Obsolete Climate Science on CO2

 

The incoming Trump administration has promised dramatic transformations on many vital domestic issues. The best gauge of this development is the fierce level of opposition his policies have generated from Democratic stalwarts. One representative screed is a New York Times Op-Ed by Professors Michael Greenstone and Cass Sunstein, who lecture the incoming president on climate change: “Donald Trump Should Know: This is What Climate Change Costs Us.”

Greenstone and Sunstein have a large stake in the game: During their years in the first Obama administration, they convened an interagency working group (IWG) drawn from various federal agencies that determined that the social cost of carbon (SCC)—or the marginal cost of the release of a ton of carbon into the atmosphere—should be estimated at about $36 per ton (as of 2015). Choose that number and there is much justification for taking major policy steps to curb the emission of carbon dioxide. Greenstone and Sunstein hoped that the working group process would draw on the “latest research in science and economics,” and establish the claimed costs by “accounting for the destruction of property from storms and floods, declining agricultural and labor productivity, elevated mortality rates and more.”

Their effort should be dismissed as a rousing failure, and as an affront to the scientific method that they purport to adopt in their studies. The first error is one of approach. The worst way to get a full exchange of views on the complex matter of global warming is to pack the IWG entirely with members from the Obama administration, all surely preselected in part because they share the president’s exaggerated concerns with the problem of global warming. The only way to get a full and accurate picture of the situation is to listen to dissenters on global warming as well as advocates, which was never done. After all, who should listen to a “denier”?

This dismissive attitude is fatal to independent inquiry. No matter how many times the president claims the science is rock-solid, the wealth of recent evidence gives rise to a very different picture that undercuts the inordinate pessimism about climate change that was in vogue about 10 years ago. The group convened in the Obama administration never examined, let alone refuted, the accumulation of evidence on the other side. Indeed, virtually all of its reports are remarkable for the refusal to address any of the data at all. Instead, the common theme is to refer to models developed by others as the solid foundation for the group’s own work, without questioning a word of what those models say.

The second major mistake in the government studies is the way in which they frame the social costs of carbon. As all champions of cost/benefit analysis understand, it is a mistake to look at costs in isolation from benefits, or benefits apart from costs. Yet that appears to be the approach taken in these reports. In dealing with various objections to its reports, the IWG noted in its July 2015 response that “some commenters felt that the SCC estimates should include the value to society of the goods and services whose production is associated with CO2 emissions.” Their evasive response has to be quoted in full to be believed: “Rigorous evaluation of benefits and costs is a core tenet of the rulemaking process. The IWG agrees that these are important issues that may be relevant to assessing the impacts of policies that reduce CO2 emissions. However, these issues are not relevant to the SCC itself. The SCC is an estimate of the net economic damages resulting from CO2 emissions, and therefore is used to estimate the benefit of reducing those emissions.”

In essence, the benefits from present or future CO2 emissions are not part of the story. Yet a truly neutral account of the problem must be prepared to come to the conclusion that increased levels of CO2 emissions could be, as the Carbon Dioxide Coalition has argued, a net benefit to society when a more comprehensive investigation is made. The entire process of expanding EPA regulations and other Obama administration actions feeds off this incorrect base assumption. The most striking admission of the folly of the entire EPA project comes from EPA Chief Gina McCarthy, who has stated that she would regard a decrease of one one-hundredth of a degree as enormously beneficial, notwithstanding its major cost, because its symbolism would “trigger global action.” No cost/benefit analysis would justify wasted expenditures solely on symbolic grounds. After all, human progress on global warming will only suffer if other nations follow our false siren on CO2 emissions, while ignoring the huge pollution that envelops major population centers like Delhi and Beijing.

Unfortunately, support for regulating CO2 emissions relies unduly on a Regulatory Impact Analysis that is worth no more than the faulty assumptions built into the model. These include the EPA’s hugely complicated Clean Power Plan, temporarily enjoined by the United States Supreme Court, that relies once again on the flawed social costs of carbon estimates.

The weakness of the EPA approach is shown by the data that Greenstone and Sunstein cite to support the contention that global warming has reached dangerous levels. They refer, for example, to a Geophysical Research Letter of 2014 that notes the retreat of ice in the West Antarctic between 1992 and 2011. But that one finding has to be set in context, as is done in the 2016 State of the Climate Report  prepared by the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) and sent to the U.N. Climate Conference in Morocco. This more complete account notes that the mass gain in East Antarctica has been at 200 billion tons per year on average, compared to the 65 billion tons, which was offset by substantial gains in ice in West Antarctica, generating a net gain of roughly 82 billion tons per year in Antarctic ice between 2003 and 2008. The upshot: “The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away.” Overall, the temperature over the Antarctic has been constant for the past 35 years.

No analysis that looks at the minuses can afford to ignore the larger pluses and maintain its credibility. Indeed, for what it is worth, the CFACT report notes that the ice mass in the Arctic is now about 22 percent greater than it was at its low point in 2012. This fact helps explain why there has been no recent change in the rise of sea levels, and certainly none that can be attributed to the relatively modest level of temperature increases in the past 100 years. Recent trends suggest the rate of increase in ocean levels has been decelerating over the last 18 years, during which time there has been a substantial increase in carbon dioxide levels. Yet the 102 different models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are all high in their estimates, by roughly four-fold. As documented in the 2016 CFACT report, there has been substantially no change in overall global temperature over the past 18 years, and the record highs reported are by tiny fractions of degrees that are smaller than the margin of measurement error. Yet the government’s methodology is to look at the models and ignore the data.

Just that was done by the now anachronistic 2009 EPA Endangerment Findings for Greenhouse Gases, which reported on the overall shrinkage of Arctic ice and claimed that the “elevated CO2 levels” were expected to result “in small beneficial effect[s] on crop yields.” The good news on this point seems to be that the increase in CO2 has led to about a 14 percent increase in green vegetation on earth over the past 30 years, as Matt Ridley reported in a 2016 lecture. It is the best of all possible CO2 worlds if the level of arable land increases with minor temperature changes and there are no appreciable changes in ocean levels. Put these numbers together and a revision of the SCC must be made, as it now appears that the net costs of carbon are negative. Further, the revised projections have only strengthened the lower estimates of global warming from elevated CO2 levels.

This basic conclusion is reinforced by other data, easily accessible, that addresses other concerns raised in the Greenstone and Sunstein article. For starters, there has been no recent increase in the level of storms and floods, or the damage that is said to result from them. To the contrary, the trend line has been unambiguously favorable, as the number of extreme events like floods and storms has declined steadily over the past 100 years. Indeed, the last major event in the United States was Hurricane Katrina in 2005, followed by eleven years of relative tranquility in the United States and around the world. This point is critical because one of the constant claims on global climate change is that the system-wide instability has increased these extreme events, even if overall temperature levels have remained constant.

The overall picture with respect to the SCC, then, is the exact opposite of that described by Greenstone and Sunstein, and that change in direction has a serious effect on the success of various legal challenges. Greenstone and Sunstein note that a legal decision in 2008 held that ignoring the SCC makes an administrative rule “arbitrary and capricious” and thus requires its reformulation by the applicable agency. They also reference another 2016 decision that upheld an administrative decision of the Department of Energy that explicitly took into account the SCC. But these judicial decisions have a surreal aura about them. The key statute for these cases was the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), which was passed in the aftermath of the 1973 Mideast Oil Embargo that followed in the wake of the 1973 Yom Kippur War. The EPCA’s chief finding was that “the fundamental reality is that this nation has entered a new era in which energy resources previously abundant will remain in short supply, retarding our economic growth and necessitating an alteration in our life’s habits and expectations.”

It was on the strength of this 41-year-old statute that the Court in 2008 required the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to reissue its rules for the average fuel economy standards for light trucks because they failed to take into account the SCC. The ruling is wholly anachronistic today because the revolution in energy technology has obviated the entire factual premise on which the so-called CAFE (corporate average fuel economy) rules rest. Given fracking, energy is abundant. Thus, the SCC has to be reevaluated in light of evidence collected outside the EPA, and summarized above, none of which was taken into account when working within the closed universe of the current set of environmental and energy laws. At this time, it appears that virtually all the EPA rules rest on outdated science.

Greenstone and Sunstein are not alone in their refusal to deal with evidence that undermines their claims. But if the SCC looks to be negative, the Trump administration should act to eliminate the current endangerment finding for carbon dioxide, and dismantle the regulatory apparatus that rests upon its highly questionable estimation of the positive value of SCC. The sorry truth is that the EPA and the regulatory process in the Obama administration show no respect for the scientific method they claim to rely on.

© 2016 by the Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University

Published in Environment, Law
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 25 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Trinity Waters Member
    Trinity Waters
    @

    Fasten your seatbelt securely, professor!  I’ll bet Trump’s already cognizant of your theme, so well presented here.  He’s going to take fast action on junk-science related issues like this.  Trump will move with blinding speed on issues that only require his pen.  The legislative initiatives he has in mind will move more slowly, but with his leadership, especially early on, I’ll bet a lot of good will be accomplished.

    Thanks for another well presented summary on a convoluted issue.

    • #1
  2. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Richard Epstein: The most striking admission of the folly of the entire EPA project comes from EPA Chief Gina McCarthy, who has stated that she would regard a decrease of one one-hundredth of a degree as enormously beneficial, notwithstanding its major cost, because its symbolism would “trigger global action.”

    Similarly, I would regard the cutting off of welfare for Big Bird as enormously beneficial, despite the meager savings, because its symbolism would trigger national (and maybe even global) action in getting government budgets in order.  And the countervailing downside?  None that I’m aware of.

    • #2
  3. James Gawron Inactive
    James Gawron
    @JamesGawron

    Richard,

    Nothing could be more devastating to the poor and the lower middle-class than a bad environmental law. High taxes, although damaging in many ways, are nothing in comparison. With a tax, the GNP still exists and spent less wisely than it would have been is at least still spent. A bad environmental law just takes GNP off the top and destroys it. A bad environmental law inflates the cost of the most basic commodities, energy, transportation, food..etc. The poor or lower middle-class person spends the vast majority of their income on these commodities. This brutally destroys real income at the low end of the scale. Then from the point of view of the job creation that would increase salaries the bad environmental law again severely damages the availability of high paying jobs. People at the low end are economically double damned.

    In the late 70s, I was selling instruments. At the time my company was a multi-state manufacturers rep for the leading company in the world for EPA certified monitors. I sold a large monitoring system to the largest industrial corporation in the world. In that system was a CO/CO2 parts per billion analyzer and the data logging capability to record real-time data for the year-long environmental “audit” required by EPA before you could build a plant. I thought to myself that once the data comes in “cooler heads would prevail.” Cooler heads never prevailed. From the very beginning, all data that contradicted the Greenhouse Gas dogma was ignored or spun. You can’t fight dogma with science. They will destroy the science or lie about it. Environmental ideologues are like a band of intellectual bandits. They aren’t interested in what is true or what will help the little guy. They want their way and that’s all.

    It always reminds me of a scene from Treasure of Sierra Madre. Instead of badges, we keep asking for their data and they say “Data, we don’t need to show you any stinking data.” They already know what the right answer is politically and could care less about science.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #3
  4. John Morgan Member
    John Morgan
    @JohnMorgan

    Richard Epstein = Worth the Price of Admission to Ricochet by Himself

    • #4
  5. Bryan Stascavage Inactive
    Bryan Stascavage
    @bstas

    From the NASA source:

    “The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” Zwally said. “But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.”

    • #5
  6. Phil Turmel Inactive
    Phil Turmel
    @PhilTurmel

    John Morgan:Richard Epstein = Worth the Price of Admission to Ricochet by Himself

    View comment in context.

    Indeed.  Though I wish he wasn’t so soft on the 2A.  (-:

    • #6
  7. Ford Penney Inactive
    Ford Penney
    @FordPenney

    Mr Epstein always brings the ‘goods’.

    BUT, as the newspaper editor says to governor/senator Jimmy Stewart at the end of ‘The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance’:

    “When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.”

    No one that agrees with the ‘facts’ of climate change will ever agree or go along with real science, the wailing will be long and loud and the media and the left will paint Trump as the most evil man alive, a man willing to risk everyone’s life, the lives of all the children yet to come and humanity as a whole… they will more than double down and facts will be no where to be found.

    To quote another movie star Bettie Davis:

    “Fasten your seatbelts, it’s going to be a bumpy ride” (night)

    • #7
  8. cirby Inactive
    cirby
    @cirby

    I’d really, really like someone to hold a Congressional inquiry on AGW and invite some of the long-term leading lights of the field to answer some tough questions. Or else.

    “Here are your predictions of disaster from twenty years ago. Were any of them correct? No? Did we make your temperature estimates? No? Did the oceans rise several feet by 2015? No? Have hurricanes increased in number? No? Tornadoes? Floods? Has one single major prediction of yours from 1990 or later come to pass? Why are all of your predictions incorrect in the same direction?”

    If someone predicted the stock market with the same success these guys predict the climate, they’d be out of a job in no time.

    • #8
  9. Rocket Surgeon Inactive
    Rocket Surgeon
    @RocketSurgeon

    Here is Richard Lindzen,  professor of atmospheric sciences at MIT, clearing the air in a short video:

    There are basically three groups of people dealing with this issue. Groups one and two are scientists. Group three consists mostly, at its core, of politicians, environmentalists and the media.

    Group one is associated with the scientific part of the United Nation’s International Panel on Climate Change or IPCC (Working Group 1). These are scientists who mostly believe that recent climate change is primarily due to man’s burning of fossil fuels…this releases C02 …

    Group two is made up of scientists who don’t see this as an especially serious problem. … We’re usually referred to as skeptics.

    …there are many reasons why the climate changes…None of these is fully understood, …But actually there is much agreement between both groups of scientists. The following are such points of agreement:

    1) The climate is always changing.

    2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas without which life on earth is not possible, but adding it to the atmosphere should lead to some warming.

    3) Atmospheric levels of CO2 have been increasing since the … 19th century.

    4) Over this period … the global mean temperature has increased slightly and erratically by about one degree Celsius…

    5) Given the complexity of climate, no confident prediction about future global mean temperature or its impact can be made. The IPCC acknowledged in its own 2007 report that “The long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

    • #9
  10. cdor Member
    cdor
    @cdor

    Rocket Surgeon:Here is Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences at MIT, clearing the air in a short video:

    There are basically three groups of people dealing with this issue. Groups one and two are scientists. Group three consists mostly, at its core, of politicians, environmentalists and the media.

    <snip>

    Group two is made up of scientists who don’t see this as an especially serious problem. … We’re usually referred to as skeptics.

    …there are many reasons why the climate changes…None of these is fully understood, …But actually there is much agreement between both groups of scientists. The following are such points of agreement:

    1) The climate is always changing.

    2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas without which life on earth is not possible, but adding it to the atmosphere should lead to some warming.

    3) Atmospheric levels of CO2 have been increasing since the … 19th century.

    4) Over this period … the global mean temperature has increased slightly and erratically by about one degree Celsius…

    5) Given the complexity of climate, no confident prediction about future global mean temperature or its impact can be made. The IPCC acknowledged in its own 2007 report that “The long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

    View comment in context.

    My #6) Just what the heck is the correct temperature the Earth  supposed to be? Is a few degrees warmer worse than a few degrees cooler? Why? When was the Earth the perfect temperature?

    • #10
  11. Chris Johnson Inactive
    Chris Johnson
    @user_83937

    So much misdirection and sleight of hand is found, coming from the purveyors of environmentalism.  As such, your choice of image to accompany this post is perfect!  After all, that appears to be steam, emanating from the cooling towers of a nuclear reactor/boiling water power generator; steam, not CO2.  The best part is that, among the gases considered to be active Green House Gases (GHGs), steam (water vapor) is much more impactful than carbon dioxide!  If environmentalists were truly concerned about GHGs, they would spend most of their effort trying to regulate steam, not CO2.  In a more realistic regulatory regime, they would be trying to shut down laundromats, coffee shops, and the Campbell’s Soup Company!  Sweating would be outlawed!  No more steam baths or saunas!  We’d have to put a dome over Old Faithful!  This is a fun list to make; try this at home….

    • #11
  12. David Foster Member
    David Foster
    @DavidFoster

    Here’s the great French scientist Sadi Carnot, writing in 1824:

    To take away England’s steam engines to-day would amount to robbing her of her iron and coal, to drying up her sources of wealth, to ruining her means of prosperity and destroying her great power. The destruction of her shipping, commonly regarded as her source of strength, would perhaps be less disastrous for her.

    For England in 1824, substitute the United States today. And for “steam engines,” substitute those power sources which use carbon-based fuels: whether generating stations burning natural gas, blast furnaces burning coke, or trucks/trains/planes/automobiles using oil derivatives. With these substitutions, Carnot’s paragraph describes the prospective impact of the Left’s energy policies: conducting a war on fossil fuels, without leveling with people about the true limitations of “alternative” energy technologies and without seriously pursuing civilian nuclear power.

    Unlike our current crop of “progressives,” the leftists of the early and mid-20th-century at least recognized the importance of power technologies in improving the lives of the majority of people.  See the quote from the Fabian socialists Beatrice and Sidney Webb at my post Powering Down.

    • #12
  13. barbara lydick Inactive
    barbara lydick
    @barbaralydick

    Chris Johnson: After all, that appears to be steam, emanating from the cooling towers of a nuclear reactor/boiling water power generator; steam, not CO2.

    View comment in context.

    People always associate cooling towers with nuclear plants.  They are also used for conventional power plants.  In fact, many times pictures taken of them to represent nuclear plants are often pictures (stock photos) of conventional plant cooling towers.

    • #13
  14. barbara lydick Inactive
    barbara lydick
    @barbaralydick

    As to the larger issue presented by Professor Epstein, kudos, kudos to him. It will be a high mountain to scale for those who believe in science, but the new Administration just may provide the incentive for those people to become more vocal.   Even in time, perhaps, those within entrenched bureaucracies who know better but have kept their heads down in order to preserve their jobs will speak.  Truth will out and years from now the history written about these past decades will not paint a pretty picture about those who concealed the truth from the people.  Their motives will be exposed and will be likened to those tyrants whose aim it was (and still is in too many cases) to consolidate power and control their societies.

    Gotta’ run.  Much food prep ahead today.

    Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah y’all.

    • #14
  15. Tom Davis Member
    Tom Davis
    @TomDavis

    Global Warming, Climate Change, or whatever else you want to call it is no better than Lysenkoism was 80 years ago.  The Soviet Union executed and imprisoned a number of scientists who dared to argue with Stalin’s buddy, Trofim Lysenko.  The worst of it was not the death and imprisonment of these scientists.  The worst of the blind following of Lysenko was the starvation of millions of folks in the Soviet Union.

    • #15
  16. Canadian Cincinnatus Inactive
    Canadian Cincinnatus
    @CanadianCincinnatus

    Trinity Waters:Fasten your seatbelt securely, professor! I’ll bet Trump’s already cognizant of your theme, so well presented here. He’s going to take fast action on junk-science related issues like this. Trump will move with blinding speed on issues that only require his pen. The legislative initiatives he has in mind will move more slowly, but with his leadership, especially early on, I’ll bet a lot of good will be accomplished.

    Thanks for another well presented summary on a convoluted issue.

    View comment in context.

    Dear Trinity:

    Do you suppose that approach is what Trump discussed with Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio when he met with them recently?

    • #16
  17. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    David Foster: in improving the lives of the majority of people.

    View comment in context.

    Which kind of improvement is more important,  more stuff or more freedom?

    • #17
  18. J. D. Fitzpatrick Member
    J. D. Fitzpatrick
    @JDFitzpatrick

    On the climate of Antarctica in particular, there’s an interesting Wikipedia page.

    All in all, I like the conclusion that we can’t really predict the future of climate.

    • #18
  19. cirby Inactive
    cirby
    @cirby

    The Reticulator:

    David Foster: in improving the lives of the majority of people.

    View comment in context.

    Which kind of improvement is more important, more stuff or more freedom?

    View comment in context.

    If you don’t have the possibility of getting more stuff, you’re probably lacking in the “more freedom” department.

     

    • #19
  20. Brian Clendinen Inactive
    Brian Clendinen
    @BrianClendinen

    Rocket Surgeon:Here is Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences at MIT, clearing the air in a short video:

    The following are such points of agreement:4) Over this period … the global mean temperature has increased slightly and erratically by about one degree Celsius…

     

    View comment in context.

    No they don’t. Anyone who has delved into the methodology of the collection and estimation of global temperature see the whole data-set as fraudulent and at lest junk. That is until NASA started taking much more accurate atmospheric temperatures with satellites in the 70’s. So I reject any data that shows an increase in temperature because you could not even get an education paper published using global temperature method let alone a drug approved for use ( you would go to jail in the U.S. if you did the same thing on drug research numbers what they have done on global temperature numbers) .

    • #20
  21. Bryan Stascavage Inactive
    Bryan Stascavage
    @bstas

    Brian Clendinen:

    Rocket Surgeon:Here is Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences at MIT, clearing the air in a short video:

    The following are such points of agreement:4) Over this period … the global mean temperature has increased slightly and erratically by about one degree Celsius…

     

    View comment in context.

    No they don’t. Anyone who has delved into the methodology of the collection and estimation of global temperature see the whole data-set as fraudulent and at lest junk. That is until NASA started taking much more accurate atmospheric temperatures with satellites in the 70’s. So I reject any data that shows an increase in temperature because you could not even get an education paper published using global temperature method let alone a drug approved for use ( you would go to jail in the U.S. if you did the same thing on drug research numbers what they have done on global temperature numbers) .

    View comment in context.

    Examples?

    • #21
  22. cirby Inactive
    cirby
    @cirby

    Bryan Stascavage:

    Brian Clendinen:

    ( you would go to jail in the U.S. if you did the same thing on drug research numbers what they have done on global temperature numbers) .

    View comment in context.

    Examples?

    View comment in context.

    “Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?” – Dr. Phil Jones, AGW researcher

    You’d be heading toward prosecution in a New York minute if you were a drug researcher that said this.

    Imagine what would happen to a pharma researcher if the government found out that they’d been altering data without telling anyone. This covers most of the temp data – they’ve actually been altering the historical data to make AGW look worse, edging down the early-20th century records, which were often warmer than today’s real temps.

    What would happen to a drug company that reduced the size of their test groups by eliminating the people who had adverse reactions? The NASA datasets fall under this, by the way. They weren’t getting “enough” warming, so they cut down the recent dataset – by removing long-term stations out in the country that showed flat to cooling temps, while leaving in urban stations that have strong urban heat island effects.

    • #22
  23. Ray Kujawa Coolidge
    Ray Kujawa
    @RayKujawa

    Democratic stalwarts and their supporters are sounding more and more like science deniers. Thank you for this excellent essay with references. I think I learned a lot on this subject.

    • #23
  24. Ray Kujawa Coolidge
    Ray Kujawa
    @RayKujawa

    cirby:

    Bryan Stascavage:

    What would happen to a drug company that reduced the size of their test groups by eliminating the people who had adverse reactions? The NASA datasets fall under this, by the way. They weren’t getting “enough” warming, so they cut down the recent dataset – by removing long-term stations out in the country that showed flat to cooling temps, while leaving in urban stations that have strong urban heat island effects.

    View comment in context.

    I grew up revering NASA in the 60’s. I’ve been losing respect for it lately, especially when I hear anything related to manipulating data. A classic I read in high school helped turn me into a critical thinker: How to Lie with the Statistics. It’s bad enough that you can drive people into believing something incorrect by presenting the actual data in biased ways. It’s worse when you actually mess with the data and pretend you’re presenting the truth. That’s an example of actual lying, if you ask me.

    • #24
  25. Bryan Stascavage Inactive
    Bryan Stascavage
    @bstas
    • #25
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.