From Jean S. at Climate Audit.
Climategate fraudster Michael Mann insists, insists, that no scientist would ever graft a thermometer record onto any proxy temperature reconstruction! That would be... that would be... dishonest!
Mann:
Hmmm... How to reply... how to reply...?
Here's the cover of Mann's recent book:
The blue circle is where Mann grafted the thermometer record onto the proxy reconstruction.
This is getting too easy.
Climategate fraudster Michael Mann insists, insists, that no scientist would ever graft a thermometer record onto any proxy temperature reconstruction! That would be... that would be... dishonest!
Mann:
"No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, “grafted the thermometer record onto” any reconstruction. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites) appearing in this forum. Most proxy reconstructions end somewhere around 1980, for the reasons discussed above. Often, as in the comparisons we show on this site, the instrumental record (which extends to present) is shown along with the reconstructions, and clearly distinguished from them."
Hmmm... How to reply... how to reply...?
Here's the cover of Mann's recent book:
This is getting too easy.
Hmmm... How to reply... how to reply...?
ReplyDeleteHow about "I, Michael Egnor, am a useful idiot and I will just parrot the usual propaganda without giving it a second thought"
At least that would be honest.
The reconstructions are in yellow on my screen, while the instrumental record is in orange. Clearly distinguishable.
Easy it is: the instrumental temperature record goes back to the late 1800s. That's three times farther than the blue circle indicates.
ReplyDeleteNow who is being dishonest?
Hoo
Doc, you know that posting climate-related antiprop is like dragging a broomstick down the cage doors in the Primate Lab. The howlers are already screeching.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, here's my favorite Mannism from the snippet above: "industry-funded climate disinformation websites".
In the OECD some 60% of all research is privately funded (often valuable, and often protected by nondisclosure), another 10% by government (which, in the US, is often done at the national laboratories like Los Alamos or the Naval Postgraduate School and is frequently classified), and the remaining 30% is done in universities (and even some of that is proprietary or classified).
But hey, I can understand how a greedy suck like Mann would be incensed by all the research dollars that aren't being spent in his dendromancy lab so he can wave a magic hockey stick over the data to sift the pits from the cherries and conjure up a better pit to noise ratio...
But you know the old saying: a Mann's gotta do what a Mann's gotta do to bring home the bacon...
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
--- e-mail from Phil Jones to Michael Mann (7/04)
The important thing is to keep the money pipelines flowing. And there are some pipelines the greentards will never protest.
Grandpa: Doc, you know that posting climate-related antiprop is like dragging a broomstick down the cage doors in the Primate Lab. The howlers are already screeching.
DeleteThe howlers are well deserved. I note that you have attempted to defend him.
Hoo
I meant cherry to pit ratio. :-) Old habits...
DeleteHoots, Michael Egnor doesn't need me to defend him.
DeleteSecond comment from Grandpa, still no attempt to defend Egnor.
DeleteHoo
Make it third.
DeleteHoo
Is the quoted email exchange between Phil Jones and Michael Mann legitimate? If so, that's one of the most sickening attacks on science I've ever seen.
DeleteSurely no one here could be so ardently anti-science as to defend such practices... could they?
JJ: "Is the quoted email exchange between Phil Jones and Michael Mann legitimate?"
DeleteYes, it is. It is directly from a cache of "secret" e-mails released by an as-yet-unidentified (AFAIK) whistleblower. But their authenticity is not in dispute".
Fourth.
DeleteFifth. :-)
DeleteWise choice, old man. Stay out of it.
DeleteHoo
Sixth.
DeleteKeep going, Grandpa. And try not to fall down.
DeleteHoo
Ninth.
DeleteA graph where the instrumental and proxy records nicely overlap for a century can be seen here.
ReplyDeleteSource
Hoo
That's a nice depiction of the Little Ice Age forward into the Meltocene.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi Crusader,
ReplyDeleteI think Michael is wrong about this and bachfiend is right.
Oh my Crusader, so angry and foul mouthed this morning! I’ve said a little prayer for you, and with a little luck, you will feel the touch of his nodely appendage.
ReplyDelete-KW
Today's UK Daily Mail reports that "And now it's global COOLING! Return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 29% in a year"
ReplyDelete- 533,000 more square miles of ocean covered with ice than in 2012
- BBC reported in 2007 global warming would leave Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013
- Publication of UN climate change report suggesting global warming caused by humans pushed back to later this month
The 2013 Arctic ice cap levels are still well below the 1981-2013 average. 2012 saw the lowest recorded ice cap size. 2013 is near the bottom, too.
DeleteHoo
Anonymous,
DeleteYou did look at the pictures of the Arctic sea ice didn't you? The sea ice in the previous year was white with a narrow rim of blue ice. The recent sea ice is blue with no white.
The white ice is thick ice with no gaps. The blue ice is thin and broken, with gaps formed by open water.
What it indicates is that there's less sea ice distributed over a larger area. Nothing more. You need to consider sea ice volume.
Sea ice area can be increased by variations in weather with more winds flowing north preventing the sea ice from drifting into lower latitudes and melting.
Yes, who wouldn't trust the guy who said "we have to hide the decline." The "mann" who spoke those words would never fudge the data, would he?
ReplyDeleteBig Rich,
DeleteFor starters you got the wrong Mann (so to speak). The quote is from Phil Jones, not Michael Mann. And on an off chance that you are interested in more than sound bites, read this.
Hoo
Oleg,
ReplyDeleteGood to see your name on here! I hope you and yours are doing well.
My issue with Bach is not about any point he may or may not have made with regards to the post or the science involved. At least not in the current comment. The issue I take is with him siding with a certified bigot at every opportunity. Troy's commentary (please do have a look) is almost pure vitriol.
Bach should know better.
KW,
I am sorry about the language. It was uncalled for. Jerk would have more than sufficed. I could blame it on the barracks, but I should know better than to use that diction on these pages.
If you truly have prayed for me, I thank you.
I can/could use all the prayers that can be mustered.
What do you folks think of this?
ReplyDeletehttp://us4.campaign-archive1.com/?u=c920274f2a364603849bbb505&id=b9b8084410&e=f4e33fdd1e
I think you found one of the myriad global warming “skeptic” sites funded by rich people invested in the status quo. They actually have an article posted that says greenhouse gas is saving us from an ice age!
Delete-KW
Okay... I thought someone might say that.
DeleteSo what about this article?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/posts/Real-risk-of-a-Maunder-minimum-Little-Ice-Age-says-leading-scientist
A new Maunder minimum would certainly help mitigate the damage from global warming, but the .3 to .4c cooling likely from a new minimum barley covers the warming that has already happened, and will almost certainly be swamped by continued CO2 warming. Of course any solar minimum is likely temporary, so after lulling us into a false sense of security, the solar warming associated with its end would only add to our warming problems.
DeleteIf you actually read what you linked you would already know most of this.
-KW
KW,
DeleteI did read it and asked for the opinion of the readers of this blog. No need
to be nasty or condescending about it. You gave yours. I am not sure I agree with your projections/predictions. I tend to think solar influence is massively underestimated in these climate models.
But, thanks anyway.
Anyone else care to take a swing at the Lockwood projections?
Are these guys ever right -- even just a little?
ReplyDeleteThis was the headline seven years ago:
"The Arctic will be ice-free by 2013."
Opps!
Here is the headline today:
"Scientists increasingly moving to global cooling consensus"
That last headline is not from a reputable source, Big Rich. I suggest that you don't take it as gospel.
DeleteHoo
I agree with Hoots, BR. By all means, consult a "reputable source". Like the railroad engineers and bureaucrats at the UN.
DeleteBased on the current state of the Arctic these guys where more than a little right. Even if it doesn’t happen until 2040, that’s a blink of the eye in geological terms. Despite the “pause” in global warming arctic ice was at its lowest level in recorded history in 2012. Global warming deniers touted a 60% increase in arctic ice in 2013 as proof the globe is cooling, but of course they’re being disingenuous. A 60% increase from the incredibly low volume of ice in 2012 is still far below the historical average.
Delete-KW
Hoo, will you at least concede that they were wrong about Arctic Sea ice disappearing by 2013?
ReplyDeleteThere was one guy (Wieslaw Maslowski) predicting that the arctic sea ice will disappear by 2013. Other mainstream climate scientists were skeptical about his claim.
DeleteYou can check the original BBC article where Maslowski was quoted.
Hoo
@Hoo:
ReplyDeleteOh. So the ice-free Arctic prediction doesn't count (Do-Over!)
How about the 50 million climate refugee prediction, the snow-free England prediction, the increase in frequency and intensity of hurricanes prediction, the polar bear extinction prediction, etc.
And that's not even counting the eugenic apocalypse predictions, the overpopulation apocalypse predictions, the DDT apocalypse predictions, the Global cooling predictions, the acid rain predictions, the heterosexual AIDS epidemic in the West predictions.
Science apocalypses are irresistible, aren't they. And best of all, they're fact-check free! You've been wrong for 200 years, since Malthus.
It's always Do-Over! time.
Egnor,
DeleteAs you can read in the BBC article, this was an opinion of one guy viewed skeptically by other climate scientists. If you wish to focus on such outliers, that's fine, but don't pretend that you are overturning a scientific consensus.
And how about addressing the points made by troy and myself at the beginning? No comment about the existing agreement between the proxies and instrumental measurements? That's pretty brave, Sir Robin!
Hoo
Michael,
DeleteThe 50 million climate change refugee prediction is impossible to even quantify. A climate change refugee need not necessarily move from one country to another as many religious or political refugees have to do.
It may include Inuits having to move their villages several kilometres inland from the coast to avoid damage from Summer storms not mitigated by coastal sea ice.
It's impossible to ascertain whether Bangladeshi farmers moving to cities are doing it because they want a more affluent life or because their farmland isn't productive enough owing to increasing salinity as a result of rising sea levels.
Maybe, maybe not, but here's what we know for certain: sea ice has increased and temps have fallen. What we have to concede is that scientific predictions are often wrong and we should be careful with draconian policy that hurts the most vulnerable but may not be necessary. Especially when those making the predictions have monetary incentive for their pronouncements. Saying "no big deal" doesn't bring in the big government grants even though no honest person could make the case that a warming climate would be a bad thing if in fact that is happening. Apparently in the past the earth was much warmer and we all managed to still be here.
DeleteBig Rich,
DeleteSea ice AREA has increased over the previous low level. Sea ice volume (and thickness) continue to decrease, as predicted.
There hasn't been cooling. Just a statistically insignificant 0.01 degree increase in the past 17 years coming off an abnormally warm El Niño year.
Exactly when do you think the Earth was much warmer and we all managed to still be here? Homo sapiens has only been around for 200,000 years.
The medieval warm period wasn't as warm today (and still wasn't a particularly happy time for humans). The Eocene thermal optimum was warmer (but humans weren't around then).
Climate science will get funded regardless (like the Large Hadron Collider - which is extremely unlikely to have practical results).
Curiosity about the world is sufficient.
You love casting doubt on the motives of those studying climate as being motivated by financial concerns. By the same token, energy (mainly fossil fuels) accounts for 10% of the global economy, which is about $60 trillion per year. Around $6 trillion. Big money.
And they don't have motives to deny AGW?
You don't think that fossil fuel companies don't have an incentive to recover and burn as much of the reserves as possible? The $2 billion going to climate research yearly is peanuts. And would be done anyway.
Fossil fuels are going to become more expensive, just because we've already recovered the most accessible reserves and demand will increase with increasing population and industrialisation of China and India.
The global financial crisis was partly due to the spike in oil prices in 2007, causing people not to be able to afford the increased gasoline prices to commute the longer distances from their mortgaged houses to be able to pay the mortgages. And went into default and lost their houses. Talk about 'vulnerable'.
Crusader Rex,
ReplyDeleteI like you too. My patience with Egnor is limited. He persists in being ignorant about climate science. He'd be better off reading a basic text on it instead of parroting what he reads on denialist sites.
I've pointed out to him on many occasions that AGW is based on the well known and well understood physical properties of greenhouse gases, not on sophisticated temperature proxies or graphs of lower atmosphere temperatures.
Climatologists acknowledge that climate change has occurred in the past, sometimes due to changes in greenhouse gases. What's happening now isn't special in the physical causes.
Bach,
ReplyDeleteYou may well feel and believe all of the above to be to true.
I am undecided as to the validity of these various projections and their connection to carbon dioxide emissions. I do see a trend, but I also see other correlatives that are not being given what I consider to be the proper weight. I also see an industry building up around the carbon emissions market that leads me to suspect the importance placed on that argument is not at all what it is sold as: Objective science.
That simple reality when combined with the fudging of data... well, call me leaning toward sceptical.
All that said, your argument as stated immediately above is founded on some sort of logic and reasoning.
On the other hand, your constant snuggling up to an openly intolerant bigot who regularly accuses the RC's here (remember, I am not one of them) of being in a paedophile/child molesting cult, regularly insults all faiths as well as the intelligence of all the readers, and consistently derides all the Christians as 'typically' whatever insulting libel crosses his mind, etc etc ad nauseum is most notable.
I may not like your position, or even your style... but, I would not have pegged you as a friend to bigots.
I had simply assumed you were not for religion, but not against people of faith. I took you at your word that you are an atheist.
I thought you blind, arrogant, and sometimes a bit silly. Intelligent, but a little naive.
Not a jerk.
Dogs and fleas, Bach.
Crusader Rex,
ReplyDeleteTroy didn't write anything in his comment at the top that I disagree with.
I really don't care about religion, one way or another. People are free to believe whatever they want, provided it doesn't affect assessments of reality.
So far, I've been pleased with Pope Francis. His recent comments on capitalism and the global financial system I broadly agree with.
Now if he comes out with a similar statement about AGW to that made by Pope Benedict, my day will be made. It doesn't mean that he'd be right, but it certainly would make Egnor uncomfortable, trying to twist any reasonable Papal statement to fit Egnor's worldview.
I've been taking a class recently on critical thinking. I noticed that the global warming true believers violate every aspect of the concept. They do not, for example, try to shoot holes in their theory and they become angry with anyone who does. That used to be called "science." They do not try to mitigate their biases by inviting people with diverging opinions to have their say. Instead they have heretic hunts.
ReplyDeleteIt's really quite sad.
Ben
Ben: They do not, for example, try to shoot holes in their theory and they become angry with anyone who does.
DeleteThere is a process called research, Ben. We shoot holes in our theory during that time. Most theories do not survive. Those that do are tested well beyond your meager skills as a critical thinker.
No offense meant. You need to have some minimum expertise to criticize a scientific theory. Some upper-level undergraduate classes and maybe some grad school on top of that critical-thinking class.
Cheers,
Hoo
Ben,
DeleteClimate science 101 - climate is driven by solar output, greenhouse gases, albedo, and in the long term Milankovich cycles and distribution of the continents.
The climate has changed in the past. It will change in the future. The present climate change due to humans burning fossil fuels is nothing special with regard to the physical factors involved.
Yo Ben: You're quite right. I've never seen such science-hating zealots in my entire life. Healthy skepticism is demonized as funded by the oil industry. That's the only place it could possibly come from. The defenders of the theory rally around it, protecting it, as if it can't stand up to criticism.
Delete>>The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out.<<--Jonathan Overpeck, coordinating lead author.
JQ
JQ,
DeleteThere's a difference between healthy skepticism and denialism. Egnor is a denialist. He refuses to look at the science, preferring to parrot denialist websites.
He's not part of the fossil fuel industry, but he is a conservative, with a firm belief that big business will almost always do the right thing.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. I was amused that Pope Francis made rather negative comments about capitalism and the global financial system recently, that I agree with broadly.
I wonder when Egnor will write a thread on the Pope's comments? And what he'll do if the Pope repeats Pope Benedict's comments on AGW too?
Hey JQ,
DeleteIs this what you call healthy skepticism? Or maybe this? Perhaps this?
Lotta skepticism out there, albeit not all healthy.
Hoo
Bachfiend,
DeleteYea I don't get this climate stuff. Is it really a prior ideological commitment? Also, your points about the Popes are worth elaboration.
Bl. JPII believed in evolution
Benedict XVI in AGW
Francis in a regulated economy
This is why conservative-liberal dichotomies don't make sense in a religious, specifically Christian, context. Like when Limbaugh called the Pope a Marxist. Priceless.
Anonymous,
DeleteThere's definitely a strong ideological component to AGW denialism. As shown by Egnor.
I previously commented about Pope Francis to Crusader Rex at 5:40 pm. I noted that if Pope Francis repeated Pope Benedict's comments about AGW that he could be wrong. But I'd like to see Egnor in discomfort.
As an atheist, I'm not committed to the view that the Pope is wrong all, or even most, the time. Pope John Paul II was right about evolution and Pope Benedict was right about about AGW. I think Pope Francis is right about economics, in so much that it encourages enormous financial inequalities.
Bachfiend, you're all wet.
DeleteThe difference between healthy skepticism and denialism is one of perspective. >>Denialist<< is a term we use to describe healthy skeptics who take positions opposite our own. It's a stigmatizer intended to equate disagreement with Holocaust denying anti-Semites.
I believe that Egnor does listen to science. He didn't become a brain surgeon any other way. I eblieve that he likes science just fine, which is why he insists that the scientific establishment be above-board, dispassionate and transparent, which they have not. If you care about science, you should join him.
I believe he listens to scientists as well. He listens to what they say behind closed doors. He listens when they talk about how they will get around FOIA requests, how you can have their data when you pry it from their cold, dead hands, as well as how they also harbor doubts but don't want to admit it, lest they pesky >>deniers<< use it as ammunition.
I have never once heard Egnor say anything to indicate that he believes that big business usually does the right thing. That's your unfounded inference and common misconception often spouted by leftists.
Now, seeing as you have admitted that there is such thing is healthy skepticism--which you think is very different from so-called denialism--please give me objective criteria so that I can know the difference. Also, please give me an example of a healthy skeptic. These people must exist. I doubt that you can fulfill my request because, in your mind, there is no such thing as healthy skepticism once you've taken a position.
JQ
Yo Hoo: Mark Steyn is priceless! Thanks for the head's up.
DeleteAnother great Canadian import.
JQ
Jerry Sandusky raped little boys and a supposedly independent investigative body at Penn State covered it up to save the university's reputation. Michael Mann did the same thing to science and Penn State did the same thing for the same reason.
DeleteI think we all know now how much a Penn State investigation is worth. Nothin'.
JQ
JQ,
DeleteIf you want evidence of Egnor's denial of science, take a look at his current thread.
A person engaging in healthy scepticism looks at the evidence, the science, comes to a conclusion as to whether it's reasonable to give provisional agreement or not, and keeps an open mind as to whether any evidence arises sufficient to cast doubt on it.
A denialist reads only denialist websites and refuses to read the science. Like Egnor.
A neurosurgeon isn't a scientist. Little better than a technician performing stereotyped procedures.
Oh, okay. Well, you certainly don't engage in any healthy skepticism.
DeleteThe definition of a word should not contain that word. According to you, a denialist reads only denialist websites. But what is a denialist website? Your definition provides no clues to that mystery.
I stand by what I say. >>The difference between healthy skepticism and denialism is one of perspective. >>Denialist<< is a term we use to describe healthy skeptics who take positions opposite our own.<<
You have provided me no objective criteria as to what a denialist is. A denialist is a skeptic who takes a position opposite yours so you label him with an epithet designed to marganalize him. You also have not provided me the name of any healthy skeptics, as I predicted you wouldn't. The reason you can't is because all skeptics are denialists to you. Skepticism cannot exist in this field because you are so passionate about it. Check your passion at the door.
Here's some free advice. Listen to the scientists, bach. When I say listen to the scientists, I don't mean only their public pronouncements but also what they say when they think no one is listening. Also, avoid listening to non-scientists like the chairman of the IPCC and its many un-credentialed non-scientist members.
Finally, I didn't say that a neurosurgeon was a scientist.
JQ
JQ,
DeleteI am disappointed not to find a spirited defense of Heartland's smear tactics. Does it mean that even you have standards or you just forgot?
Hoo
See, this is what I'm talking about when I say that the global warming movement lacks basic critical thinking skills. If Bachfiend would apply those skills he would see the circular logic in his definition of a "denialist."
DeleteWhat is a denialist? Someone who reads denialist websites. Denialist websites are also written by denialists. So a denialist website is a website written by and for denialists. And a denialist is a person who writes or reads denialist websites.
The definition of denialist is therefore clear as mud. As far as I can see it's simply a putdown. Maybe if the global warming true believers employ enough of such putdowns they will make people shut up. And of course they'll be afraid to read the Climategate emails because only "denialists" read those, and they're only available on "denialist" websites.
And you don't want to be labeled a denialist...do you?
This isn't science. This is demagoguery. Real scientists welcome doubters.
Ben
But are you a real doubter, Ben?
DeleteLet's apply to you the same test as to JQ. He didn't seem to stomach Heartland, but may be you can.
Hoo
JQ,
DeleteAt a pinch, I'd nominate Richard Lindzen as a healthy skeptic (he's more a contrarian, taking minority positions as a way of attracting attention). He's studied the science, recognises that greenhouse gases do have a real physical effect (it would be difficult to do otherwise), but thinks that the effect is less than currently thought. Doubling the pre-industrial CO2 level leading to a 1 degree C increase instead of 1.9 to 2.9 degrees.
He sees more negative feedbacks and fewer positive feedbacks.
My point remains. If you read only denialist sites, you're a denialist. A healthy skeptic reads a range of sources. I've read some of the standard denialist books (including Ian Plimer's 'Heaven and Earth') and sites, and I don't find them convincing, compared to other sources, such as the Princeton Primers on Climate, which do a good job of discussing what drives climate.
Egnor doesn't listen to scientists. He listens to critics of scientists. A difference.
Ben,
I need to stress this again. A denialist reads ONLY denialist sites, and refuses to look at the science.. A person who looks at only one side of an argument is a person who is obstinately sticking his fingers in his ears and refusing to listen to anyone else.
I don't think Egnor fits your description, but I do think that you are a blind follower. Tell me, what dissenting books have you read? Have you paid any attention at all to Climategate? Are you willing to criticize the IPCC for is sloppy practices?
DeleteYour reasoning is still circular. I still don't know what a denialist is because the definition you gave contains the word denialist. I could make up any word, say twinkyist, for example. What is a twinkyist? A person who reads twinkyist sites, of course. But what are twinkyist sites? Sites read by twinkyists.
Oh geez, Hoo. I saw that when it came out. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be shocked about. Climate change believers actually think that skeptics should be placed on trial in some kind of Climate Change Nuremberg (presumably with gallows at the end, much like the real Nuremberg). They've encouraged people to burn skeptics' houses down. They've encouraged people to treat them in the same manner that we treat racists.
And you can't stomach a comparison between environmentalists and an environmental extremist like the Unabomber? Put your big boy pants on.
Ben
I believe he listens to scientists as well. He listens to what they say behind closed doors.
DeleteAs we all should. They say revealing things when they think they're speaking from true believer to true believer.
Listen to scientists, Hoo and Bachfiend. You might learn something. Stop sticking your fingers in your ears and blocking out malfeasance in the scientific community. Your credibility is dropping with theirs.
Ben
Hoo, you don't know the definition of the word smear.
Deletean untrue story about a person that is meant to hurt that person's reputation.
A smear is when someone goes around telling people that you cheat on your wife when in fact you don't. It's not being compared to someone you don't like, especially when the basis of comparison is true.
I know you don't like being conflated with an environmental terrorist. It's kind of the way I feel when I am compared to the Westboro Baptist Church because of my "homophobia." But it's not a smear.
Ben
Ben,
DeleteI know your writing skills aren't very good, but I expected your reading skills to be better. I read Ian Plimer's 'Heaven and Earth' (I wrote that I read it and found it not convincing). It was the book that convinced our glorious leader Tony Abbott that climate change is 'crap'.
Tony Abbott has a policy of addressing climate change without actually accepting it or actually doing anything about it. By paying emitters of CO2 billions of dollars to stop doing it.
A denialist is a person who denies. 'Warmist' is a term used by denialists for people who think global warming is happening. I'm a warmist.
I don't pay much attention to the IPCC. It's a political body with reports written by committee and subject to veto. Unless you have the time to read all the Climategate emails in context, then you're only reading an edited account. Have you read all of it? I certainly don't have the time to do so. My acceptance of AGW is based on the very well known and well understood physical properties of greenhouse gases.
Ben: Listen to scientists, Hoo and Bachfiend. You might learn something.
DeleteThanks for your concern, Ben. That's what I do every day. It's my work. Hope you listen to scientists, too. And not just Richard Lindzen but maybe also Richard Muller and Michael Mann and many, many others.
Hoo
funny billboard! love it. boo hoo.
Deletenaidoo
I fully believed that you would, naidoo. Keep it up, young man.
DeleteHoo