarial system in the U.S. was designed to result in, given the imperfections of humanity.)

    In science, the goal & motivation are to *know* in your field, not to “see that your views are adhered to”. (That’s the conceptual hole that the denierologists have taken a pratfall into.)

    If we don’t allow our scientists to communicate what they learn without obstruction, then we all will *lose*, and “consequences will be served”. Cold, like Nature’s Revenge.

  27. #27 Tim
    January 13, 2015

    Good points. But, with the current illusion of ‘law’, the idea of deodand, or cursed object, is routinely abused with asset forfeiture to generate revenue — I must wonder if *science* has truely liberated itself so far away from the dark ages or if there is not some analog to ‘heresy’ and excommunication or where State control of majority funding and media outlets is not a little akin to ‘bumping off the witnesses’.

  28. #28 Brainstorms
    January 13, 2015

    Tim, The problem with your scenario is that such political control doesn’t transfer across national boundaries very well. What might get covered up in, say, Russia, would get exposed in, say, the U.S.

    Other “disinterested” parties in any other country would only need to “try it and see” and confirm the honest party and heap more bad press upon the heads of the guilty party. [Political pun being what it is.]

    That’s the thing about science & its search for truth. It would not be possible to compare a disparate collection of lies on a subject and have them all agree with each other. The only way agreement can be consistently found is when it’s based on truth & reality.

    Science is the labor of converging upon that truth, which is why the “collection of experts” all over the world are able to contribute, even when they don’t collaborate with each other directly. (It’s the falsifiers & deniers who need to collaborate to get their stories to agree, not the truth-seekers.)

    There are too many “witnesses” gathering evidence of Nature’s Truths to be able to bump off enough to sustain a scam. Which is why the denier’s actions are so laughable. If they weren’t so obstructive/destructive.

  29. #29 Tim
    January 13, 2015

    “disinterested” parties in any other country

    And what if the one ‘country’ is the United Nations and the only other ‘disinterested’ party is North Korea? Whole lotta swappin’ honest data going on there, hu?

    To further cultivate my cannabis example, I don’t believe the UN assistant secretary general back in 1961** ever made provision for any deferment or forbearance for ‘medical use’ in his penned down Single Convention Treaty. Though the media sometimes prevaricates that the Big Country recognizes a difference in recreational and medicinal use, to the best of my knowledge no such language existed nor has it been ammended — It is an absolute decree that is expected to be adhered to by all the individual members (Big Citizens) regardless of the science or local conditions.

    Surely, there is antropogenic change going on but the ‘cure’ should not be worse than the disease(?); I’ve heard it said that it is not the 20 cm in 200 years people should fret about over the 20 ft in 20 seconds that is inherent to certain fits of natural variability. Global warming, AGW, abrupt climate change, or Global Governance. Indeed.

    For all the evils we hear of NK, I note that they don’t seem to have any restriction of any kind on cannabis cultivation or its’ use (at least, ‘officially'; I’m sure Dear Leader would have someone disemboweled should his crop become inadvertantly cross-pollinated). I’m not really sure of the stance on AGW there but, then again, I’m pretty sure they don’t give a rat’s red ass because they are not a member of the UN.

    **Interestingly, Ernest ‘Fritz’ Hollings (D. South Carolina) once remarked that “in 1961, the single most important factor toward US national security was deemed to be textiles” {or words to that effect}. Coincidence? I think not.

  30. #30 Tim
    January 14, 2015

    errata: I seem confused about the language in the 1961 convention (who wouldn’t be with that convoluted mess?) and equally confused over its authorship:

    At the U.S.’s insistence, cannabis was placed under the strictest control regime in the Convention: Schedule IV**. This regime included drugs such as heroin, for which any medical use was considered “obsolete” by the WHO. … The WHO later found that cannabis could have medical applications after all, but the structure was already in place and no international action has since been taken to alter this anomaly.

    http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/371/ille/library/history-e.htm#A.%20Single%20Convention%20on%20Narcotic%20Drugs,%201961

    I had for some reason thought that George HW Bush was the Assistant to the Secretary then. Rather, Poppy Bush was the ambassador to the UN under Nixon when, in 1971 there were provisions made for government labs and drug companies while strengthening penalties on home gardeners otherwise.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush#Ambassador_to_the_United_Nations

    Oh noes! drugs are a commie assault on our foundations (nifty flamethrowers…carbon neutral?):
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iI2e0LF6nf0

    ** “the most stringent schedule in the Single Convention is Schedule IV, which is equivalent to Schedule I in the Psychotropics Convention.”

  31. #31 Brainstorms
    January 15, 2015

    “I seem confused …” “… my cannabis …”

    ’nuff said, Tim. We understand.

Current ye@r *