What will climate change radicals try next? People are learning how good climate change can be?

This climate change starting 128 years ago is best of the last six. It’s reduced global poverty and increased worldwide life expectancy. Farmers can now produce more food than people can eat. Farmers growing and selling food for a living can’t give it away. Poverty and hunger is only found where government limits what subjects can earn or keep of what they earn.

Socialists and dictators confiscate farm produce and private earnings to finance government. Growing government by starving subjects is a Socialist policy. 

Gary Miller

Texas City

Locations

(70) comments

Randolph Groninger

Exactly! Climate Change Radicals refuse to accept that climate changes have naturally occurred over the millennia. The current warming trend will most likely transition to a cooling phase - though probably not in our lifetimes if historical patterns repeat.

Paula Flinn

Closing your eyes to Climate Change will not solve the problem. Exxon has known about this since the 1970’s, and they have spent a lot of money to keep it quiet. The Arctic Ice is melting and the seas are rising. It will not affect me, as I am already old, but it will affect future generations. It doesn’t make sense to close your eyes to what most scientists say is happening.

Gary Miller

Paula! Don't close your eyes, cellibrate! You were born at the right time to live in the good times. When this climate cycle started 128 years ago U.S. life expectancy was low 60's. Today it's almost 80. Socialists fear the good times will wipe out the need for welfare and entitlements. A population that has no need for government assistance would eliminate socialists.

Paul Hyatt

If you would really look at the ice packs you might notice that when the north part is melting the south is building. Miracles that God created not man manipulated...

Carlos Ponce

Paula, Climate change is real. But it's not man made. It's been going on since God created climate. There is high correlation between climate changes and solar activity. Man caused - not at all.

Gary Miller

Randolph! The last six climate changes lasted on average 500 years. Alternating between cooling and warming. The last cold cycle started before the American revolution and ended after the U.S. Civil war.

Paul Hyatt

ROFLOL @ the people who believe that what God has made man can manipulate....If the seas were rising why are they not rising here in the GOM? I have been here for almost 50 years and the gulf is in the same place that it was then. Has there been land subsidence? Yes, because we were pulling to much water from the ground. Has the gulf risen? NO.... While there are some so called scientists that want all of this garbage that they spew to be real, what predictions that they have made over the last 30 years have come true? All "Climate Change" "AGW" or what ever you want to call it is about is global governance. People who want to control the masses and people who want to be controlled.... If you want to be controlled like that, I would suggest that you go down to Venezuela and look at what those people who voted to be controlled look like now.... Most wish they could (but can't) change their votes....

Paula Flinn

To the contrary, the Union of Concerned Scientists have a graph of the local sea level rise in the last 50 years, and the highest rate from 1963 to 2012 is the Gulf of Mexico, in Galveston, Texas, with a sea level rise of 12.5 inches. ucsusa.org.
Other sites are: beg.utexas.edu. & ocean.si.edu.
NASA also knows this is true, that fossil fuel use contributes to the CO2 level and the rapid rise of the sea level. The research is clear, and the issue should not be politicized.

Jarvis Buckley

Socialist see the dark side of the mountain
Republicans see the sunny side of the mountain .

Question- which side of the mountain
do you prefer ?

Rusty Schroeder

Jarvis, after last night I just want to be on the side of the mountain that drains :) 4 1/2" in the Fe last night and this am at my house.

Gary Miller

The reduction of global poverty is what Socialists fear most. They can't survive prosperity. Poverty is their hold on people. Since this climate change started 129 years ago world poverty has been reduced by a little over half. In another 129 years it could be reduced by another half. Good bye, good riddance socialism.

Paula Flinn

Jarvis, I want to be on the safe side of the mountain, realistically, especially during a hurricane. This issue should not be politicized.

Carlos Ponce

"safe side of the mountain" - The only mountain in Galveston County is off FM 1764. Oh wait, that's a sanitary landfill. You got to head to west Texas to find a mountain.

Rusty Schroeder

Don't be trashing my mountain Carlos :)

Robert Braeking

Greetings from Lake Woebegone (Santa Fe). I could use a little global warming today. BTW - who has decided what a 'normal' temperature is for the planet? Perhaps we are too cold now and need to warm up some. Didn't we used to grow bananas commercially? Bring on the heat!

Steve Fouga

Socialists are back at it on climate change? If by "back at it" you mean seeking ways to mitigate it and its effects, well, it isn't just socialists. It's a large and growing number from everywhere on the planet. The more backward conservative Republicans in the U.S. seem to be a staunch holdout.

Paul Hyatt

Backward conservative, well I guess that includes most of Galveston county by the way that we vote. Before you make a wild statement that the world is on board with this nonsense that you all call climate change, you might want to actually read about what is happening in Europe and the EU/UN. France and other countries are now fighting the leftist elites that they stupidly voted in and now that there taxes have been raised to the point that they can not afford to live and the draconian rules that have been passed down onerously on the people they no longer want the Paris accords and are even shouting for a Trump to come save them....If you talked with actual scientists outside of the bought and paid for ones you might find out that they do not believe the hype either as from the material that they have found they will tell you it has been doctored and manipulated to get the results that THEY want it to give....You can make a model say anything that you want just like the pollsters have found they can make a case for any point that they want to make. Man can not change what God has created and for man to think that he can just shows the arrogance of man towards God.....

Steve Fouga

"Backward conservative, well I guess that includes most of Galveston county by the way that we vote."

My thoughts exactly, Paul.

I understand that scientists don't always draw the correct conclusions about causes, but they're nearly always correct in their observations of effects. The world is getting warmer, and ocean levels are rising. These are facts, easily measured quantities. If temperature and sea level continue to rise, the future of humanity WILL be markedly different. Hotter, colder. Harsher, more violent.

Whether temperature and sea-level rise are caused by human activities is open to debate, and sure, there are scientists who either don't acknowledge climate change or feel it isn't caused by human activity -- a small minority of them.

I believe we have the power to alter the pattern of climate change. Your statement that "Man can not change what God has created" is demonstrably false. The seawall here in Galveston is evidence that we can. Our farmlands where virgin forests once stood, our food animals bred from wild stock, populous cities where there was nothing, an American flag on the moon... God gave us the power to alter our reality. Why not use it to reverse or slow climate change so we can continue to enjoy the life we have?

Jarvis Buckley

Like the 1900 Great Storm !

Gary Scoggin

You guys are a hoot.

Carlos Ponce

Owls are a "hoot". The owl is considered a symbol of wisdom.[beam]

Jim Forsythe

Carlo, you are not a OWL.

a hoot
Simeone that does something funny, or does something out of the ordinary, and then is commented to or about with the entry. The results may be viewed as being anything from weird to hilarious.

Carlos Ponce

Owls can be funny. Just ask a Rice University alumnus!

Carlos Ponce

"Carlo, you are not a OWL." True I never graduated from Rice nor got a degree there but I did take classes there.[beam]

Gary Miller

Most scientists agree climate change is real, agree on when this climate cycle started, 1890 +or - ten years, but do not agree that humans caused or increased it.

Steve Fouga

Not true. Most believe climate change is caused or accelerated by human activity. YOU may not believe it, but saying that most scientists agree with you is simply false.

Carlos Ponce

"Most believe climate change is caused or accelerated by human activity. "
Not true. It is cyclical. And the Circle of Life goes on........
Mastodons experienced rapid climate change as evidenced by their bodies found quick frozen.
Dinosaurs experienced climate change.

Steve Fouga

You missed my point. I'm saying that most scientists believe THIS cycle of climate change is caused or accelerated by human activity. We humans can alter our reality. We do it all the time.

Carlos Ponce

Most scientists ........ Who conducted a survey of ALL scientists? NO ONE!

Steve Fouga

You most not understand how surveys are done.

Carlos Ponce

Oh, I am well aware of how surveys are done. I taught it under the topic how to lie using statistics. You start with a preconceived outcome then select those you wish to participate. Polling is done the same way.
Then they blast those who oppose them:
"There is no run-away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct." John Coleman, CEO of The Weather Channel
Read the report by Dr. Joe Bastardi:
http://notrickszone.com/2011/08/08/joe-bastardi-calls-manmade-co2-global-warming-an-obvious-fraud/

Jim Forsythe

Carlos, John Coleman. really!

Carlos Ponce

John Coleman - REALLY!

Jim Forsythe

Carlos, John Coleman. really! He did not hold a degree. He is just one person that had no work of has own to support his views. He added nothing new to debate. Why should anyone hold his views above the anyone else. He was a TV weather person, and nothing else
Although link you gave is superficially “true” in the sense that the words quoted were indeed written by John Coleman, the statement that they “refute” global warming (i.e., prove it to be false) is something of an exaggeration.He did not hold a degree in climatology or any related discipline, nor did he study or conduct any research in that field; he merely Parroted arguments advanced by others:
What was said about him.
Both Fox News and CNN have recently invited John Coleman, one of the founders of The Weather Channel and former TV meteorologist, to express his views about climate change to their national audiences. Coleman is simply an awful choice to discuss this issue. He lacks credentials, many of his statements about climate change completely lack substance or mislead, and I’m not even sure he knows what he actually believes.
To begin, Coleman hasn’t published a single peer-reviewed paper pertaining to climate change science. His career, a successful and distinguished one, was in TV weather for over half a century, prior to his retirement in San Diego last April. If you watch Coleman on-camera, his skill is obvious. He speaks with authority, injects an irreverent sense of humor and knows how to connect with his viewer.
But a climate scientist, he is not.
His position further demonstrates an incredible lack of respect and regard for scores of intelligent, hard-working climate scientists, some of whom are politically conservative, who have dedicated their careers to objectively examining data and publishing research that indicate human-induced warming.

Carlos Ponce

"Fox News and CNN have recently invited John Coleman...."
Recently? The man is dead.
But while alive he had access to the top scientist and papers on climate.
And having a "degree" is not by itself a sign of credibility.
Look at Ocasio-Cortez and the numerous stupid remarks she has made. She has a business degree but severely lacks any credibility.
And there are many without a college degree who are VERY credible. Jesus of Nazareth comes to mind.

Jim Forsythe

What was said about him.

Jim Forsythe

Your first commits had nothing to do with Ocasio-Cortez, but did have to do with John Coleman and Dr.Joe Bastardi
If you want to discuss Ocasio-Cortez, send it into the GDN.
I did not say John Coleman was alive, as he passed away Jan 20, 2018 and the show was filmed before his death.
And having a "degree" is not by itself a sign of credibility. but does show they have a understanding of the subject.
If you want to contend that a degree does not equal credibility, you do have a degree .
Part of having standing with your peers is publishing new works that you researched yourself .
You were holding him up as a climate impact of humans expert, which he was not.

Carlos Ponce

I'm just adding to the conversation, Jim.
Your statement, "He did not have a degree" opened up the forum to people who have degrees but no credibility.
And what I posted was that a degree by itself does not guarantee credibility.
John Coleman has credibility - with no degree.

Jim Forsythe

John Coleman had credibility as one of the founders of The Weather Channel and former TV meteorologist.

Carlos Ponce

More than that, Jim. Do the RESEARCH.

Jim Forsythe

Carlos , what did John Coleman do that made him a expert in "The impact of humans on climate "


Carlos Ponce

That question has already been answered, Jim. Have you forgotten already?

Jim Forsythe

You are right , the answer is, that he was not qualified.

Carlos Ponce

No, Jim. Read my earlier post. It's still there.

Gary Scoggin

I find it interesting how we have managed to turn an issue of science into an issue of political philosophy.

Carlos Ponce

If it were science one would keep options open to the entire range of study including solar activity which is a far more convincing argument for climate change.
To those who believe in man-made climate change it has become a RELIGION !

Daniel Hochman

Solar activity IS NOT the cause and has already been proven. Nice try, but no.

Carlos Ponce

No, Daniel.
Let me put it simply. The electricity goes out in your house. You wonder if it's just your house, the neighborhood, or the entire area. You look outside and find no one has any lights or electricity.
Look around the solar system. The polar caps are melting - on Mars. The ice on Europa, a moon of Jupiter is melting. Man made? Hardly. It points to a solar system wide phenomena. What can cause it? SOLAR ACTIVITY!
Data to "prove" man-made climate change on Earth has been skewed to reach that conclusion. That's a fact. But I really don't want to discourage your religious views. Believe whatever you want.

Gary Scoggin

Carlos, the idea that believing in science comprises a religion is so illogical it makes me laugh. Loudly.

Carlos Ponce

Sorry, I'll try not to mess with your religious views.

Gary Scoggin

Carlos... In the IPCC report, which I know you don't believe because it doesn't tell you what you want to hear, there is considerable evaluation of the role of solar activity as it relates to Climate Change. We only have reliable satellite data going back to 1978 but there are a lot of proxy measurements going back all the way in geological time. Yes the sun's output does vary and that's largely what has driven climate variation over time but today's temperature rises are not due to increased solar radiation. One little peek at the document would show that scientists are "keeping options open to the entire range of study including solar activity."

Carlos Ponce

"Yes the sun's output does vary and that's largely what has driven climate variation over time..."
'Nuff said. So how about explaining the changing climates throughout the solar system. It is a solar system wide phenomena.

Daniel Hochman

I am simply astounded at the pure ignorance displayed in this post and in the comments. There are these things called facts, that most of you seem to completely ignore when spouting out complete nonsense that has no basis in reality or evidence, just some idiotic crap you read on google.

This is a simple cut and dry fact driven issue. It has absolutely nothing to do with socialism, which, it is obvious, you have no idea what that means as well. Paula is correct in her assertions that Exxon has come out publicly and admitted they have scientific knowledge of man-made climate change since the 70's. Additionally, I hold in my hand a letter written to congress from Exxon scientists and executives urging congress to take action on climate change before it is too late. It is signed by PhD Exxon employed scientists and upper echelon businessmen. 97% of scientists agree the climate is changing and that it is man-made. The assertion that a religious entity controls the climate is beyond ridiculous. It shows a primitive mindset no different from our ancestors who believed in the sun god Ra and sacrifices to appease them. I am a PhD scientist. Not one single scientist I know is gaining anything financially from begging the world to stop destroying the planet before it is too late. In fact, the vast majority of scientists are woefully underpaid and do what they do for the love of the science and the world. This idiotic mindset that humans can't change the planet is passé and cliché. Have you ever heard about the hole in the ozone layer? It was proven to be a result of air pollutants, specifically CFC's, and when the use of them was banned, the hole began to repair itself. That is just one of countless scientific examples of how man has altered the biosphere. Extinctions are taking place at an alarming pace worldwide and the simple and proven explanation is human destruction of habitat and other human activities.


Climate change is real, it is man made, scientists agree, the general public in the world, including the governments of 190 countries agree. Yes there are cyclic changes in global climate, however all the data proves that the changes currently taking place fall outside the norm for those parameters and have accelerated. That is not natural and to make that argument is old and shows a complete lack of understanding of the science. And by science I mean actual peer reviewed journal articles, NOT CHERRY PICKED GOOGLE CRAP.

And, please, for the love of all, learn how to spell and to use their, there, and they're correctly if you are going to pretend to know something about anything!!!!

Carlos Ponce

I won't mess with your religion - the Church of man-made climate change.

Gary Scoggin

Daniel.... you can talk facts until you’re blue in the face and there are folks here who are so wrapped up in what Sean Hannity tells them to believe that they can’t comprehend it. I have generally given up trying to talk sense into them but you are welcome to try. Best of luck.

Carlos Ponce

I won't mess with your religious views either.

George Croix

So, OK, Gary, rather than play the 'Fox news' get-outta-replying-free card, .....how long WAS that ozone hole in place before it was discovered....[beam][beam][beam][beam][beam]

Gary Scoggin

Fair enough .. . The answer is I don't know. I have never studied the "ozone hole" phenomenon enough to have a real understanding of stratospheric ozone and how it reacts with CFCs. (Actually, as i understand things, it's not a hole but a reduced concentration of ozone but "hole" iounds more spectacular.) The difference for me with the stratospheric ozone issue and the climate issue is that I have studied the climate bit extensively and I feel much better versed in it. And, full disclosure, made a living working it for several years.

George Croix

I know your history, Gary, and have nothing but respect for your abilities.
But, when you have learned all there is to learn about it your particular vocational disciplines, and nobody else can possibly make any point worth considering, get back with me and update that resume'.....until, then, I, personally, am in the 'maybe there's other possibilities' camp.....that comes with my background..... [beam][wink][smile]
Merry Christmas to you and yours.

ps:
You're WAAY to sharp for that 'Fox News' dodgeball BS....leave that to the usual suspects.....[ban]

George Croix

ps:
As I understand it, too, reduced ozone concentration is correct...but 'hole' made for more grant and study money and newspaper column inches.....and a few more 'the end is near' sales of 'An Inconvenient Truth' .....or at least, it should have................
[unsure]

Gary Scoggin

George... wasn’t really including you in the Hannity crowd, but you’re right, it is kind of a weak shot - on a level equating belief in Climate Change to a religion or to part of a Socialist agenda. As far as knowing everything! I’d say I’m just the opposite. I know enough to know that there’s a bunch I don’t know. As far as the solar output thing, that was my original cause of skepticism about the man made aspect of climate change. But I did some research and it changed my mind. As far as the overall topic, am I dead sure I’m correct in my assessment? No, not 100%. But I feel the case for man made climate change is pretty compelling. Sure, there is something that could come along and change my mind. But the additional evidence that mounts sure seems to point the other way.

George Croix

It's not the belief(s) that's the problem, Gary.
It's the exclusion of all other possibilities that bring belief into the near religion category, if not fully there.....
One thing age teaches those who live long enough to get old, and use that time to actually mature, is that nothing in this world is absolute, and also that we learn nothing, get zero mental stimulation, by only engaging with others of like mind to ourselves.......

ps:
Anyway, I don't watch Hannity except for once or twice a year tune in a few minutes to see if ALL of the guests are still the same clones of the host....so far, they have been.....so, back to Pawn Stars............ [beam][beam][beam]

Paula Flinn

I agree with Dr. Hockman, and believe the issue is totally a scientific one having nothing to do with either religion or politics.

Carlos Ponce

Then look at it from a scientific viewpoint. The attitude of tjose who believe in "man-made " climate change is like that of a religion. HOW DARE YOU QUESTION OUR BELIEFS! YOU ARE A HERETIC IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN MAN- MADE CLIMATE CHANGE!!!
To dismiss the idea climate change is caused by solar activity is NOT scientific. True science examines all variables. There is a HIGH correlation between solar activity and climate change. So what's causing climate change throughout the solar system, Paula? Man-made? Hardly.

Gary Scoggin

IIRC, there are a few posts lying around saying man can't change what God has made or something to that effect. Which side is treating this like religion?

Carlos Ponce

"man can't change what God has made"
Nice concept, but NO ONE has posted nor implied that. What I ask is to look at all data, all possibilities. A true scientist will not dismiss it. Solar system wide phenomena of planetary and planetoid climate change points to something not involving Earth's human populace. Or do you believe Martians are causing Mars' polar ice caps to melt? Or some other beings causing the climate change on Jupiter's moon Europa?
ET PHONE HOME! Your planet's climate is changing!

Steve Fouga

Carlos, somebody DID post that, and I responded. Not that it really matters, just setting the record straight.

Carlos Ponce

You're right I missed that one made six days ago.

George Croix

Gary, does one post or one person making posts make a position for an entire 'side'....?
No.....[wink] Sure would be a mess if that was the case.......
Hard to figure such a claim anyway....for those who don't believe, it doesn't matter who says what. For those who do, well, it's pretty obvious, as told by the entire Bible and by observation of anyone looking, that Man has been changing what God made ever since the aftermath of when Eve bit the forbidden fruit.....for better or worse......
Having been given the means to make change, and the free will and mind to do so, Man is constantly making changes.......
There is, though, a difference between making changes, and with actually impacting everybody else by doing so.....that's where the wicket gets sticky all over again, and faith and science become blended....to suit the blender.......
Faith is based on incomplete data, partial info, what we don't fully know for sure, because otherwise it would be incontrovertible fact......
Examples for each 'side'?
Nobody who's been dead a while has returned from Heaven to give all the details.
Nobody has any idea how bad the ozone layer was ever depleted before we knew it was an issue.
BOTH have their related true believers and faithful followers, based on partial info....
NEITHER is 'settled'......
IMO, as always.....

George Croix

The Antarctic Ozone Hole was first discovered/reported, memory serving, around the mid-1980's. I believe it was British scientists who concluded that the ozone depletion was seasonally cyclic, and largely impacted by that seasonal (temp.) effect on CFC's in the atmosphere....the cold above Antarctica being a significant factor. I may be recalling that incorrectly, but I don't think so.....
There is general, no, widespread, agreement that the 'hole' has begun to, overall, shrink as man-used CFC's have been reduced. At least as reported by the folks who are supposed to be the experts on such matters.
Good. But is that the only reason? It's sure the only one talked about....
A question yet to be answered, though, because it cannot be, is how big was that ozone hole BEFORE it was discovered.....before there were ever satellites in place to verify and measure it? Had it been there long before it was found? How long? Weeks? Decades? Eons? Had there ever been one at all in past history?
Did it predate the, roughly, one century long period of man-made CFC use?
Nobody knows for sure....because we don't know now what we didn't know then.
Facts?
It's also a fact, generally agreed on, even widespread, that volcanic activity can, and does, deplete the ozone layer. Volcanic activity is also a source of CFC's, along with Man.
Was the hole there in the past when there was significant volcanic activity? We don't know for sure, but we DO know that volcanic activity DOES negatively affect the ozone layer, so it's at least plausible, if not completely likely, that has happened in the past.

Did, for instance, the Mt. St. Helens eruption in 1980 have any effect on that very same not-yet-discovered 'ozone hole'? We don't know for sure, because nobody knew the hole was there, but we can reasonably say it very likely did...and then recall that very significant eruption occurred only about 5 short years before the hole discovery.
How about the Mt. Pinatubo eruption, claimed by scientists to have measurably lowered atmospheric ozone levels? Did that then play a part in increasing the size of the then-known Antarctic ozone hole, significantly, those scientists said, ...to the largest known to that date, some half decade or so after the ozone hole discovery, and thus the knowledge of its' originally measured size?

So, rather than self-declaring all skeptics, those less than 100% in the tank, dumb and dressed funny by their Momma, perhaps some members of the scientific community and other True Believers could practice a bit of introspection and ask if their absolute, or near it, faith in man-caused climate change destruction and is TOTALLY based on fact with all....all.....contributing factors evaluated, or does that quasi-religion, too, 'cherry pick' what makes their case?
No?
Not a chance?
Strictly 'science'?
Then, tell us how big that Antarctic ozone hole had ever been before it was ever 'discovered', and put all the 'ignorant folks' to bed without 'there' supper, where they belong.

Anyway, we certainly SHOULD do what we can to contribute to GLOBAL improvements in our environment, and we HAVE been.......
Unfortunately, and along with the good efforts, there's also the absurd ones, like spending 2 MILLION bucks each to create 'green' jobs and claiming that wind and solar are the answer to ending fossil fuels use.....and 'carbon credits', my personal favorite in the silliness...

But, let's NOT 'improve' at the expense of wrecking our economy to the benefit of others who don't care, or the ones who sign 'accords' and promptly ignore them, all the while gaining a net of little to nothing 'globally'.

OF COURSE there's climate change, in its many forms, in reality, that nobody this side of a mental institution could deny, because the climate ALWAYS changes....
There should also be no denying by anyone that Man can impact that change - anyone living in TC for the last half century can attest to the change in the 'climate' right here changing dramatically....for the better.
BUT science by its nature is NEVER 'settled'...and a skeptical eye should be cast on any one saying it is.
There are plenty of zealots at both ends of the issue.....

IMO, as always.......

ps:
Now, for one of my favorite folks, PF:
About that 12.5" 'sea level rise' at Galveston.
How much of that 'sea level rise' is in fact actually the 'land sinking' on that sandbar?
Lots of subsidence in this area in the last 50 years. Much of it Man-caused.
I'm not doubting the figures, nope, not doing that.....but do question why no mention is ever made of alternative reasons besides 'climate change'.

There's a reason for that..... [beam][beam][beam][wink]


Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Thank you for Reading!

Please log in, or sign up for a new account and purchase a subscription to read or post comments.