Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Twitter
Support

 

Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« New tree ring paper | Main | Open access and gatekeeping »
Thursday
Jan132011

Why is everyone ignoring me?

Bob Ward is in the Guardian, wondering why the newspapers have turned lukewarm on climate change. Commenters seem well able to help him out with some answers.

(H/T Dreadnought)

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (70)

Commenters seem well able to help him out with some answers.

We're kind like that. Long may the obscurity intensify.

Jan 13, 2011 at 9:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterRichard Drake

a) You can't keep people scared to death by the nameless terror which stalks the night forever. They might just go and investigate and find that the nameless terror is a rubbish bag blowing about in the back yard, in which case they start to laugh and you can't recapture them.

b) Bob has become the story but doesn't see it that way. A fatal mistake for a PR man.

Jan 13, 2011 at 9:52 PM | Unregistered Commentercosmic

I popped over to have a look. Amazing how many posts had been modded, Komment macht Frei indeed.

I always feel like I have to scrub myself down with disinfectant after visiting the Guardian.

Jan 13, 2011 at 9:55 PM | Unregistered Commenterg1lgam3sh

Six of the first ten posts have been deleted by Grauniad moderators.

Ha ha ha.

Jan 13, 2011 at 10:03 PM | Unregistered CommenterMartin A

Your legions of devoted readers - even "lurkers" like me (Hauntingthelibrary) would never ignore you.

But it seems that the trolls have slackened as of late, although I see from the Climate Change "Sceptic Alert" emails that they are still targeting you pretty much exclusively. They may as well just say "go and harass the bishop" and have done with it.

What have they got against you? Did you say something nasty about Monbiot years ago?

Jan 13, 2011 at 10:04 PM | Unregistered CommenterHauntingtheLibrary

c) You have to have a simple message that can explain anything.

Global Warming had natural traction. Climate Chaos would have been a harder sell, but safer. All this business about Global Warming causing snow is risible to anyone.

Bob's lamenting that the spell has been broken. Tough.

Jan 13, 2011 at 10:09 PM | Unregistered Commentercosmic

Maybe Chicken Little has cried Wolf once too often ?

You can fool some of the people all of the time -- but
you can only fool all of the people some of the time.

Jan 13, 2011 at 10:11 PM | Unregistered CommenterJeroen B.

When the icebergs reach the shores of Norway, Sweden, Denmark and the British isles I will perhaps start caring about global warming. Maybe. Until then it's just weather for me.

Jan 13, 2011 at 10:17 PM | Unregistered CommenterCarl

Mods are REALLY busy on that thread. Poor old Bob.

Jan 13, 2011 at 10:21 PM | Unregistered CommenterThe Pedant-General

g1lgam3sh said:

"I always feel like I have to scrub myself down with disinfectant after visiting the Guardian."

I know what you mean, I'm tempted to refill an optrex bottle with sulphuric acid, probably the only thing that would work on the Grauniad grime.

Jan 13, 2011 at 10:22 PM | Unregistered Commenterbillyquiz

I wonder when the Grantham family will realise that they have wasted their money.

Jan 13, 2011 at 10:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterSchrodinger's Cat

"I always feel like I have to scrub myself down with disinfectant after visiting the Guardian."
That’s not very nice for those of us who are trying to uphold freedom of speech against heavy odds. Get over there and do your bit for episcopalian values.

Jan 13, 2011 at 10:32 PM | Unregistered Commentergeoffchambers

For those with a desire to get moderated quickly try asking who it was at the Guardian that passed Montford’s article to Bob before it made the web site, and why. They seem too little unhappy with the question, almost as if their unethical behaviour in this case is a little embarrassing.

Jan 13, 2011 at 10:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterKnR

d) Sex sells.

I'd buy anything Joanna Lumley told me to.

Nigella Lawson fondling the highs over Iceland and Finland and letting her hands stray to carressing the mounting Spanish Plume would be more than flesh and blood could stand.

Bob, well Bob doesn't readily fit into this picture.

Jan 13, 2011 at 10:38 PM | Unregistered Commentercosmic

That Mr Bob Ward has a lot of questions to ask, doesn't he?

Jan 13, 2011 at 10:45 PM | Unregistered CommenterShub

WHY ENVIRONMENTAL FORTUNE-TELLING IS ACCEPTED
a.n.ditchfield
A recurrent thought of Nigel Lawson is that much of the current malaise in the West is due to the erosion of traditional religion and education. The West has lost its bearings. In this he echoes G.K. Chesterton: “The first effect of not believing in God is to believe in anything”. The epigram expresses what anthropologists have long known: that religiosity seems to be hardwired into the human brain; if suppressed in one form it returns in another.
Before the French Revolution all of Europe was referred to as Christendom and since then, secularisation has advanced by the hand of governments with agendas. In France, the Catholic clergy was disbanded, church property was confiscated and forked out to politicians in power while a state sponsored Humanist creed promptly enthroned a supporting Goddess Reason at Nôtre Dame cathedral in Paris. Bismarck sought to bolster the power of the Prussian state by instituting political control over religious activities, the Kulturkampf. Similar action was taken in Italy, Spain and Portugal at various times, often aimed against religious educational institutions, so as to ensure the indoctrination the young at secular schools. The Soviet Union went the whole hog to establish atheism as the official creed and to exorcise or burn dissenters. While such state action eroded the hold of traditional religion, in more recent times Environmentalism has crept in as the religion of choice of urban dwellers, even in English-speaking countries that had seemed to hold immunity to European-style anticlericalism.
“Chassez le naturel, il revient au galop”. The pagan-like worship of Nature has rites, such as planting a tree to atone for an air trip; believers neither fake nor dissemble the sin of consumerism, but acknowledge and confess it; the faithful make weekly trips to the countryside to enter into communion with Nature; their children attend Sunday school to hear Inconvenient Truths, the sayings of the high priest Al Gore. The congregation dutifully joins processions to sing hymns for green causes, of all things nice and beautiful for creatures great and small. It observes a calendar with red-letter days, such as Earth Day; perhaps green-letter days would be more to the point. There is a hagiography of saints, the followers of the righteous path of Rachel Carson, and a rogue’s gallery of demons, the big bad oil companies and the dirty coalminers that tempt mankind with the unclean combustion that lights the fires of Hades. Railroads that carry coal are merchants of death. The holy waters of the Gulf of Mexico were profaned by an oil spill. Religious orders such as Green Peace and Friends of Earth propagate the true faith. The green religion even sells indulgences, in the form of Carbon Credits for those who cannot stop sinning.
These beliefs could be as harmless as a football match, were it not for consequences on a practical plane when they inspire misguided policies designed to de-industrialise the West and block the ascent of hundreds of millions in India and China to the amenities of an adequate diet, clean drinking water, electricity, and basic education and health care. The undoing of two centuries of achievements of the Industrial Revolution is on the march, a retreat back to poverty and want.
Worse may come for democratic rule of law. Horrible penalties are publicly demanded for heretics who deny the reality of Anthropogenic Global Warming or question, on rational grounds, the Articles of Faith that underpin the warning message that the end of the world is nigh:
· We are running out of space. The world population is already excessive for a limited planet, and grows at exponential rates, with dire effects.
· We are running out of means. The planet's non-renewable resources are being depleted by runaway consumption; further expansion of the world economy is unsustainable.
· We are running against time , as tipping points of irreversible climate processes are reached. Carbon dioxide emitted by the economic activity causes global warming. It will soon bring catastrophic climate disruption that will render the planet uninhabitable.
When such issues are quantified, the contrast between true and false becomes clear. Acts of faith have no place when dealing with measurable physical issues.
Is overcrowding a serious problem? It may seem so to the dweller of a congested metropolitan city. This is local discomfort, but not something that can be generalised for the planet. The sum of U.S. urban areas amounts to 2% of the area of the country, and 6% in densely populated countries like England or Holland. And there is plenty of green in urban areas. If the comparison is restricted to the ground covered by buildings and pavements, the occupied area amounts to 0.04% of Earth's terrestrial area. It was estimated that 6 billion people could live comfortably on100 000 square miles, the area of Wyoming, or 0.2% of the total. With about 99.8% of free space available the idea that the planet is overpopulated is an exaggeration. Demographic forecasts are uncertain, but the most accepted ones, of the UN, foresee the stability of the global population, to be reached in the 21st century. According to some, world population will start to decline at the end of this century and an aging population emerges as a matter of concern. With so much available space is untenable that the world population is excessive or has the possibility of ever becoming so.
It is argued that, ultimately, a limited planet cannot allow unlimited growth. It can also be counter-argued that, ultimately, non-renewable natural resources do not exist, in a universe governed by the Law of Conservation of Mass, which in popular form states that "nothing is created, nothing is lost, everything changes." Not a gram of human usage was ever subtracted from the mass of the planet and, in theory, all material used can be recycled. The feasibility of doing so depends on the availability and low cost of energy. When fusion energy becomes operational it will be available in virtually unlimited quantities. The source is deuterium, an isotope of hydrogen found in water in a proportion of 0.03%. A cubic kilometre of seawater contains more potential energy than would be obtained from combustion of all known oil reserves in the world. Since the oceans contain 3 billion cubic kilometres of water is safe to assume that energy will last longer than the human species. Potable water need not be a limitation, as is sometimes said; an innovation like nano-tube membranes holds the promise of reducing energy costs for desalination to a tenth of current costs, which would make feasible the use of desalinated water for irrigation along the coast of all continents (750,000 km). What grounds are there to assume such technologies never will come to fruition?
There is no growing shortage of resources signalled by rising prices. Since the mid-19th century a London periodical, The Economist, has kept consistent records of commodity values; in real terms, they dropped over a century and a half, due to technological advances, to the cheapening of energy and to its more efficient use. The decline was benign. The cost of feeding a human being was eight times higher in 1850 than it is today. Even in 1950, less than half the world population of 2 billion had a proper diet of more than 2000 calories per day; today 80% and have it and the world's population is three times greater.
There is no historical precedent to support the idea that human ingenuity is exhausted and that technology will henceforth stagnate at current levels. Two centuries ago, this idea led to the pessimistic Malthus prediction of the exhaustion of land to feed a population that seemed to grow at exponential rates.
There is a problem with the alleged global warming. It stopped in 1998 after rising the previous 23 years, sparking the current alarm about global warming by human hand. Since 1998, warming has been followed by 12 years of stable or declining temperatures, a sign of a cold 21st century. This shows that there are natural forces modifying climate, more powerful than carbon dioxide generated by burning fossil fuels. Natural forces include cyclic fluctuation of ocean temperatures, sunspot activity and the effect on cosmic rays of the sun's magnetic activity. All these cycles are known, but mankind can do nothing for or against forces of this magnitude. Measures to adapt to changes make sense; not the de-industrialization of a world where a quarter of mankind still has no electricity.
Caution in public policy must be exerted because climate change predictions are subject to great uncertainty. The existing knowledge about climate comes from numerous fields such as meteorology, oceanography, mathematics, physics, chemistry, astronomy, geology, paleontology, biology, etc., with partial contributions to the understanding of climate. There is no general theory of climate with predictive capacity and perhaps there never will be one. Chaotic phenomena, in a mathematical sense, cannot be predicted. Climate forecasts that extend to the next century carry as much substance as readings of tea leaves by fortune-tellers.
With no basis on solid theory and empirical evidence, the mathematical models that support alarmist predictions are nothing more than speculative thought which reflect the assumptions fed into models, and chosen in the interest of sponsors. These computer simulations provide no rationale for public policies that inhibit economic activity "to save the planet." And carbon dioxide is not toxic or a pollutant; it is a plant nutrient in the photosynthesis that sustains the food chain for all living beings on the planet.
Stories about disasters circulate daily. Anything that happens on earth is attributed to global warming: an earthquake in the Himalayas, the volcanic eruption in Iceland, the 2004 tsunami in the Indian Ocean; tribal wars in Africa, heat wave in Paris; plague of snails on the tiny Isle of Wight; forest fires in California; sandstorms during the dry season and floods during the wet season in Australia; recent severe winters in North America; the collapse of a bridge in Minnesota; the hurricane season in the Gulf of Mexico, known for five cycles centuries. Evo Morales blames Americans for summer floods in Bolivia.
Such reckless allegations of cause and effect indicate that global warming is not a physical phenomenon; it is a political and journalistic phenomenon, which finds a parallel in the totalitarian doctrines that once incited masses deceived by demagogues.
As Chris Patten put it: “Green politics at its worst amounts to a sort of Zen fascism; less extreme, it denounces growth and seeks to stop the world so that we can all get off”. In the opinion of Professor Aaron Wildavsky, global warming is the mother of all environmental alarm: “Warming (and warming alone), through its primary antidote of withdrawing carbon from production and consumption, is capable of realizing the environmentalist's dream of an egalitarian society based on rejection of economic growth in favor of a smaller population's eating lower on the food chain, consuming a lot less, and sharing a much lower level of resources much more equally.” It is the hippie’s dream of a life of idleness, penury, long hair, unshaven face, blue jeans, sandals and a vegetarian diet; a lifestyle to be foisted upon the world by dictatorial decree of a supra-national eco-fascist dictatorship and justified by the fantasy of a limit to lebensraum on a finite planet.
Anyone who doubts this as hyperbole should read what James Hansen himself has to say at:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2010/20101122_ChinaOpEd.pdf

Jan 13, 2011 at 10:52 PM | Unregistered Commenteralan neil ditchfield

cosmic wrote:

"I'd buy anything Joanna Lumley told me to.
Nigella Lawson fondling the highs over Iceland and Finland and letting her hands stray to carressing the mounting Spanish Plume would be more than flesh and blood could stand."

A few years back I would have paid money to see Charlotte rampling.

Jan 13, 2011 at 10:55 PM | Unregistered CommenterDave Bob

climate change announcements

Bob, let me help you. As "second warmest year" did not grab the media's attention why not try "world getting colder". Les run-of-the-mill, sticks out from the usual, trips off the tongue. Announcements need those things that grab attention - surely you know that?

Jan 13, 2011 at 11:10 PM | Unregistered Commentersimpleseekeraftertruth

'Less' dammit.

Jan 13, 2011 at 11:11 PM | Unregistered Commentersimpleseekeraftertruth

"Why is everyone ignoring me?" Well Bob, it's because the Guardian has moderated out all the real voices and the only ones left are the ones in your head.

Jan 13, 2011 at 11:18 PM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

Shame isnt it. He's waited years for this moment, and may never ever see a warmer year again.

Jan 13, 2011 at 11:25 PM | Unregistered CommenterPharos

This guy says it's because of the profit-driven media and currently, climate bullsh!t isn't selling.

Jan 13, 2011 at 11:30 PM | Unregistered CommenterKevin

"I'll Scream and Scream and Scream Until I'm Sick"

Jan 13, 2011 at 11:35 PM | Unregistered CommenterGreen Sand

BBC World Service Have Your Say last nite began with a preamble that stated whilst these disasters are caused by La Nina, many people are saying they are caused by "climate change". in the preamble on the website, it's "Many of you will probably want to know if this is linked to climate change":

13 Jan: Ben Allen: BBC World Have Your Say: The power of La Nina
There’s massive flooding in Australia, Sri Lanka, the Philippines and now Brazil with many hundreds dead and millions affected. Meanwhile, drought is leading to a spike in food prices in Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay..
Many of you will probably want to know if this is linked to climate change, well according to Reuters’ Climate Change Correspondent David Fogarty the jury is still out:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/worldhaveyoursay/

the program was painful to listen to, with most individuals BBC interviewed not making any connection with CAGW, despite the presenter's attempts to get them to state otherwise. only a sri lankan interviewee toed the line. around the halfway mark, the presenter read out about 3 ALLEGED emails received from listeners in african countries (from memory) who all said of course the disasters were caused by global warming or whatever.

Jan 13, 2011 at 11:37 PM | Unregistered Commenterpat

Bob who?

Jan 13, 2011 at 11:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterPops

Bob sez

Yesterday's announcement that 2010 tied for the warmest year ever recorded on Earth was ignored by nearly all UK media outlets. How can this be?

Because it refers to a GISS announcement, who at the moment probably have even less credibility than the Met Office. or even the Bob?

Personally I hope Bob doesn't vanish because if they replace him with someone more credible, we'll have far less sport.

Jan 13, 2011 at 11:57 PM | Unregistered CommenterAtomic Hairdryer

I love a good Guardian AGW thread. Monbiot's are usually funnier, but Bob runs him a close second.

Jan 14, 2011 at 12:07 AM | Unregistered CommenterRobinson

submitted this, dunno if it'll pass pre-moderation

But this news was ignored by all of the UK's national newspapers, apart from the Guardian, online and in print.

Is quite a good question. Why is it that the message is being ignored by most of the mainstream media now? Could it be time to rethink how science is communicated, possibly in a less dramatic way that risks alienating readers?

There are other issues as well. RSS and UAH did not find 2010 the warmest on record, and the Hadley-CRU series has not yet reported. When the results are all in, it'll allow some comparisons and hopefully rational debate regarding the differences, along with how decadal predictions are doing. Not all decades may warm at the same rate, but so far we seem to be looking at 0.07C per decade warming vs some predictions of 0.2C. It may be interesting to examine why this is.

Jan 14, 2011 at 12:09 AM | Unregistered CommenterAtomic Hairdryer

"The Gods make mad those they are about to destroy. The less fortunate, they just laugh to death." Jezz, Bob, how does that feel?

Jan 14, 2011 at 12:12 AM | Unregistered CommenterDon Pablo de la Sierra

"I would have paid money to see Charlotte rampling"

She could rample me anytime.. :-)

Jan 14, 2011 at 12:17 AM | Unregistered CommenterJames P

It wouldn't be an easy thing for Bob to do, but the best thing for "The Cause" would be for Bob to slip quietly from the scene. Surely "The Cause" is greater than Bob? A shrewder bloke with more self awareness and better self interest might have arranged this and be steering Katie Price, or similar. by this stage.

I wish Bob was in the running for the IPCC PR job. Yes, I know it's not considered sporting to machine gun the struggling survivors, but Bob brings out the worst in one.

Jan 14, 2011 at 12:18 AM | Unregistered Commentercosmic

"the warmest year ever recorded on Earth" says Bob. That's in the last 30 years, which isn't quite the same thing...

Jan 14, 2011 at 12:22 AM | Unregistered CommenterJames P

Haunting the Library, 10.04pm:

What have they got against you? Did you say something nasty about Monbiot years ago?

At the risk of sycophancy, I'd say it's because people like Andrew and Steve McIntyre don't present an easy target, unlike, for example, Monckton, Lawson, Delingpole and North. Slightly unfair perhaps to include Lawson in that list as the other three are openly controversial, although Delingpole does liberal-baiting with singular brilliance in my opinion. I suppose Lawson is forever damned in the eyes of many as Thatcher's henchman.

I must admit I'm a bit uncomfortable with North's recent postings on EU Referendum. He seems to be going out of his way to use inflammatory language despite, or perhaps because of, recent events in Tucson. I still view him as bang on the money when it comes to AGW among other things, but it's fair to say if I was an agnostic on the subject I wouldn't be easily won over to his point of view. He seems to be going for the 'no-one likes us, we don't care' approach. The jury is out on how successful that will be...

Jan 14, 2011 at 12:34 AM | Unregistered CommenterDougieJ

The world has been warming for 12,000 years, since the last ice age ended. Which means that on average, every year since should be a record for warmth. Which in turn makes the story rather pointless. But let's go one step farther. There are at least four internationally recognized systems for tracking global temperature: GISS, HadCRUT, UAH AMSU and RSS AMSU. GISS is the only one claiming 2010 a record. The others do not. So not only is this Guardian story a non-event, it is also incomplete and misleading.

Jan 14, 2011 at 12:58 AM | Unregistered CommenterJack Maloney

"warmest ever year recorded on Earth"?

Ward sure likes to use fancy words like 'Earth'. :)

Jan 14, 2011 at 3:26 AM | Unregistered CommenterShub

jamesp:
"I would have paid money to see Charlotte rampling"

She could rample me anytime.. :-)

Glad you got my subtle (not to mention lame & unoriginal) joke!

Jan 14, 2011 at 3:28 AM | Unregistered Commenterdave bob

First, it was a German scientist complaining how much interest the media lost in climate matters. Apparently, last year this time the telephones would ring hot, whereas now it's cold.

Then, Real Climate began whinging in an extensive editorial piece about the alleged neglect by media of the greatest news of all time. They managed to alienate a few more of their friends in the journalistic profession with that editorial.

And now, Bob Ward, whose missive can fairly easily be summarised as "why is everyone ignoring me?"

Well, these gentlemen as well as their science is suffering from Relevance Deprivation Syndrome. The syndrome is well known to Aussie politicians who have lost office and/or been demoted. Before, they would walk the corridors of power with an entourage of aides to face a room full of eager journalists. Their telephones would never stop ringing and their diaries would be full of activity and appointments weeks and months in advance. After the loss of power, not only so few would turn up to their media conferences, but the politician that lost power had to start chasing a journalist who could spare time. This, of course, would enable the journo to say with some confidence that that particular politician is suffering from Relevance Deprivation Syndrome.

What's happening to climate scientists and to climate mouthpieces now is exactly that: RDS.

Jan 14, 2011 at 4:21 AM | Unregistered CommentersHx

pat
On BBC1 News at One there was a similar discussion between the newsreader and one of their weather bods. Astonishingly neither mentioned any variation on "climate change" at all. I was hoping that that was a good sign of a shift at the BBC generally. If it was individual heresy I fear for them if they walk down any dark alleys.

Jan 14, 2011 at 5:27 AM | Unregistered Commenterartwest

Bob's only finding out what it's been like for sceptics for years when something they deem important is either ignored or downplayed. Hurts like hell, don't it, Bob?

Mind you, he's yet to experience that one step farther, when the media goes out of its way to trash his dearly-held opinions. Hold on to your hat, Bob, worse could be in the pipeline.

Jan 14, 2011 at 6:28 AM | Unregistered CommenterMichael Larkin

Summary of Bob's article:

"Why am I not as important as I was?"

Jan 14, 2011 at 8:46 AM | Unregistered CommenterStuck-record

If I can (roughly) quote a tag line from a Leicester Tigers poster

"you're jealous because the voices talk only to me".

Jan 14, 2011 at 8:50 AM | Unregistered CommenterJohnOfEnfield

"why the newspapers have turned lukewarm on climate change"

Because most people were able to do simple cost benefit analysis on climate change science and political policy this winter.

What exactly has been the benefit of climate science prognostications Bob?

Jan 14, 2011 at 9:34 AM | Unregistered CommenterFrosty

Dave Bob: "...A few years back I would have paid money to see Charlotte rampling..."

Who is Charlotte, and what is rampling? The mind boggles...

Jan 14, 2011 at 10:03 AM | Unregistered CommenterNatsman

"Who is Charlotte, and what is rampling?"

Ah Natsman, for those of us who are still trying to fully recollect what we did in the 60s, this was a naughty, naughty girl.

Jan 14, 2011 at 1:13 PM | Unregistered CommenterJerryM

I've been holding my breath (less CO2, see) throughout recent BBC weather reports - to see if the presenter would succumb to the temptation to link the present very mild conditions (12-14C in London) to Climate Change.
So far they seem to have resisted - but given a few more days I'm sure the temptation will be too much to bear..
Never mind the fact that in the 1980s, when I was site manager of a pharmaceutical research centre in glorious Hertfordshire countryside, and we kept daily temperature records, several years running the average for January was higher than for the subsequent April. Of course Global Warming hadn't been invented then...

Jan 14, 2011 at 2:03 PM | Unregistered CommenterDavid

A natural consequence of human behaviour "When Prophecy Fails" (an excellent book about an end of the world movement in the 1950s)
The True Believers who've quit jobs, headed to the mountains etc. rationalise the failure of prophecy by deciding that it's because they didn't convince enough people, and become ever more determined to get the Truth out to the world. So then its door-to-door with copies of the Watchtower, or "An Inconvenient Truth".
Those who hadn't irrevocably committed themselves just decide it was crap, and lose interest.

Jan 14, 2011 at 3:38 PM | Unregistered CommenterMalcolm

If it's any solace to Mr. Ward, the "2010 ties 2005 as warmest year" story appeared in The Wall Street Journal's page one news summary, and the local paper here in Arizona as well.

Re: Charlotte
My guess is that rampling is more fun than kipling!

Jan 14, 2011 at 3:40 PM | Unregistered CommenterDave Bob

Just a thought Bob: have you tried the Guinness Book of Records? It is the third most published book in the world after the Bible & Koran. They are quite rigorous on their requirement for accuracy & independent verification though. Still, worth a shot don't you think?

Jan 14, 2011 at 4:06 PM | Unregistered Commentersimpleseekeraftertruth

"Who is Charlotte, and what is rampling? The mind boggles..."

Well, if it's not this lady that they are talking about, then it must be some naughty inside joke comprehensible only to baby-boomers.

Leave your grandma at home when you go out for a drink with these guys.

Jan 14, 2011 at 4:18 PM | Unregistered CommentersHx

I believe that Bob finds he is not as important as he thought he was.

Jan 14, 2011 at 4:32 PM | Unregistered Commentergrayman

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>