Integrating Missionally » Science

Is climate change causing all this snow?

David Phillips — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 14:22:26 +0000

I live in the Mid-Atlantic. Since December 19, 2009, we have received almost 6 feet of snow. We set records for snowfall this year. I am asking God to move me back South as a result.

I admit that I’m not a climatologist. But I am a scientist. I read scientific literature. My doctoral dissertation integrated emerging brain research and theology. I have a computer science degree and spent 6 years in the IT industry. All this intrigues me.

Climate change is a difficult subject, and a contentious one. It’s a charged debate with people on the left and right politically and socially at each other’s throat. With the winter storms that have roared through this year, and with the Cap and Trade bill before Congress and being pushed through by the White House, the debate has only grown louder and more angry, if that is possible.

This week, both sides of the debate politically have gone after each other in the media. Those on the right are considering putting out an amber alert for Al Gore because he has been silent with all this snow and with ClimateGate. They have made fun of the former Vice President and those on the Left because global warming couldn’t be happening with all this snow. The Left has now fired back saying that all this snow is actually evidence of global warming. Just this week, MSNBC anchors and Fox News anchors have lobbed shots at each other over this.

Here is a sampling of video clips of this week’s action. First, Rachael Maddow interviews the lovable Bill Nye, the Science Guy. Nye appeared on MSNBC’s Feb. 10 “Rachel Maddow Show” and aired his disapproval of manmade climate change skeptics and labeled them “unpatriotic.”

MSNBC Anchor Dylan Ratigan got into the act, stating: ‘Snowpocalypses’ that have been going through D.C. and other weather events are precisely what climate scientists have been predicting, fearing, and anticipating because of global warming … In fact you could argue these storms are not evidence of a lack of global warming, but evidence of global warming.” That clip is here.

Glenn Beck responds to this clip on the radio and on his Fox News program. The transcript of what he said on the radio program can be found here.

Not to be out done, Ratigan responds to Beck with what appears to be scientific evidence. Note that clip here:

The IPCC report that Bill Nye notes received a Nobel Prize for their work has been exposed by ClimateGate. The IPCC has had to announce this week that errors were made. Britian has called for an inquiry. India has pulled out because of the manipulation of the data. And despite some claiming the science is settled, it certainly doesn’t appear to be.

I know two things. First, in 2002, I participated in a doctoral class where one of my colleague worked for an environmental group. She was, herself, an environmentalist. During part of her research, however, she came to the conclusion that the environmental movement had little to do with the environment and more to do with the money. In fact, it was primarily a money movement.

Second, the science that Ratigan & Nye use to validate their claim that global warming is the cause of the record snow falls, has recently been proven incorrect. A recent study by Susan Solomon,Karen Rosenlof,Robert Portmann,John Daniel,Sean Davis, Todd Sanford, and Gian-Kasper Plattner, published in the journal Science, states:

Stratospheric water vapor concentrations decreased by about 10% after the year 2000. Here, we show that this acted to slow the rate of increase in global surface temperature over 2000 to 2009 by about 25% compared to that which would have occurred due only to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. More limited data suggest that stratospheric water vapor probably increased between 1980 and 2000, which would have enhanced the decadal rate of surface warming during the 1990s by about 30% compared to estimates neglecting this change.

This article was generated by scientists with the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory and the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences in Colorado and the Physics Institute in Bern, Switzerland. These are hardly groups associated with any high level of climate change skepticism.

If the water vapor concentrations were increasing, with more water in the atmosphere there could be more rain and snow, depending on the temperature. However, water is decreasing; therefore there should be reduced rain and reduced snow falls. That is just not happening.

Another article was published in Geophysical Research Letters by two scientists with the National Climatic Data Center in North Carolina and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California. The article is entitled “Is the climate warming or cooling?” Easterling and Wehner basically show that with little-to-no external forcing of global climate, we will still get decades of warming and cooling. They note that no real cause is needed to produce a decade of cooling – it is all just part of the natural variability of climate.

Has there been a trend towards an increase in temperature? Since 1975, yes there has. It is, however, now trending downward.

As a Christian, I believe it is important to be good stewards of creation. I want to be off the grid (except for internet) in 10 years, using solar, wind, and geo-thermal energies and the grid as back-up power only. At the same time, I also believe in the sovereignty of God and in that I believe that God can take care of this planet without my help or my harm. So while I support environmentalism to a point, I also reject the rabid environmentalists trying to cap and tax (~~trade~~) and destroy economies and jobs.

Q4U:

1. Will extreme environmentalism hurt our economies? If so, how?
2. What are you doing to be more aware environmentally, and a better steward of the earth’s resources?

Copyright © 2008
This feed is for personal, non-commercial use only.
The use of this feed on other websites breaches copyright. If this content is not in your news reader, it makes the page you are viewing an infringement of the copyright. (Digital Fingerprint:
63d78be34e7054de080da99a50c72238 (38.107.191.82) )

Saturday’s suggested reads

David Phillips — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 15:42:07 +0000

From the Pat Robertson Haiti debacle, Jeffrey Weiss has a story entitled “Haiti and the Pat Robertson Paradox” Great thoughts on religion in America (HT: Len Sweet)

From the election on Tuesday

Massachusetts Voters Backed Brown to Show Opposition to Democratic Agenda, Poll Says

“Nearly two-thirds of those who voted for Republican Scott Brown in the Massachusetts Senate race said their vote was at least in part to make clear their opposition to the Democratic agenda in Washington.”

Now What? Democrats Struggle to Make Sense of Losses

Between Republican Scott Brown’s surprise Senate victory over Martha Coakley in Massachusetts Tuesday night, the Supreme Court’s decision to lift campaign restrictions on corporations Thursday, Obama’s Transportation Security Administration nominee stepping down, Federal Reserve Chief Ben Bernanke’s nomination coming under fire, and even progressive radio station Air America going off the air, Obama had just come through the most bruising five days his administration, his party, and his progressive base had ever seen together.

From Science this week

Neurons Developed from Stem Cells Successfully Wired With Other Brain Regions in Animals. Why does this matter?

In this study, a team of neuroscientists led by James Weimann, PhD, of Stanford Medical School focused on cells that transmit information from the brain’s cortex, some of which are responsible for muscle control. It is these neurons that are lost or damaged in spinal cord injuries and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). “These stem cell-derived neurons can grow nerve fibers between the brain’s cerebral cortex and the spinal cord, so this study confirms the use of stem cells for therapeutic goals,” Weimann said.

Human Brain Uses a Grid to Represent Space. Why read this? Well, these cells correlate with Alzheimer’s. Fascinating read.

The parts of the brain which show signs of grid cells — the hippocampal formation and associated brain areas — are already known to help us navigate our environment and are also critical for autobiographical memory. This means that grid cells may help us to find our way to the right memory as well as finding our way through our environment. These brain areas are also amongst the first to be affected by Alzheimer’s disease which may explain why getting lost is one of the most common early symptoms of this disease.

From Health, Wellness, & Food

Unraveled? Here’s How to Knit Yourself and the World Together. Okay, get past the Buddhist quote and you’ll find some great thoughts:

Have you ever looked into the mirror and wondered who is staring back at you? Or longed to unite the many parts within you? The friendly one, the angry one, the resentful one, the sad one, the calm one, the impatient one, the confused one – that are all jumbled up behind a public persona that’s buffed and glossed – but tends to crack when you’re angry or upset.

27 Fitness and Fat Loss Tips. “These 27 Fitness and Fat Loss Tips will get you on the right track for this New Year”

How To Reach Your Goals By Keeping A Journal. Great suggestions for record-keeping!

Cook Pizza in a Cast-Iron Skillet. A great suggestion.

Think you need a pizza stone to make some great homemade pizza? Megan from DIY home weblog Not Martha suggests trying your trusty cast-iron skillet before shelling out for a uni-tasking pizza stone.

Less Christianity = More Christian Activism?

David Phillips — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 11:53:46 +0000

“It seems that when Christianity is popular, Christians are content with the idea of a firewall separating Church and State. It’s only when Christianity begins to lose it’s influence over the population at large that Christians begin to campaign for the State to adopt a Christian character.” That is the opening statement from Razib Khan’s December 22 article entitled “Less Religion = More Religious Activism” from his blog Gene Expression.

Data from a research team from Erasmus University in the Netherlands shows some interesting results. Looking at survey data from 18 Western countries, they found:

1. The fewer Christians in a country, the greater the support among Christians for a greater public role for religion.
2. The polarization of views between Christians and non-religious on a public role for religion is greatest in countries where there are fewest Christians.

The reasoning behind this increased activism are at least two fold. Some of this can be attributed to specific factors in Europe relating to religious pluralism. Even if a society is very secular, if the dominant religious orientation is uniform, then its background assumptions spreads through one’s daily life. One can therefore be a “cultural” Catholic or Lutheran, with an attachment to the exoteric forms associated with the religion, without being a believer. But when you have religious pluralism people are going to disagree strenuously about exoteric forms. This applies even to the post-religious; an American atheist from a Jewish background may have a different attitude toward Christmas than an American atheist from a Catholic background. In other words, as European societies have become less Christian over the past generation, they’ve also had to face more religious pluralism. Christians will become more assertive and aggressive in direct response to Europe’s growing Muslim community, which wishes to contest the tacit monopoly that Christianity has long had in Europe as the Faith.

Another issue which might be at work is that as nominal or marginal believers fall away, the set of individuals who remain committed Christians are more religious and exhibit more fidelity to their identity than before. This may result in a group of Christians who are much more cohesive and can engage in collective action out of proportion to their numbers. Whereas before more marginal and nominal members of the community might have served as a check on excessive activism, today those individuals may no longer be part of the Christianity community.

The power of an organized Christian community is clear in a society such as South Korea. Though only around 30% of the population is Christian, with almost half the population not having a religious affiliation at all, Christians have been over-represented in positions of power. The growth of the Christian religion has been rapid, but has slowed over the past 15 years. It seems possible that it may be nearing its “natural limit.” But that does not mean that it won’t be influential in the years to come.

So what do you think of the study and its conclusions? If the results of this study are true, as Westerners, do get more aggressive because we feel we are fighting back against the enemy (Satan)? Or are we just defensive, fearful of loosing our place?

Study Source:
Achterberg, P., Houtman, D., Aupers, S., Koster, W., Mascini, P., & Waal, J. (2009). A Christian Cancellation of the Secularist Truce? Waning Christian Religiosity and Waxing Religious Deprivatization in the West Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 48 (4), 687-701

How we read each other’s minds

David Phillips — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:56:13 +0000

Sensing the motives and feelings of others is a natural talent for humans. But how do we do it? Here, Rebecca Saxe shares fascinating lab work that uncovers how the brain thinks about other peoples’ thoughts — and judges their actions.

Rebecca Saxe studies how we think about other people’s thoughts. At the Saxelab at MIT, she uses fMRI to identify what happens in our brains when we consider the motives, passions and beliefs of others.

Dan Pink on the surprising science of motivation

David Phillips — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 14:54:30 +0000

About this talk

Career analyst Dan Pink examines the puzzle of motivation, starting with a fact that social scientists know but most managers don’t: Traditional rewards aren’t always as effective as we think. Listen for illuminating stories — and maybe, a way forward.

About the speaker

With a trio of influential bestsellers, Dan Pink has changed the way companies view the modern workplace. In the pivotal A Whole New Mind, Pink identifies a sea change in the global workforce — the shift of an information-based corporate culture to a conceptual base, where creativity and big-picture design dominates the landscape.

His latest book, The Adventures of Johnny Bunko, is an evolutionary transformation of the familiar career guide. Replacing linear text with a manga-inspired comic, Pink outlines six career laws vastly differing from the ones you’ve been taught. Members of the Johnny Bunko online forum participated in an online contest to create the seventh law — “stay hungry.”

A contributing editor for Wired, Pink is working on a new book on the science and economics of motivation called Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us
for release in late 2009.

How social media can make history

David Phillips — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 22:22:25 +0000

About the Talk
While news from Iran streams to the world, Clay Shirky shows how Facebook, Twitter and TXTs help citizens in repressive regimes to report on real news, bypassing censors (however briefly). The end of top-down control of news is changing the nature of politics.

About the Speaker
Clay Shirky’s consulting focuses on the rising usefulness of decentralized technologies such as peer-to-peer, wireless networks, social software and open-source development. New technologies are enabling new kinds of cooperative structures to flourish as a way of getting things done in business, science, the arts and elsewhere, as an alternative to centralized and institutional structures, which he sees as self-limiting. In his writings and speeches he has argued that “a group is its own worst enemy.” His clients have included Nokia, the Library of Congress and the BBC. Shirky is an adjunct professor in New York University’s graduate Interactive Telecommunications Program, where he teaches course named “Social Weather.”

Gossip as power and control

David Phillips — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 23:24:29 +0000

This is a re-post of thoughts published in a past post.

I have been thinking and processing two interesting articles. One is on gossip and the other is on information addiction. The science of gossip is quite interesting. Of course, we all gossip, science would say it is part of our socialization processes. Used negatively, however, it really is an attempt to tear down and/or exert power over someone who has more influence than us or who is on the rise in their influence but whom those in control want to normalize and bring conformity to their behavior.

The gossip study comes from the October 1, 2008 edition of Scientific American Magazine. The article is entitled, “The Science of Gossip: Why We Can’t Stop Ourselves“. The author of the article, Frank T. McAndrew states,

Only in the past decade or so have psychologists turned their attention toward the study of gossip, partially because it is difficult to define exactly what gossip is. Most researchers agree that the practice involves talk about people who are not present and that this talk is relaxed, informal and entertaining. Typically the topic of conversation also concerns information that we can make moral judgments about. Gossip appears to be pretty much the same wherever it takes place; gossip among co-workers is not qualitatively different from that among friends outside of work. Although everyone seems to detest a person who is known as a “gossip” and few people would use that label to describe themselves, it is an exceedingly unusual individual who can walk away from a juicy story about one of his or her acquaintances, and all of us have firsthand experience with the difficulty of keeping spectacular news about someone else a secret.

Gossip functions as a socializing process. In his book Grooming, Gossip, and the Evolution of Language, psychologist Robin Dunbar of the University of Liverpool in England suggested that gossip is a mechanism for bonding social groups together, analogous to the grooming that is found in primate groups. Sarah R. Wert, now at the University of Colorado at Boulder, and Peter Salovey of Yale University have proposed that “gossip is one of the best tools that we have for comparing ourselves socially with others.”

Gossip can be an effective means of uncovering such information about others and an especially useful way of controlling free thinkers who may be tempted to violate group norms. “Studies in real-life groups such as California cattle ranchers, Maine lobster fishers and college rowing teams confirm that gossip is used in these quite different settings to enforce group norms when an individual fails to live up to the group’s expectations”. In each of these groups, “individuals who violated expectations about sharing resources and meeting responsibilities became frequent targets of gossip and ostracism, which applied pressure on them to become better citizens. Anthropological studies of hunter-gatherer groups have typically revealed a similar social control function for gossip in these societies.”

According anthropologist Jerome Barkow of Dalhousie University, we tend to be especially interested in information about people who matter most in our lives: rivals, mates, relatives, partners in social exchange, and high-ranking figures whose behavior can affect us. Given the idea that our interest in gossip “evolved as a way of acquiring fitness-enhancing information, Barkow also suggests that the type of knowledge that we seek should be information that can affect our social standing relative to others.” Therefore, we to find higher interest in negative news about high-status people and potential rivals because we can exploit it. Negative information about those lower than us in status is as useful.

Information Addiction

The second article I have been thinking through comes from an article in a science blog I read called “The Frontal Cortex“. The article was entitled, “Information Addiction.” The author of this article, Jonah Lehrer is a contributing editor at Wired and author of two books, How We Decide and Proust Was a Neuroscientist. He discusses a recent article in Slate, by Emily Yoffe. “It’s an interesting summary of research that seeks to understand the primal human hunger for information, mostly by extending our models of addiction. Why do we constantly check our email on Sunday morning, or refresh Facebook 100 times a day? What makes new facts so rewarding? For the brain, information is just another rewarding stimulus, an excitatory prompt that leads to the release of neurotransmitter.”

Here’s Yoffe:

Berridge has proposed that in some addictions the brain becomes sensitized to the wanting cycle of a particular reward. So addicts become obsessively driven to seek the reward, even as the reward itself becomes progressively less rewarding once obtained. “The dopamine system does not have satiety built into it,” Berridge explains. “And under certain conditions it can lead us to irrational wants, excessive wants we’d be better off without.” So we find ourselves letting one Google search lead to another, while often feeling the information is not vital and knowing we should stop. “As long as you sit there, the consumption renews the appetite,” he explains.

Actually all our electronic communication devices–e-mail, Facebook feeds, texts, Twitter–are feeding the same drive as our searches. Since we’re restless, easily bored creatures, our gadgets give us in abundance qualities the seeking/wanting system finds particularly exciting. Novelty is one. Panksepp says the dopamine system is activated by finding something unexpected or by the anticipation of something new. If the rewards come unpredictably–as e-mail, texts, updates do–we get even more carried away. No wonder we call it a “CrackBerry.”

Lehrer continues. “The brain, as we all know, is not an indiscriminate curiosity machine. Most people don’t want to know more about quantum mechanics, or the actual details of health care reform, or what’s happening in the Afghanistan presidential campaign. In other words, our craving for news tends towards the local and the personal – our curiosity is circumscribed.” Lehrer concludes that

our brain cells are finely tuned to want more information about stuff which they already know. In essence, these cells work by constantly striving to reduce their “prediction-error signal,” which is the gap between what these cells expect to happen and what actually occurs. If a monkey has been trained to get a squirt of juice everytime a bell is rung, then these dopaminergic cells quickly learn that the bell predicts the sweet reward. As a result, they want more information about that specific rewarding stimulus. What, for instance, predicts the bell? Maybe the scientist flicks a switch before ringing the bell? Or maybe he scratches his nose? Or maybe he simply enters the room? What numerous experiments have found is that our dopamine neurons aren’t interested in responding to the reward itself – instead, they want to find the first reliable bit of information that predicts the reward. This is why we crave new facts: they are means of updating our old facts, of extending our cognitive models forward in time.

This more nuanced version of information addiction also helps explain why even smart people can be so stubbornly ignorant in the face of reality.

We live in a world that is intrinsically motivated by gossip, particularly negative gossip about people or groups that have some leverage or power over us. It is a way to find an avenue for socialization to the norm or to preserve our position or even elevate it. It gives us something to tear down others with so as to have some kind of power over them. Empowered by gossip, information addiction then drives us to know more and more details so as to be able to have more and more potential power over a situation.

Ironically, when a person or organization handles situations correctly, most people are truly surprised. In the recent signing of Michael Vick by the Philadelphia Eagles, most people were totally surprised, even the media. There were no leaks. It was not known until the organization wanted it to be known.

When you start hearing people talk about other people, consider how the discussion is being framed. If the information is negative, control, power or destruction is on the way. When it is positive, it is sharing in the experience of someone. Which scenario has more information gathered? That would be negative gossip.

Communication that creates change: an introduction

David Phillips — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 16:38:31 +0000

Within culture, people are devoting less and less time to community events, relationships and church gatherings. Ministers in many settings have only the Sunday morning gathering to create an environment for the timeless truth of God to be made real in the life of a person. Despite the reality that it is ultimately the responsibility of the Spirit to bring change in the life of a person, churches need to develop worship gatherings where the environment is effectively designed for the transmission of the life-changing message of the Cross. Doing so requires an understanding of how the mind processes information and how to design environments for communication.

The majority of texts on preaching deal more with structure and form in preparation and delivery of the sermon rather than teaching future preachers communication theory as well as helping them understand how meaning, reality, and language are developed and interpreted.[1] The course of action within many seminaries is to teach the construction of sermons, not to communicate with the group they are addressing. “We are teaching people how to put together sermons, not to communicate,” noted one professor of preaching.[2]

As less and less time is given by people to the gathering of the church and the communication of the Word of God, more and more emphasis needs to be given to the act of communication itself. Communicators need to understand how a person constructs reality, understanding language and how those are important to the change process. Preaching and communicating in a church or worship setting in not simply a matter of a stylistic or formulaic development of a talk, but integrating the message of God to a specific group of people who understand and see life and reality in specific ways. Communication thus requires understanding the context so that not only does communication take place, but when it does that it does not inhibit or deter the work of the Spirit in addressing behavioral issues which need to be changed.

The master communicator in all of history is a part of the Godhead himself, namely Jesus Christ. If he was the master communicator, and the creator and sustainer of all things[3], then a reasonable understanding of his communication practices should also be addressed. His words and communication elements, intersected with the power of the Holy Spirit, have brought about the transformation of the masses.

Combining and understanding of all of these will allow the communicator to make the best use of his time to communicate in a meaningful way and create an environment where the Spirit can integrate the message from the messenger and the timeless truth of the Gospel to see behavioral change in the lives of people.

Notes:

[1] This is an observation based on a perusal of more than thirty texts on preaching from my own library.

[2] Email conversation with Dr. Argile Smith, then Professor of Preaching at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, 2001.

[3] See Colossians 1:15-20.

The Replacement for Twitter or Wii?

David Phillips — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 11:58:19 +0000

Lionhead introduces us to their Project Natal-enabled interactive character named Milo. This demo is from E3 2009.

and

No Related Posts

The Psychology of the Sale and Mega/Multi-site

David Phillips — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 09:46:12 +0000

" width="237" height="223" />

Genuine or Generic?

When it comes to consumer buyer patterns, an interesting psychological process unfolds. According to author Jonah Lehrer, “In general, people rely on a simple heuristic, or mental short-cut, when trying to evaluate the quality of a product: we assume that more expensive things are of higher quality. In other words, you get what you pay for. As a result, we automatically suspect products on sale of being faulty, or inferior. And because our expectations profoundly influence our experience, an olive oil that we expect to be lower in quality will actually taste lower in quality.”

Baba Shiv, a neuroeconomist at Stanford, supplied a group of people with Sobe Adrenaline Rush, an “energy” drink that was supposed to make them feel more alert and energetic. The drink contained a potent brew of sugar and caffeine which, the bottle promised, would impart “superior functionality”. Some participants paid full price for the drinks, while others were offered a discount. The participants were then asked to solve a series of word puzzles. Shiv found that people who paid discounted prices consistently solved about thirty percent fewer puzzles than the people who paid full price for the drinks. The subjects were convinced that the stuff on sale was much less potent, even though all the drinks were identical.

Why did the cheaper energy drink prove less effective? According to Shiv, consumers typically suffer from a version of the placebo effect. Since we expect cheaper goods to be less effective, they generally are less effective, even if they are identical to more expensive products. This is why brand-name aspirin works better than generic aspirin, or why Coke tastes better than cheaper colas, even if most consumers can’t tell the difference in blind taste tests. “We have these general beliefs about the world?for example, that cheaper products are of lower quality?and they translate into specific expectations about specific products,” said Shiv. “Then, once these expectations are activated, they start to really impact our behavior.”

This is consumerism at its best. The mega and multi-site churches have tapped into this consumerism. Megachurches are the brand name product. They spend lots of money on branding and advertising and they look “expensive”. They look genuine. All you have to do is say their name: Willow Creek, Saddleback, Fellowship, Northpoint, Life Church. Everybody in the area knows what they are. That is also why everybody jumps on the popular “brand” names: Journey and Fellowship are names that come to mind. This is also why they go multi-site. The brand sells.

But what it also does is turn churches that have less resources into the generic version of the brand. They are not as flashy, not as “expensive” feeling or looking, and thus are not as genuine as the church that spends so much money on appearances and the show, the production that occurs each weekend. They can’t advertise their brand so they are practically unknown. They are not perceived as genuine, thus they are “church lite”, a copy, and not as effective in satisfying needs.

People associate with a brand of Christianity. But here is the bigger question: Do people associate the followers of the brand with the creator of Christianity or with the brand of Christianity the followers are pushing? The jury may still be out on that. As Matt Casper told Jim Henderson after visiting ten megachurches in the US, “Is this really what Jesus told you guys to do?”

Integrating Missionally » Science

Is climate change causing all this snow?

Related Posts:

Related posts:

Saturday’s suggested reads

Related Posts:

Related posts:

Less Christianity = More Christian Activism?

Related Posts:

Related posts:

How we read each other’s minds

Related Posts:

Related posts:

Dan Pink on the surprising science of motivation

Related Posts:

Related posts:

How social media can make history

Related Posts:

Related posts:

Gossip as power and control

Related Posts:

Related posts:

Communication that creates change: an introduction

Related Posts:

Related posts:

The Replacement for Twitter or Wii?

Related Posts:

Related posts:

The Psychology of the Sale and Mega/Multi-site

Related Posts:

Related posts: