...y'all might want to point to this resource:
...y'all might want to point to this resource:
Christopher Booker of the Telegraph thinks you're wrong and he *really* knows what he's talking about ...
Bah! Mere hard data. It means nothing, I tell you! The Republicans are simply going to declare it null and void with a legislative resolution, and then it's all good. Crisis averted.
Custador, your site forgot the best denialist argument used during an official hearing in the US congress, 'in genesis 8 god told Noah that there wont be another flood, therefore global warming and the resulting rise in sea levels can't be happening'.
Oh, Yoav! I think I just threw up a little...
There are two or more sides to every controversial issue.
I'm old enough to remember alarmists warning the world about "the coming ice
age": "Oh!! We are all going to freeze! The sky is falling!"
There are plenty of sources repudiating Al Gore as he flies on private jets,
on the way home to one of his energy gulping mansions.
I also read this book, back in the day:
"Oh!! We will all starve in the 1970's and 80's!!! The earth can't sustain so
Ah, okay. So much for that. Now obesity is being called an epidemic.
I'm not about to debate anyone over climate change. Every study, every "expert" and every statistic can be countered by an opposing side. The purpose of this post is to make two points:
1. Fear sells. Nothing grabs attention and inspires action more effectively
than crises, fear, and insecurity. Ask an insurance salesman, security
consultant or politician about this. Ask a fundamental preacher, for that
matter. Ask Al Gore- fear pays for his jets and mansions. Everything today seems to be
a crises, an epidemic, an oncoming catastrophe. See the news media, left or
right wing. Different disasters, same hysteria mongering.
2. Climate change policies are poised to do serious harm to Western economies and lifestyles. Poor economic conditions in the West leaves less aid for third world societies. Our standard of living is better now than any time in history. Climate change hysteria is in the process of reversing that, all over what is mostly speculation. Provable and tangible harm is being done today to economies and societies.
I'm not trying to deny climate change here.
Change is natural. Weather is cyclical. Few argue those points. Parking our cars won't reduce solar flares and volcanoes.
The actual extent of damage to the earth's climate by mankind is probably somewhere between zero and the extent some hysterics claim. More time should be given to this issue before people suffer and sacrifice needlessly.
C5-- did you EVEN LOOK AT THE SCIENCE???
Question politicians all you want, but don't come in here questioning the science unless you are willing to CITE SPECIFIC STUDIES AND FACTS which you question.
The scientific community has consensus on this... you know, the way they have consensus on evolution and gravity.
Any denialism is purely right-wing rhetoric.
"Any denialism is purely right-wing rhetoric."
Now now. Blindly following people who say climate change is a lie is one thing, and maintaining a healthy skepticism about the impartiality and apoliticality of human beings is another. C5 very carefully mentioned that somewhere between "no climate change" and "ZOMG we're too late" the truth is probably located. Don't try to cast that as right-wing. That's factually incorrect. Right-wing rhetoric on this topic looks vastly different.
*Also, I read that link, and I hate to say it, but it just irritated me. I felt a) talked down to, and b) like I was reading something halfway between a brochure and a textbook. Maybe that's just me; I sure didn't look at the glossy graphs and think "Aha, finally, real science!" I thought, "Oh, someone is trying to convince non-scientists."
Sorry JonJon, but C5's point #2 is pure right wing rhetoric.
The source is designed for non-scientists. I thought it might be useful because non-scientists (which global climate change deniers are) have a hard time reading actual science. (Same for evolution denialists.)
Yes, of course I looked at the science. I have looked at plenty of science on both sides of the issue.
Did you even look at my links? THAT was "the science" 30-some years ago. At one time, the scientific community had consensus that the earth was flat, bleeding with leeches cured most ills, and demons should be exorcised.
As stated above, I'm not debating climate change. Anyone online can Google plenty of credible sources on BOTH sides of the issue.
I stand by my points. 1. Fear sells. 2. Our standard is living is being jeopardized over what may or may not happen someday.
Oh, and Al Gore is an elitist hypocrite.
Thank you JonJon. You get my points.
I knew that I was opening a can of worms after reading the topic tag calling those who question climate dogma "idiots". I for one try to keep an open mind. It's amazing and amusing to observe how upset some people get when their inflexible and narrow beliefs are doubted. Sort of reminds me of fundamental Christians.
And for the record, my multi-degreed scientist wife has an open mind and agrees with me here.
I'm sorry C5, but you linked to Time magazine, some random website, and wikipedia. Hardly peer reviewed science.
Here is a credible source of information:
And for the record, I'm a multi-degreed science person as well.
"At one time, the scientific community had consensus that the earth was flat, bleeding with leeches cured most ills, and demons should be exorcised."
Ummmm, no. Modern science never supported ANY of those claims. You clearly don't understand the scientific method or modern science.
"It's amazing and amusing to observe how upset some people get when their inflexible and narrow beliefs are doubted. Sort of reminds me of fundamental Christians."
You might want to back out of this slowly now, before you get your @$$ handed to you...
I wish I could hang out with you in real life, LRA. With lines like this:
You might want to back out of this slowly now, before you get your @$$ handed to you...
I think I would enjoy myself.
LOL! I guaaa-ran-teeee!!! I'm quite a riot in real life.... LOL! :D
Quoted from the abstract:
"Climate changes affect many aspects of the living environment, including human settlements, food production, and diseases. These changes will affect poor people more severely than rich, and poor nations more severely than rich. Yet not enough is known to predict quantitatively many details that will matter enormously to future people and other species."
Yeah, and before that it says:
"Between 1900 and 2000, humans' emissions of carbon into the atmosphere increased fifteenfold, while the numbers of people increased less than fourfold. Population growth alone, with constant rates of emissions per person, could not account for the increase in the carbon emissions to the atmosphere. The world economy grew sixteenfold in the twentieth century, accompanied by enormous increases in the burning of gas, oil, and coal. In the last quarter of the twentieth century, population grew much faster in developing countries than in high-income countries, and, compared with population growth, the growth of carbon emissions to the atmosphere was even faster in developing countries than in high-income countries. The ratio of emissions-to-population growth rates was 2.8 in developing countries compared with 1.6 in high-income countries. Emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases are influenced by the sizes and density of settlements, the sizes of households, and the ages of householders. Between 2010 and 2050, these demographic factors are anticipated to change substantially. Therefore demography will play a substantial role in the dynamics of climate changes. Climate changes affect many aspects of the living environment, including human settlements, food production, and diseases."
First of all, yes, fear does sell well, and both sides of the media are guilty of this. Which is why we should all be going to science and not the Daily Show for information– despite it being so wonderfully humorous. I've yet to actually see a climatologist who studies this issue say that climate change is up for debate. Everyone that I've heard talk about the falsity of climate change has either been not actually a scientist or a scientist from an unrelated field and who is not really versed in the science at hand. Some are simply not scientists who are offering their opinion, and some are actually pretending to be scientists. (I will admit that both sides of the media have been guilty of this; we should be listening to actual scientists, not Al Gore et al).
From what I've sat in on with that field (meaning: attending colloquia not apart of my discipline), what the scientist are arguing over is to what *extent* humans are contributing. Not, if we are nor if climate change is happening. It's also not just climatologists who are taking note and worrying about the implications. For example, marine biologists are currently studying the increasing levels of carbonic acid in the oceans, and wondering if coral habitats will be able to adapt quickly enough.
As for your links, as LRA has already pointed out, they are not peer reviewed sources; meaning you should be careful when quoting. Neither quote any scientist as actually talking about the looming ice age. Each scientist being quoted is quoted about specific research they are investigating but not about how their research ties into the research of others as it pertains to an ice age. For example, the Waren Hare quote at the end of the Time's article: he's commenting on what a continuation in a drought would mean. The scientist that the article does say foretell a looming ice age are left as simply "scientists" or "some observers–" never by name or by the institution to which they are attached. It certainly never references specific works that were published in the peer reviewed journals.
Was this the scientific consensus? No. Some climatologists were toying with the hypothesis of global cooling, but much more were toying with the hypothesis of global warming. I don't believe global warming was accepted as anything more than a theory at that time (I certainly could be wrong on this count), but it definitely had more scientific consensus to its hypothesis than global cooling did.
Scientific consensus that the Earth was flat: Well, yes... prior to the ancient greeks. Even in Europe prior to the discovery of the New World, any one of education new that the Earth was round. Something that some at the time held in contention was how big the Earth was. This was what Columbus was arguing over, and without the New World in his way, he would have ended up dead because he was actually off by quite a bit. Moreover, the scientific community back then was not the same scientific community as we have today. Until Galileo, the scientific method wasn't used despite it being first proposed by the Greeks. Instead, science (which isn't really the same definition as we would use today because of the scientific method) was more interested in utilizing a different Greek philosophy– that we should figure things out through reason, logic, and philosophy. The idea of testing hypothesis against experimental observations didn't catch on until much later. Even after Galileo it took a while for this to catch on.
Could you site research for or explain how our standard of living is jeopardized? If you are referring to an immediate, cold-turkey, move away from fossil fuels, then, yes, I can certainly understand that. Such an immediate move would cripple our transportation systems and thus living standards through access to resources. However, the policies, as far as I'm aware, is to migrate to other fuel sources so that we can maintain our current economies (minus industries like fossil fuels, naturally) and lifestyles. I also don't see why this would be bad, as they generally promote sustainability which would allow us to keep going without destroying where we need to live. So far, you've just stated that things will get bad, care to share with us the how they will get bad?
If you are interested, potholer54 has a series regarding climate change. He starts with what the science (both sides) is before going into debunking stuff that has been fear mongered by the media. When he does reference articles, scientific and otherwise, he does site them so that you can go look them up and read them for yourself (which he encourages). It's a nice mix of actual science and laymen's explanation:
I was perfectly happy with my current level of annoyance with fox and general pessimism... you've moved the bar on both of those with that video.
C5: Al Gore is a hypocrite, fine. That doesn't mean that MMGW is false. That just means that Al Gore is a hypocrite.
Let me put this simply:
If you take an enclosed bottle of air and expose it to sunlight, the temperature of that air increases. If you increase the amount of CO2 in that air, the temperature increases more.
This is simple science that not even climate-change deniers argue against. It's just a fact. More CO2 in the atmosphere equals more warming, end of discussion.
Now here are a couple more unarguable facts: Human activity puts around thirty billion tons of extra CO2 in the atmosphere every single year. Human activities have already significantly altered the normal balance of gasses in our atmosphere. This science is not in question, not even by rabid deniers, because they know how easily they'll be ripped to pieces over it. Without human intervention, the amount of CO2 produced and the amount absorbed is in balance. What's interesting is, the oceans do absorb more (because there's an increased partial pressure gradient of CO2 between the air and sea), but it's not nearly enough to stop warming. Sadly, it is enough to acidify the oceans (because H2O + CO2 = H2CO3, which is otherwise known as Carbonic Acid). That in itself could wipe out plankton and algae, which are the bottom steps of the oceanic food chain. If that happens, we are proper fucked.
So, to recap:
More CO2 in the atmosphere equals warmer atmosphere - UNDISPUTED FACT.
There is more CO2 in the atmosphere because of humans - UNDISPUTED FACT.
The seas are more acid because of human produced CO2 - UNDISPUTED FACT.
Please, tell me, what part of this is difficult to grasp?
The potential effect of policies is completely irrelevant to the question of whether climate change is real and does human activity is a contributing factor. If you want to argue that the economic cost of reducing carbon emission is worse then the economic costs of climate change then this is a completely different issue.
Al Gore has a private jet therefore global warming is a hoax is a non-argument its the equivalent of the old christian "Stalin was an atheist therefore atheism make you a mass murderer".
But it's fun! Also, this article seems sketchy to me, if it in fact is saying what I think it is saying:
"Yet not enough is known to predict quantitatively many details that will matter enormously to future people and other species. Three kinds of responses are related to demographic issues that affect climate changes: universal secondary education, voluntary contraception and maternal health services, and smarter urban design and construction. These responses may prevent, reduce, or ameliorate the impacts of climate changes."
I'm trying to follow the logic...
Population increases more quickly in developing countries than in developed countries.
The rate of carbon emission increase by developing countries is higher than the rate of carbon emission increase by developed countries. So the long term solution to global warming is to get all nations to economic or developmental parity with the US? (Bad example, given our systemic lack of concern for the environment... Norway, maybe?)
I get it, but it's really wacky. Could be true, but still.
And do we happen to know what happens to the CO2 consumption of plant life when it is more readily available? My brief internet scan seems to indicate that, especially at higher temperatures, plants grow larger and faster. I'm not a biology person, but I am a logic person. Your three facts don't actually mean that the balance between co2 and o2 won't just resettle itself in a slightly different place. In fact, accidentally triggering a perfect, ecosystem-wide feedback loop seems unlikely based on the bulk of human experience. We'd have trouble getting a process like that started on purpose. Facts are facts. No doubt. The conclusions you draw from those facts may or may not be the only ones available.
Note: MMCC is totally happening. I'm not denying it. All I'm saying is that extraordinary claims (insert environmental horror story) require extraordinary evidence. There is evidence that climate change is happening, and that it is caused by people, and that evidence is sufficient for that claim. But there are some scenarios for which that same evidence is entirely insufficient.
Paul asked most of what I would have so I'll wait until replies to him show up but I will address one thing.
Re: The developing nations thing.
I believe the point is that developing nations have:
1) Extremely lax or non-existent environmental standards so any pollution is completely uncontrolled.
2) Poor infrastructure support for containing modern wastes so it just gets dumped right into the local ecosystem.
I mean, if you go someplace like the Philippines they have modern conveniences imported from abroad. Cars, fridges, etc. But their infrastructure is so poor in places people are just pushing flotsam of garbage out of the way in their waterways and have washing machines sitting outside leaking stuff directly into wells. The idea is that a more affluent society would be able to properly dispose of waste materials, recycle, afford more environmental friendly solutions, etc.
In fact, accidentally triggering a perfect, ecosystem-wide feedback loop seems unlikely based on the bulk of human experience.
I am not quite sure what experience you are referring to. I mean we do have records of ancient peoples over-harvesting their local resources to the point of their own destruction so we do have a track record there.
My main concern is with the attitude that a lot of climate skeptics put forth that "it is no big deal." Plants will absorb it, we will figure out a technology to handle it, etc etc. There seems to be too much interest in justifying inaction for the sake of convenience. I mean I justify my own laziness all the time and while that works for mowing the lawn I don't think it is such a wise attitude when we are talking about the planet. We know without a doubt we can impact the environment, to not monitor things and make sure we aren't digging our own grave seems like it would have to be a priority for anyone but the most foolish. I know a lot of skeptics might even agree and just claim that the evidence isn't in yet, but when you hear a lot of the climate skeptic arguments they seem (to my ears at least) to be more concerned with justifying inaction and preserving personal convenience than evaluating evidence.
Have you seen this? I'm about to paint my roof white, to save energy and money!
@ JonJon: Bit of a straw-man. Plants don't eat CO2, and they don't eat heat. They eat sunlight. Besides that, even if plants did grow more in high CO2 atmospheres versus in a gas-balance they've evolved over millions of years to exist in (which, as I've already pointed out, they don't) - We're chopping the buggers down faster than new ones can grow anyway.
It's a bit of a straw man to imply that I said plants eat CO2. They eat sunlight, and respirate CO2. I'm aware. I wasn't aware that you've pointed out somewhere or other that plants don't grow more rapidly when exposed to CO2. That would more or less directly contradict the research I've seen (not that I'm confident in that research, just that I haven't seen any suggesting that plants stay the same when placed in a CO2-rich environment.) If I had seen you say that anywhere. Which I haven't.
At any rate, I believe the current theory on the evolution of plants in the first place runs more or less along these lines: Earth's free atmosphere is composed of mostly CO2, nitrogen, methane, etc. Plants develop which are able to breathe the CO2, and as a byproduct of their existence, oxygen accumulates in amounts which are eventually large enough to support an entirely different kind of oxygen-based respiration. At any rate, it isn't clear to me that being evolved to live in a relatively CO2-poor environment means that additional amounts of CO2 will somehow kill off plants.
And also, of course, the wonderful thing about plants is that we can grow more. Sustainable logging is possible. We don't do it terrifically often, but in places like WA state, where most of the old-growth forest has been gone for a while and environmental activism started early, every tree cut down is replaced. Not that old-growth forests provide the bulk of our oxygen.
CO2 isn't a limiting factor of plant growth. We already live in an atmosphere that has more than they use. Adding more doesn't help them. What it does do is introduce a pressure gradient (because, like I said, they're evolved to exist in a specific partial pressure of CO2) which means that CO2 crosses cell membranes as well as into free water and makes the water acidic and the organisms acidotic. Google "diabetic ketoacidosis" if you want to see the effects that being acidotic has on a living organism. It's a metabolic acidosis as opposed to a respiratory acidosis, but the body responds much the same way to both. Besides this, CO2 does equal warming, and plants exist in temperature bands. You don't find tropical plants in temperate zones, and you don't find temperate plants in tropical zones - because neither could survive the temperatures the others do.
And yes, sustianable logging is possible, but that's not what's happening. Rainforest is being torn down for pasture land at a rate of thousands of hectares per day.
And I accept that "straw man" was the wrong phrase to use. Should have said logical fallacy or something like that.
Guess I stepped in it by appearing to challenge the “status quo” present here.
I have yet to deny that the climate is changing. The extent and timetable of change, and what we should do about it, is still up for debate, even among posters here.
I can remember the first widely recognized Earth Day in 1970. I ate up every word. There was no shortage of doomsday prophecies for the near and distant future. Experts and scientific studies were quoted. Predictions were made of environmental and societal doom by the 1970’s, 1980’s, or 1990’s, depending on the source. Scary indeed, especially to an impressionable kid. This and anti-drug propaganda helped form the cynical and skeptical person I am today.
Very few of those predictions have come anywhere close to playing out. On the contrary, in many ways there have been debatable improvements. Air quality has been improving in some ways for over 40 years.
When was the last time any mainstream media source mentioned anything like that? Fear sells.
Since 1970 there has been a constant barrage of environmental scare stories. Some have turned out to have validity, many have not, and very few did not overstate the severity of their predictions. Fear sells.
There are more than a few credible voices out there questioning common climate dogma.
There are some interesting quotes from some pretty credible people here:
Yeah, I know that some of these links are partisan and biased. So are a few of the sites linked by some here.
The science community has always had dissent and controversy. Hell, not even Einstein was perfect:
My original post mentioned popular global cooling theories in the 1970’s. The cooling theories were based on the same historical data being used now, up to that point in time. Thirty some years later, we can laugh at all that. Today there are “ironclad” predictions going out for 30 or more years. How many of them will be laughed at in a generation or two, especially concerning something as volatile and unpredictable as climate? Regardless of the many advances made over the last few decades, we don’t know everything yet and probably never will. There are far too many variables completely out of mankind’s control to make accurate weather predictions for next week, much less decades from now.
As for costs and the impact on our standard of living, a good example would be the Cap and Trade scheme. I dare anyone here to deny that such a thing is a tax. A huge tax, with good intentions by some, but a huge tax nonetheless. This one thing alone would devastate certain industries, harm many others, and cause everyone to pay more for all types of energy. It would cost jobs in our current weak economy. A domino effect could cause further catastrophic and unknown consequences.
More on cost:
And this has been “cherry picked” from an interesting link posted above by LRA:
The costs of CO2 emissions reductions are very much higher than usually
estimated because of technological and implementation problems recently
identified. Attempts to decrease these costs by a greatly expanded government
funded research program to encourage technological innovation are both
expensive and may or may not prove successful in reducing the technological
I’m new here, and have enjoyed this and other threads. Some of my statements may be called anecdotal or unconfirmed by peer review. So be it. I know what I have seen, read and experienced over the years. I have too much of a life outside of online forums than to spend more time than I have researching confirming data and digesting hard science. I make no claims to being a climatologist or any kind of scientist.
I only dared to question the status quo with a different perspective. If anyone wants to imply that I’m slow to understand or a right wing nut, I beg to differ. Doesn’t matter though- no offense taken. I’m not here to seek approval, and don’t care what anyone thinks. Some of you have given me things to consider and I appreciate that. I, for one, have an open mind.
Again, I have not tried to deny climate change. I would like to see more time and deliberation taken by society and science before some of the more drastic proposals are enacted. It reminds me of the war on drugs: more harm is inflicted by policy than the actual drugs (in my opinion). I don’t want to see a similar mistake made over the climate issue.
A couple of problems I have, firstly a scientist says does not equally scientific consensus. This leads to the second point, one of the links you gave was to a report of how 1,000 scientists have a disagreement over climate change. Well having looked at some of the quotes given by the scientists not all of them would appear to be scientists and I was struggling to see which ones actually studied in a relevant field at all. It sort of reminds me that of the list of scientists who disagree with evolution that is bandied about by the Discovery Institute.
p.s. Links to any story that quotes Christopher Monckton - well you're probably best not doing that ...
I am a little confused by your position in regards to your links. You have clarified your position as to not oppose the idea of climate change– merely asking for more research to be done– but yet you cite sources whose position is against the idea of climate change entirely (except for the link to "Climate Money"). A particular annoyance was the reuters article as they, like the rest of the press conference, gave credence to Lord Monckton who has out right lied about his evidence and his own status in the scientific community.
As for the link to "Climate Money", it was the only one proposing evidence. Unfortunately, some of that evidence has been debunked (E.g. the implications in the faults that McIntyr and McKitrick found in the 'hockey-stick' graph. There were analysis faults in the original, but they did not have the supposed consequences which many subsequent and independent analysis has shown.).
I however do not understand why it the cap and trade system is a tax. Your subsequent talk on the system does outline a grim system, but I do not see exactly how the cap and trade set up for carbon emissions translates to a "domino effect [that] could cause further catastrophic and unknown consequences."
"I only dared to question the status quo with a different perspective."
In science, that is always a good thing. As your Einstein link points out, Hubble challenged the status quo and Einstein was forced to remove a term in his equation. The thing is, if you are going to challenge the status quo, you definitely need data– after all, data originally usurped the old status quo to erect the one you are now arguing against.
I also want to note that science doesn't need the deliberation that you speak of (emphasis on the type of deliberation). Science best works away when removed from the policies; those are what must be deliberated based on the science. For the most part, this is how science functions currently.
Just to back my point up here is the first page of "scientists" mentioned:
1 Prof. Dr.Ing. Hans-Günter Appel
2 Prof. Dr. hab. Dorota Appenzeller Professor of Econometrics and Applied Mathematics, Vice Dean University Poznan, Poland
3 Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Bachmann Former Director of the Institute for Vibration Engineering, FH Düsseldorf
4 Prof. Dr. Hans Karl Barth Managing Director World Habitat Society GmbH - Environmental Services
5 Dipl. Biologist Ernst Georg Beck
6 Dr. rer.nat. Horst Borchert Physicist
7 Dipl. Biol. Helgo Bran Former BW parliamentarian Green Party
8 Prof. Dr. rer. nat. Gerhard Buse Bio-chemist
9 Dr.Ing Ivo Busko German Center for Aviation and Aeronautics e.V.
10 Dr.Ing Gottfried Class Nuclear Safety, Thermo-hydraulics
11 Dr.Ing Urban Cleve Nuclear physicist, thermodynamics energy specialist
12 Dr.-Ing Rudolf-Adolf Dietrich Energy expert
13 Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze IPCC Expert Reviewer TAR
14 Dr. rer. nat Siegfried Dittrich Physical chemist
15 Dr. Theo Eichten Physicist
16 Ferroni Ferruccio Zurich President NIPCC-SUISSE
17 Dr. sc.agr. Albrecht Glatzle Agricultural biologist, Director científico INTTAS, Paraguay
18 Dr. rer. nat. Klaus-Jürgen Goldmann Geologist
19 Dr. rer. nat. Josef Große-Wördem Physical chemist
20 Dipl. Geologist Heinisch Heinisch
21 Dr. rer.nat. Horst Herman Chemist
22 Prof. Dr. Hans-Jürgen Hinz Former University of Münster Institute for Physical Chemistry
23 Dipl. Geologist Andreas Hoemann Geologist
24 Dipl. Geologist Siegfried Holler
25 Dr. rer.nat. Heinz Hug Chemiker
26 Dr. rer. nat. Bernd Hüttner Theoretical Physicist
27 Prof. Dr. Werner Kirstein Institute for Geography University Leipzig
28 Dipl. Meteorologe Klaus Knüpffer METEO SERVICE weather research GmbH
29 Dr. rer. hort. Werner Köster
30 Dr. rer.nat. Albert Krause Chemist
31 Drs. Hans Labohm IPCC AR4 Expert Reviewer Dipl. Business / science journalist
32 Dr. Rainer Link Physicist
33 Dipl. Physicist Alfred Loew
34 Prof. Dr. Physicist Horst-Joachim Lüdecke University for Engineering and business of Saarland
You must log in to post.