<div dir="ltr"><div><div><div><div>Speaking of climate change "deniers," Bjørn Lomborg, who has been given a significant podium for years in various media to promote his approach to AGW (anthropogenic global warming), which, while not totally denying global warming is occurring, minimizes the extent of the problem, asserting the money that might spent on addressing global warming would be better spent on other human problems, <b>was sliced and diced August 31, 2015 on Realclimate.org, by one of the most brilliant and knowledgeable climate scientists on the planet, Stefan Rahmstorf, Professor of the Physics of the Oceans at Potsdam University: <a href="http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/">http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/</a><br><br></b></div><div><b>I encourage anyone who is a "climate change denier," to carefully and with an open mind study this Rahmstorf article pasted in below. However, I dislike stereotyping views on AGW into opposing camps, such as "warmers" and "deniers." There are wide range of differing viewpoints on AGW, thus such oversimplifying stereotypes do a disservice to rational objective discussion. as this academic work from Yale implies:</b><br><b><span>March 16 2015</span></b><a href="http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/article/global-warmings-six-americas-perceptions-of-the-health-risks/"> Global Warming’s Six Americas’ Perceptions of the Health Risks</a><br><b><a href="http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/articles/archives/C72">http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/articles/archives/C72</a><br><br></b></div><b>Rahmstorf is an expert on sea level rise that may be induced by global warming, so Lomborg made a strategic mistake by wading into those scientific waters, a mistake Rahmstorf was only too happy to pounce upon.<br><br></b></div><div><b>Especially bizarre was the news in Rahmstorf's article that the Australian government offered a university $4 million to make Lomborg a professor, a development which contradicts the often heard claim that academia promotes global warming science to attract grants and publishing privileges to promote questionable science indicating global warming is a serious problem. In this case, the financial reward was aimed at promoting within academia the opposite point of view, though apparently, according to the Rahmstorf article, Lomborg's academic credentials simply did not pass muster, thus he was not given the professor position, though the Australian government "vowed to find another university."<br><br></b></div><div><b>As Rahmstorf points out, and I paraphrase, a spokesperson like Lomborg who gives the appearance of academic credibility on climate science, while decidedly lacking it, easily misleads a public that is not going to dive deeply into the scientific literature to cross check Lomborg's assertions on global warming. The fact Lomborg receives as much media attention as he does contradicts the often heard claim that skeptical views on AGW are not given widespread coverage.<br></b></div><div><b><br></b></div><b>I've pasted in the entire article, in part because the Realclimate.org website was having problems, though I eventually found the article in question. The article is followed by extensive discussion on the Realclimate.org website, which I found quite worthwhile:<br><br><a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/08/bjorn-lomborg-just-a-scientist-with-a-different-opinion/">http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/08/bjorn-lomborg-just-a-scientist-with-a-different-opinion/</a><br><br></b></div><font size="4">Bjorn Lomborg, just a scientist with a different opinion?<br></font></div><font size="4">Stefan, 31 August 2015</font><br><div><div><div style="" id="stcpDiv"><p>Bjørn
Lomborg is a well-known media personality who argues that there are
more important priorities than reducing emissions to limit global
warming. In a recent controversy centering on him, the Australian
government (<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2014/jun/16/what-does-australian-prime-minister-tony-abbott-really-think-about-climate-change">known for its contradictory position on climate change</a>)
offered the University of Western Australia (UWA) $4 million to make
Lomborg professor – which UWA first accepted, but then after massive
protest from its staff and students <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-08/bjorn-lomborg-uwa-consensus-centre-contract-cancelled/6456708">refused</a>.
The Australian government was quick to label it a “freedom of speech”
issue that Lomborg should get a university position, and <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2015/may/15/how-conservatives-lost-the-plot-over-the-rejection-of-bjorn-lomborg">vowed to find another university</a>
that would host him. However, free speech doesn’t guarantee everyone a
university position; there are also academic qualifications required.</p>
<p><strong>Lomborg’s publication record </strong></p>
<p><span id="more-18727"></span>Let us thus start by looking at
Lomborg’s track record in the scientific literature. This is where
original research results, i.e. new findings, are published. One can
look this up in the <a href="http://wokinfo.com/">Thomson Reuters Web of Science</a>,
the main data base of the scientific literature. According to this
Lomborg only has published 20 papers, of which 15 have never been cited
by anyone (Fig. 1). The number of citations shows whether any other
researchers in the world have found the results interesting enough to
discuss them in their own papers (whether critically or otherwise). Only
one of Lomborg’s papers has a reasonable number of citations: 42. This
is on a problem of game theory, apparently resulting from his PhD
thesis. On closer inspection, the other articles appear to be merely
opinion pieces that made it into the Thomson Reuters data base by
appearing in periodicals that are indexed there, including Forbes,
Foreign Affairs or New Scientist.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.realclimate.org/images//Lomborg1.jpg"><img class="" src="http://www.realclimate.org/images//Lomborg1.jpg" alt="Lomborg1" width="600"></a><a href="http://www.realclimate.org/images//Lomborg2.jpg"><img class="" src="http://www.realclimate.org/images//Lomborg2.jpg" alt="Lomborg2" width="600"></a></p>
<p><em><strong>Figure 1</strong> Lomborg’s citation record in Web of
Science, as viewed on 22 Aug 2015. The ten most-cited papers (out of 20)
are listed. Click to enlarge.</em></p>
<p>That means that apart from one paper in 1996, Lomborg has never
published anything in any field of science that was interesting or
useful to other scientists, or even just worth the bother of
contradicting in the scientific literature. PhD students at many
universities are expected to publish two or three original research
papers from their PhD, and without that, they are generally
uncompetitive for a postdoc position.</p>
<p>For comparison I also show a snapshot of the publication record of an
economist who really studies the economics of climate change: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Yohe">Gary Yohe</a>
(Fig. 2) – to give readers unfamiliar with bibliometric data an idea of
what they look like for a regular scientist at professorial level. One
number illustrates the point: Lomborg’s papers were cited once last
year, Yohe’s 608 times.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.realclimate.org/images//Yohe1.jpg"><img class="" src="http://www.realclimate.org/images//Yohe1.jpg" alt="Yohe1" width="600"></a><a href="http://www.realclimate.org/images//Yohe2.jpg"><img class="" src="http://www.realclimate.org/images//Yohe2.jpg" alt="Yohe2" width="600"></a></p>
<p><em><strong>Figure 2</strong> Gary Yohe’s citation record in Web of
Science, as viewed on 27 Aug 2015. The ten most-cited papers (out of 93)
are listed. Click to enlarge.</em></p>
<p><strong>Lomborg’s public comments on sea-level rise</strong></p>
<p><a href="http://www.pik-potsdam.de/sealevel/">I study sea-level rise</a>, and I first noticed Lomborg’s sea-level comments in October 2008, when he published an <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/oct/14/climatechange-scienceofclimatechange">opinion piece in the Guardian</a> (via Project Syndicate) in which he wrote:</p>
<blockquote><p>Since 1992, we have had satellites measuring the rise in
global sea levels, and they have shown a stable increase of 3.2mm per
year (1/8 of an inch) – spot on compared to the IPCC projection.
Moreover, over the last two years, sea levels have not increased at all –
actually, they show a slight drop. Should we not be told that this is
much better than expected?</p></blockquote>
<p>The first sentence is a debating trick frequently used by those
wanting to downplay climate change: Lomborg compares the observed <em>past</em> rise with average projections for the <em>future</em>.
However, in the projections sea level rise accelerates over time in
response to global warming, so if the rate of rise is already now as
high as models expect only in several decades, this is not “spot on”.
When comparing like with like, i.e. the same time interval, it has been
shown both <a href="http://www.pik-potsdam.de/%7Estefan/Publications/Nature/rahmstorf_etal_science_2007.pdf">in the journal Science</a> and <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/the-ipcc-sea-level-numbers/">in the 4<sup>th</sup> IPCC report </a>(published
2007) that the observed rate of rise greatly exceeded the projections
available at the time of Lomborg’s writing. (In the 5<sup>th</sup> IPCC report the projections are <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/10/sea-level-in-the-5th-ipcc-report/">about 60% higher</a> than in the 4<sup>th</sup> and now do match past observations.)</p>
<p>Lomborg’s second sentence is also a classic debating trick of climate
skeptics: confuse the public by cherry picking some short interlude
which goes against the long-term trend (Fig. 3). This is always possible
with noisy geophysical data.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.realclimate.org/images//Bjorn_Lomborg_Sea_Level_Rise.png"><img class="" src="http://www.realclimate.org/images//Bjorn_Lomborg_Sea_Level_Rise.png" alt="Bjorn_Lomborg_Sea_Level_Rise" width="600"></a></p>
<p><em> <strong>Figure 3</strong> The data behind Lomborg’s claim of falling sea level. Image courtesy of <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/03/12/lomborg-tells-bangladesh-not-to-worry-about-sea-level-rise/">Greg Laden’s blog</a>.</em></p>
<p>Ironically, the title of Lomborg’s article was “Let the data speak for itself”, but he did not show the data. (I did later in a <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/cif-green/2009/mar/09/climate-change-copenhagen">response </a>- for those wanting to read more on my exchange with Lomborg, see the Appendix below.)</p>
<p><strong>Misrepresentation of IPCC reports</strong></p>
<p>Lomborg has quite a history of misrepresenting what is written in
IPCC reports. I noted this already in the Guardian exchange about the 4<sup>th</sup> IPCC report. Lomborg has likewise seriously misrepresented what IPCC says about sea level in its latest (5<sup>th</sup>) report. In a <a href="http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/realism-in-the-latest-ipcc-climate-report-by-bj-rn-lomborg">newspaper column for Project Syndicate</a>, which got published in newspapers in many countries, he wrote:</p>
<blockquote><p>For sea-level rise, the IPCC now includes modeling of
glacier responses of 3-20 centimeters, leading to a higher total
estimate of 40-62 cm by century’s end – much lower than the exaggerated
and scary figure of 1-2 meters of sea-level rise that many environmental
activists, and even some media outlets, bandy about.</p></blockquote>
<p>Compare this to what the IPCC actually writes about sea level in its <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WGIAR5_SPM_brochure_en.pdf">Summary for Policy Makers</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>For RCP8.5, the rise by the year 2100 is 0.52 to 0.98 m.</p></blockquote>
<p>(RCP8.5 is a scenario with unmitigated rise in greenhouse gas emissions.)</p>
<p>For the lowest emissions scenario RCP2.6 (which involves drastic
emissions reductions starting in a few years and leading to zero global
emissions by 2070) the best-estimate sea-level rise by the year 2100
given by IPCC is 44 cm. The emissions reductions needed to keep
sea-level rise so moderate is the kind of scenario that Lomborg has
devoted his career to prevent. Telling his readers that sea-level rise
might just be 40 cm so they should not worry, without telling them that
this low number would require massive mitigation efforts, is rather
misleading.</p>
<p>The risk of a rise of 1-2 meters is dismissed by Lomborg as
“exaggerated” and “bandied about” by “environmental activists and even
some media outlets”. But surely Lomborg knows that a large part of the
sea-level expert community considers this a serious risk, as documented
in a number of peer-reviewed scientific publications? The thoroughly
peer-reviewed <a href="http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/">US National Climate Assessment</a>,
published some months before Lomborg’s newspaper article, summarizes
the state of science on future sea level in the following graph (Fig.
4).</p>
<p><a href="http://www.realclimate.org/images//US-national-assessment.jpg"><img class="" src="http://www.realclimate.org/images//US-national-assessment.jpg" alt="US national assessment" width="600"></a></p>
<p><em><strong>Figure 4</strong> Sea level rise according to the <a href="http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/">US National Climate Assessment (2014)</a>. The high end scenario of 6.6 feet equals 2 meters of rise between the years 2000 and 2100. </em></p>
<p>And an <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379113004381">expert survey</a>
in which 90 sea-level experts (in contrast to Lomborg, all with a good
track-record of research in this area) took part has come up with this
distribution for the upper reaches of sea-level rise by 2100 (Fig. 5).</p>
<div id="stcpDiv">
<p>.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.realclimate.org/images//survey_histogram1.png"><img class="" src="http://www.realclimate.org/images//survey_histogram1.png" alt="survey_histogram1" width="550"></a></p>
<p><em><strong>Figure 5</strong> Distribution of the experts’ answers to
the upper limit of the ‘likely’ range for the RCP8.5 scenario by the
year 2100. Many experts consider a global sea-level rise between 1 and 2
meters quite possible in case of unmitigated greenhouse gas emissions.<br>
</em></p>
<p><strong>Cynical misinformation offered to developing nations</strong></p>
<p>Lomborg’s message to the newspaper readers has thus nothing to do
with a fair portrayal of how much sea-level rise the scientific
community expects. Rather it is a distortion and blatant attempt at
downplaying future sea-level rise. Looking at Lomborg’s <a href="http://www.project-syndicate.org/search?query=Lomborg&language=english&sortBy=relevance&sortOrder=desc">many other Project Syndicate columns</a>
shows that this is not a singular case but a regular pattern in his
columns. This is all the more irresponsible given that Project Syndicate
opinion pieces are widely reprinted by newspapers in developing
nations, where reporting on the actual state of science is often poor
and where people are most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.</p>
<p>Earlier this year Lomborg travelled to Bangladesh to <a href="http://bdnews24.com/environment/2015/03/11/danish-economist-warns-bangladesh-about-climate-politics">tell people there</a> that “focusing on global warming instead of child nutrition is quite frankly almost immoral” (his standard<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma"> false dichotomy</a>). He further claimed:</p>
<blockquote><p>The Dutch has shown us 200 years ago, you can handle sea
level rise fairly, easily and cheaply, you can do the same thing here
and you will do the same thing here.</p></blockquote>
</div>
<p>It only takes a look at Google Earth to see <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/03/12/lomborg-tells-bangladesh-not-to-worry-about-sea-level-rise/">how preposterous</a>
the comparison of Holland and Bangladesh is (Fig. 6). The latter
coastline is vastly more difficult to defend against rising seas, and
unlike Holland it is in the path of tropical cyclones.</p>
<p style="text-align:center"><a href="http://www.realclimate.org/images//Holland.jpg"><img class="" src="http://www.realclimate.org/images//Holland.jpg" alt="Holland" width="400"></a></p>
<p style="text-align:center"><a href="http://www.realclimate.org/images//Bangladesh.jpg"><img class="" src="http://www.realclimate.org/images//Bangladesh.jpg" alt="Bangladesh" width="500"></a></p>
<p><em><strong>Figure 6</strong> Coastlines of Holland (top) and Bangladesh at similar scale. Holland expects to <a href="http://www.deltacommissie.com/doc/advies_samenvatting_en_aanbevelingen.pdf">spend 1.2 to 1.6 billion Euro</a>
(1.4 to 1.8 billion US$) per year until 2050 to upgrade its already
well-established coastal defences – but it has a straight,
easy-to-defend coastline with only a small river delta region.
Bangladesh in contrast is largely a river flood plain with major
problems draining the monsoonal waters to the sea (closing the coast
with a huge dike is not an option) combined with storm surges from
tropical cyclones. [See more in Appendix 2.]<br>
</em></p>
<p>Lomborg’s cynical attitude towards the victims of sea-level rise could hardly be better illustrated by <a href="https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/who-s-afraid-of-climate-change">another Project Syndicate op-ed</a> he wrote. There he dismisses even a catastrophic 20-foot sea-level rise (6 meters – a plausible <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/110/34/13745.short">outcome of unmitigated global warming in a few centuries</a>) which would inundate about 16,000 square miles of coastline where more than 400 million people currently live:</p>
<blockquote><p>That’s a lot of people, to be sure, but hardly all of
mankind. In fact, it amounts to less than 6% of the world’s population –
which is to say that 94% of the population would not be inundated.</p></blockquote>
<p>What a cavalier way to dismiss the plight of 400 million people, coming from a rich Dane who in 2012 <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/06/25/3453053/koch-bjorn-lomborg-lousy-t-shirt/">received a salary of US$ 775.000 in the US</a> via conservative foundations!</p>
<p><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>
<p>To answer the question posed in the title: No, I do not think Lomborg
is a scientist who just happens to have a different opinion from the
majority. First of all, there is very little indication that he is
actually working as a scientist, given his near-zero scientific track
record since his PhD work according to Thomson Reuters Web of Science.
Second, the arguments he presents to the wider public on sea-level rise
can hardly be seen as made in good faith – rather, they appear to me
carefully crafted (and admittedly rather eloquent) distortions, aimed to
deceive his lay audience about the seriousness of the threat. In short,
I would consider much of Lomborg’s writing propaganda.</p>
<p>Ever since his “Skeptical Environmentalist” book Lomborg has a
simple, single message: don’t worry about reducing fossil emissions.
Whether he denies or plays down the seriousness of global warming, sings
the praises of adaptation, advocates to prioritize other problems or
pushes geoengineering, the message is always the same: anything is
better than phasing out fossil fuels.</p>
<p>As seen by the lack of citations, this message has zero credibility
or impact in the scientific community. After all, scientists can judge
the merits of the arguments. Unfortunately, Lomborg’s propaganda message
is not only popular with fossil fuel interests, but continues to get
ample space in the media.</p>
<p><strong>-----------------------------------------------</strong></p><p><strong>Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett<br></strong></p></div><div><div><br><br></div></div></div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 4:54 PM, Scott Dredge <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:scooterd408@hotmail.com" target="_blank">scooterd408@hotmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div><div dir="ltr"><span class="">Tom wrote:<br><Any time you climate-change deniers want to chime in, please do.><br><br></span>You can just Google 'climate change hoax' and click on a number of sites that provide irrefutable opinions:<br><br><a href="http://www.globalclimatescam.com/" target="_blank">http://www.globalclimatescam.com/</a><br><br><a href="http://wakeup-world.com/2014/07/07/the-climate-change-hoax-the-lie-is-in-the-cause/" target="_blank">http://wakeup-world.com/2014/07/07/the-climate-change-hoax-the-lie-is-in-the-cause/</a><br><br><a href="http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php" target="_blank"></a><a href="http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php" target="_blank">http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php</a><br><br><br><br><div><hr>From: <a href="mailto:thansen@moscow.com" target="_blank">thansen@moscow.com</a><br>Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 07:34:30 -0700<br>To: <a href="mailto:kmmos1@frontier.com" target="_blank">kmmos1@frontier.com</a><br>CC: <a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank">vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] 8 States Running Out of Water<div><div class="h5"><br><br><div>California is currently experiencing its worst drought since 1901 and it has been getting worse for the last 30 years.</div><div><br></div><div><a href="http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/16/the-california-drought-is-even-worse-than-you-think.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/16/the-california-drought-is-even-worse-than-you-think.html</a></div><div><br></div><div>Any time you climate-change deniers want to chime in, please do.<br><br><div><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">Seeya 'round town, Moscow, because . . .</span></div><div><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)"><br></span></div><div><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">"Moscow Cares" (the most fun you can have with your pants on)</span></div><div><a href="http://www.moscowcares.com/" style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)" target="_blank"><font color="#000000">http://www.MoscowCares.com</font></a></div><div><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)"> </span></div><div><div><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">Tom Hansen</span></div><div><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">Moscow, Idaho</span></div></div><div><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)"><br></span></div><div><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">"There's room at the top they are telling you still.</span></div><div><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">But first you must learn how to smile as you kill,</span></div><div><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">If you want to be like the folks on the hill."</span></div><div><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)"><br></span></div><div><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">- John Lennon</span></div></div><div><br>On Sep 8, 2015, at 6:55 AM, Kenneth Marcy <<a href="mailto:kmmos1@frontier.com" target="_blank">kmmos1@frontier.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote><div>
<b>8 States Running Out of Water</b><br>
<br>
<b><a href="http://tinyurl.com/p5cqv59" target="_blank">http://tinyurl.com/p5cqv59</a> <br>
</b><br>
While drought conditions have improved in many regions of the United
States, higher than average summer temperatures and patchy rainfall
over the summer has contributed to one of the worst wildfire seasons
on record. There are currently at least 60 large fires burning
across the country. So far this year, more than 8 million acres have
been destroyed by fire, a level of devastation seen in only six
other years since 1960.
<div> </div>
It is the fourth consecutive year of drought for most of the
western United States. The dry summer has raised particular
concern about California, where 46% of land area is in a state of
exceptional drought conditions — the worst level of drought — up
slightly from the already especially bad drought level in the
spring. This was the highest such share nationwide and the kind of
water shortage that happens only once a century.<br>
<br>
<[more of the article at the link]><br>
<br>
<strong>5. Idaho<br>
> Pct. Severe drought </strong> 18.8%<br>
<strong>> Pct. extreme drought:</strong> 29.3%<br>
<strong>> Pct. exceptional drought:</strong> 0.0%<br>
Nearly 50% of Idaho is currently in a state of either severe or
extreme drought conditions. The worst of the drought stretches
along Idaho’s western border and encompasses the entire northern
tip of the state, from the top of Idaho County through Boundary
County. Nearly 1.5 million state residents are affected by the
drought. Droughts create dry conditions that increase the
likelihood of wildfires. Currently, there are wildfires burning in
west-central and northern Idaho that have lead to the evacuation
of residents and the deployment of over 1,000 firefighters. The
drought in Idaho is a part of a much larger national pattern that
encompasses much of the western United States. Idaho has
experienced severe drought conditions every year since 2012. The
state’s Department of Agriculture reinitiated the Idaho Rangeland
Drought Task Group last year to help drought-affected farmers take
advantage of assistance provided by federal and state agencies.<br>
<b><a href="http://tinyurl.com/p5cqv59" target="_blank">http://tinyurl.com/p5cqv59</a> <br>
<br>
8. South Carolina 7. Utah 6. Montana 5. Idaho 4. Nevada 3.
California 2. Washington 1. Oregon <br>
<br>
<br>
</b><b>Ken</b><br>
<br>
</div></blockquote><blockquote><div><span>=======================================================</span><br><span> List services made available by First Step Internet,</span><br><span> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.</span><br><span> <a href="http://www.fsr.net" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</a></span><br><span> <a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a></span><br><span>=======================================================</span></div></blockquote><br>=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<a href="http://www.fsr.net" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</a>
mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank">Vision2020@moscow.com</a>
=======================================================</div></div></div> </div></div>
<br>=======================================================<br>
List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>
<a href="http://www.fsr.net" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</a><br>
mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
=======================================================<br></blockquote></div><br></div>