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
« Conflicted climatologists | Main | Koutsoyiannis 2011 »
Monday
Jun062011

Not so Goot

Aynsley Kellow posted these remarks in the comments on the posting on Goot's paper on the climate consensus. I thought they were important enough to bring upstairs as a header post.

I found it difficult to read this piece, especially because the matter of how many climate scientists can dance in agreement on the head of a pin is irrelevant to any argument about climate science. Since Galileo, the fallacy of argumentum ad populum has been well established, and it is rather surprising that Murray would be engaged to explore whether the fallacy holds in this particular case.

What worried me more was that Murray both cites me and gets it horribly wrong. In the middle of a titanic sentence of 159 woards, Murray included the following parenthetical remark (on p6):

'(Bray and von Storch 2007, fig. 30; badly misrepresented by Kellow 2007, 73, a defender of Peiser)'

I found this a surprising remark, because Hans von Storch was kind enough to write to me to tell me that my book was accurate in the elements with which he was familiar. How then had I 'badly misrepresented' fig. 30 in Bray and von Storch, 2007?

The answer is that it would have been extremely difficult for me to have misrepresented anything in Bray and von Storch, 2007, because that manuscript was received for publication in May 2007, when my book was already in press.

In fact, I quoted Dennis Bray as he was quoted in the Sunday Telegraph, on 1 May 2005 — fully two years before the submisison by he and Hans von Storch of the paper to which Murray Goot refers. The Sunday Telegraph states:

'Prof Dennis Bray, of the GKSS National Research Centre in Geesthacht, Germany, submitted results from an international study showing that fewer than one in 10 climate scientists believed that climate change is principally caused by human activity.'

My book on p73 states:

'Science published a correction by Oreskes (Oreskes,2005), but it refused to publish a letter from Dr Benny Peiser which showed that her numbers could not be replicated, and another from Dr Dennis Bray reporting a survey ofclimate scientists showing that fewer than one in ten considered that climate change was principally caused by human activity. Dr Bray told the UK paper the Sunday Telegraph that Science had informed him his paper ‘didn’t fit with what they were intending to publish.'

The issue was Oreskes mis-stating her methodology, stating in her paper that she searched for 'clmate change' rather than the search term she actually used: 'global climate change'. I stated in my book:

'But a search of the ISI database using ‘climate change’ produced 12000 papers, and Oreskes was forced to admit after science journalist David Appell (the owner of the blog where Mann had first mounted his defence) challenged her on his website (within 12 days of publication) that she had used the three keywords ‘global climate change’, which reduced the return by an order of magnitude.'

Note who nailed Oreskes on the deceit: David Appell was no friend of climate sceptics.

I have been seriously misrepresented by Murray Goot, and I think he owes me an apology.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (129)

Anyone fancy a game of Cedric Bingo?

We've already had moon landings and Creationism. On past form, we still have anti-vaxxers, HIV deniers, the Tobacco Lobby, Holocaust denial and 9/11 conspiracy theories to come.

Jun 7, 2011 at 6:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterDreadnought

Cedric

Not sure I've seen you post here before, but welcome anyway.

Please take Dreadnought's comments in good heart. He's having a bit of fun, but with a serious point. Those of us who have grown to be sceptical of the claims put forward by believers in AGW have had to put up with 'denier' insults and comparisons with many 'doubters': about moon landings, evolution, HIV etc.

Nothing could be further from the truth. What you'll find is that most reading these pages are strong supporters of empiricism and the scientific method, and are disappointed at how debased the modern practice of science has become - by money, ideology, politics, groupthink and fear.

Statements like 'every single scientific community on the planet says [AGW] is happening' make you look foolish. The intricacies of that debate have been mulled over many times. For a start, it's simply not true, though I wonder how you define 'community' - it is a rather slippery word (try 'Community Watch' in Private Eye, for a bit of fun).

Many scientists and many scientific 'communities' (try Watts Up With That for a blog featuring more 'hard' science - that's a 'community, and there are many others) worldwide take an agnostic position on AGW. And CAGW? You actually won't find many real scientists at all who subscribe to that position.

NASA. Hmmm. You're clearly not familiar with the sad track of that once-admirable organisation. They put a man on the moon in a decade, from whoa to go. Glorious. After that, not so much. The shuttle programme was great, but it was Top Shop compared to Haute Couture. The steady infiltration of mediocre minds; the grasping of political capital, budget erosion, lowered ambition - by the 90s, NASA was not what it was. And the decline has continued. Manned space flight? Shelved. They're looking around for private companies who might want to take it on and do a JV. I'm surprised Gene Krantz hasn't ritually burned his waistcoat.

NASA, GISS - however you want to categorise it - is a shadow. Politicised, prone to mistakes, no longer a paragon. In fact, looking somewhat sad and foolish.

So, yes, NASA might claim something. But it's not the NASA that got me so excited as a child I nearly wet my pants. Now I wet my pants with hilarity at some of their pronouncements.

And 'how come the same tiny group of elderly names keep being recycled again and again'? I nearly misread that because I thought you were talking about Climate Scientists. The pot and kettle are pretty much the same shade. Turns out that 'climate science' at heart is driven by just a few centres worldwide and the same old suspects keep coming up, names like Jones, Mann, Hansen, Briffa et al.

So, welcome to Bishop Hill Cedric. If I've missed you before, forgive me. I'm an occasional drop in. Stay reading, try a range of blogs (on both sides of the fence - though Mike J seems to know you as a regular patron of others) and I'll wager you'll be more sceptical next year than this.

Jun 8, 2011 at 12:24 AM | Unregistered CommenterGixxerboy

Those of us who have grown to be sceptical of the claims put forward by believers in AGW have had to put up with 'denier' insults and comparisons with many 'doubters': about moon landings, evolution, HIV etc.

The easy way to deal with that is to abandon the arguments of the deniers.
(32,000 scientists anybody? Anybody?)
If your methodology is different from the creationists or the moon landing deniers then...you are off the hook.

Deniers exist. They are identifiable. They have a way of doing things and putting their message across.
If you don't wish to be associated with deniers then put some real distance between you and them.
Change your methodology. Make a clear distinction.

What you'll find is that most reading these pages are strong supporters of empiricism and the scientific method, and are disappointed at how debased the modern practice of science has become - by money, ideology, politics, groupthink and fear.

Item one: Creationists and anti-vaxxers say this exact same thing all the time. They always loudly proclaim how they love science. They are just fighting the good fight against the corruption in the system. It's the same ol' shtick.
You are asking me to just take your word for it all.
If you don't want to be lumped in with all the other kinds of deniers out there...then don't use their style of rhetoric or arguments. There should be a clear and self-evident difference between you and them.

Statements like 'every single scientific community on the planet says [AGW] is happening' make you look foolish. The intricacies of that debate have been mulled over many times. For a start, it's simply not true, though I wonder how you define 'community' - it is a rather slippery word (try 'Community Watch' in Private Eye, for a bit of fun).

Not at all. Scientific communities exist. They are easily identifiable. There is NASA, The Royal Society, The NAS, The AAAS, The American Physical Society, The CSIRO, AGU, USGS, RMET, British Antarctic Survey, American Chemical Society, American Meterological Society, etc.
All of them. Every single last one of them on the planet covering all the physical sciences.
No exceptions.

Many scientists and many scientific 'communities' (try Watts Up With That for a blog featuring more 'hard' science - that's a 'community, and there are many others) worldwide take an agnostic position on AGW.

Then that should be easy to demonstrate. Which scientific communities out there disagree with,say, NASA? Or the Royal Society? You can't expect me just to take your word for this.

NASA, GISS - however you want to categorise it - is a shadow. Politicised, prone to mistakes, no longer a paragon. In fact, looking somewhat sad and foolish.
So, yes, NASA might claim something. But it's not the NASA that got me so excited as a child I nearly wet my pants. Now I wet my pants with hilarity at some of their pronouncements.

So which scientific communities agree with you? You can't expect me to just take your word for this.

And 'how come the same tiny group of elderly names keep being recycled again and again'? I nearly misread that because I thought you were talking about Climate Scientists. The pot and kettle are pretty much the same shade.

Not at all. Only the same names are used again and again on the climate denier side. They are all quite old. There are no young guns. If there really was no consensus on climate change then you would expect to see a variety of faces. There are none. There are so few actual climate scientists that deniers are forced to rely heavily on non-specialists.

Turns out that 'climate science' at heart is driven by just a few centres worldwide...

Impossible. It physically wouldn't work. Certainly, nobody seems willing to try and spell out the mechanics of the global conspiracy. It all gets rather vague very quickly. It never gets beyond the bland assertions and hand-waving.

Stay reading, try a range of blogs (on both sides of the fence)...

I don't read blogs for my science information. It's how deniers do things. The problem is that absolutely anybody can whip up a blog and say any old rubbish and make it sound convincing. There's no system of quality control.

If you don't want to vaccinate your child then there's a blog for that.

If you want to deny that NASA made it to the moon then there's a blog for that.

If you want to deny the link between HIV and AIDS then there's a blog for that.

Arabs didn't smash planes into the world trade centre? Yep, there's a blog for that.

I only get my science from science communities. I am only interested in the preponderance of evidence as represented by the overall body of peer-reviewed scientific literature.
If you don't want to be considered the same as any other denier on some other science topic then you must behave differently.

Jun 8, 2011 at 1:22 AM | Unregistered CommenterCedric Katesby

Mike Jackson. You're right. Cedric has rather blown his cover, revealing himself as another pointy-fingered would-be State Inquisitor. Not much point trying to address the points of a fixated mind, which is a shame because he leaves himself so open. I particularly like his Call To Authority over 'communities' ( I thought those were organisations or societies, but hey). Especially as many of them have been the source of open revolt between their members over absurd statements on climate change (Hal Lewis et al and the American Physical Society; the IoP and its submissions over Climategate, etc).

Then there's the fairy-tale assertion that 'only the same names are used again and again on the denier side'. If only we could look forward to a world free of gibberish issued by MIke Mann and James Hansen. Mind you, I love it when Eric Stieg gets continually trotted out because he makes such an arse of his papers.

Mike, you've clearly crossed swords with Cedric before. Does he rely exclusively on rhetoric or has he discernibly read any of the science?

Oh, BTW Cedric. Aggressive, fixed-minded scientific consensus has a dangerous reputation and its 'deniers' include the likes of everyone from Galileo to John Snow. Presumably there's a blog for that.

Jun 8, 2011 at 3:02 AM | Unregistered CommenterGixxerboy

I particularly like his Call To Authority over 'communities' ( I thought those were organisations or societies, but hey).

All scientific communities on the planet are on board with AGW. No exceptions.
If I want to find out about a science topic, I go to the experts.
If I want to find out about the health of my teeth, I go to a good dentist. I will even be prepared to get a second opinion.
I don't go to a blog.
If I want information on medicine, I go to the NIH.
I don't go to a blog.

So far, you have given me no reason to avoid NASA or the Royal Society or all of the others out there.
I rely on the people that do the work.
I'm not just going to meekly follow your authority and trust you.
There's no reason to do so.

Getting my science from NASA or the USGS or the NAS is the sensible thing to do.

Especially as many of them have been the source of open revolt between their members over absurd statements on climate change (Hal Lewis et al and the American Physical Society; the IoP and its submissions over Climategate, etc)

The American Physical Society is on board with the issue of AGW. They don't disagree with NASA.
They have an official website. It's written in plain English. Why pretend otherwise?
The same goes for the Institute of Physics.
There are no exceptions. None. Every single scientific community on the planet is on board.
It's not like this isn't checkable or anything.

You believe that NASA is a "shadow", "politicised", "prone to mistakes", "no longer a paragon", "looking somewhat sad and foolish".
Back it up.
What scientific community is making these statements?
I don't do conspiracy theories based on nothing more than bland assurances from strangers on the internet.
Back it up.
You have to be able to come up with something that does not make you sound like a moon-landing denier.

Then there's the fairy-tale assertion that 'only the same names are used again and again on the denier side'.

Do you deny it? How many working climatologists can you name outside of the usual suspects?
They are just old people. Those tiny few that are really climatologists can't even convince their collegues. They are isolated contrarians. Their best, productive years are well behind them now.
That's why there's a heavy reliance on non-climatologists.
On the other hand,... there's NASA.

Aggressive, fixed-minded scientific consensus has a dangerous reputation and its 'deniers' include the likes of everyone from Galileo to John Snow. Presumably there's a blog for that.

Indeed there is.
All deniers of all scientific topics compare themselves to Galileo.
The "Galileo Gambit" is famous.
If you don't want to be lumped in with them then stop sounding like them.

Jun 8, 2011 at 4:17 AM | Unregistered CommenterCedric Katesby

Cedric. I am well aware of the Galileo Gambit. As you'll no doubt be aware of the limitations of relying on 'ad populum' argument, calls to authority over enquiry, and the use of rhetorical exclusion.

Jun 8, 2011 at 6:12 AM | Unregistered CommenterGixxerboy

I am well aware of the Galileo Gambit.

Then you will be aware of how much you sound like a denier.
Deniers bring up the Galileo Gambit all the time.
Comparing you to deniers is a fair thing.
Nobody forced you to do it. You did it all by yourself.

As you'll no doubt be aware of the limitations of relying on 'ad populum' argument, calls to authority over enquiry, and the use of rhetorical exclusion.

What stops a creationist from saying the same thing when confronted with a Museum of Natural History? What stops a anti-vaccer from saying the same thing about the CDC?

Going to NASA to find out about climate change is not a good example of an "ad populum" argument.

Going to NASA to find out about the moon-landings is not a good example of an "ad populum" argument.

Going to the NIH to find out about cancer treatments or HIV is also not a good example of an "ad populum" argument.

Same goes for the other fallacious arguments you mentioned.

I don't rely on hearsay. I don't rely on some newspaper article or a blog or even a whole bunch of people.
I certainly don't rely on gossip from some anonymous person on the internet.

I rely upon scientists. Not just isolated contrarians that may once have been somebody a long time ago.
I like my scientists fresh and active in the field working alongside their collegues.

If there is a complex scientific topic then I will go directly to the scientists.
They do the work. They publish the peer-reviewed research. They get my attention.
If you object, you need to give me a good reason not to do this.

NASA does the work.
You claim that NASA is bad or something yet you offer no proof.
None.
I am not prepared to just trust you.
For some reason, I should not trust NASA despite the fact that they are at the cutting edge of research on climate change and have been for decades.
That sounds indeed exactly like a moon-landing denier.

You want me to just forget about NASA (based upon soley your say-so) and go to blogs.
Blogs?
That's a really terrible way of getting science information.
It's exactly how science deniers operate. Blogs are their refuge from the mainstream. There are no standards on blogs. Any crank can operate one. There's absolutely no quality control at all.
HIV denialism flourishes on the internet. Crankdom of all types runs rife on blogs of all shapes and sizes.

However, if someone goes to the NASA website, they will be convinced that climate change is real.
If they are feeling extra cautious, they could go to the Royal Society website for confirmation.
Indeed, they could go to any scientific community and find the same information.
(Including the IoP and the American Physical Society)

If you don't want to be compared to science deniers of other stripes then you shouldn't use their methods.

Jun 8, 2011 at 6:53 AM | Unregistered CommenterCedric Katesby

Cedric. I am not usually so curt, but I'll make an exception in your case; you are a gullible fool. Never-the-less, enjoy the Holocene while it lasts:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/

btw - Tallbloke has just together an excellent summary of why CO2 has nothing to do with the warming of the 20th century -

http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/06/02/what-caused-global-warming-in-the-late-c20th/

Together with Steven Wilde, Bob Tidsale, Svensmark, Spencer (and a few others) these guys are in a different league compared to the group-thinking numpties in NASA and the Royal Society.

Jun 8, 2011 at 7:01 AM | Unregistered Commenterlapogus

sorry Bob - Tisdale not Tidsale - http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/

Jun 8, 2011 at 7:04 AM | Unregistered Commenterlapogus

Cedric. I am not usually so curt, but I'll make an exception in your case; you are a gullible fool.

How?

If I get my medical information from the NIH...then how does that make me gullible?
It's a sensible thing to do. It's normal.

If I get my information about volcanoes from the USGC...then how does that make me gullible?
They do the work. That's why they are there in the first place.

How is your methodology different from any other denier?

...Steven Wilde, Bob Tidsale, Svensmark, Spencer (and a few others)...

I'm sure they are fine and wonderful people but why should I trust them based upon your say-so?
How is that any different from an HIV denier trusting Dr Duesberg?

...compared to the group-thinking numpties in NASA and the Royal Society.

Yeah, I get it.
NASA is "bad". The Royal Society is "bad". You do not like them.
Instead I should go to some blogs.
Do you not see how crazy that sounds?

Switch the labels around and make it come from an anti-vaxxer.
It works perfectly. No changes needed at all.
The CDC is "bad". The NIH is "bad". They are group-thinking numpties etc.
Don't be gullible. Get wise and go to the "generation rescue" blog where you will find out how terrible vaccinations are.
(shrug)

Denialism is identifiable. It works in certain, specific ways. Different strains of science denialism can be easily compared and contrasted to each other.
So far, based on the exchanges I've had here so far, your methodology is no different.
It's not the results; it's the methodology you have to worry about.

Jun 8, 2011 at 7:43 AM | Unregistered CommenterCedric Katesby

I and others before me made no reference to the USGC, CDC, NIH etc. They to my knowledge have not succumbed to the CO2 induced AGW groupthink. (though I would not be so naive as to think the CDC have an impartial line on vaccine safety or efficacy). Your willingness to believe in the CO2 CAGW hypothesis, for which despite $80bn and 20 years of research, there is not a scrap of empirical evidence, is testament to your gullibility.

As for the blogs, it is critical thinking and the scientific method which is important - whether good science is published on a blog or in a paper is irrelevant. Peer/pal-review pal-review is far from perfect, likewise how science is funded. And that goes for medical science also.

Jun 8, 2011 at 9:21 AM | Unregistered Commenterlapogus

Actually, Gixxerboy, I have not come across Cedric before. Just for mad I decided to google him (not expecting much) and discovered 372,000 results! I was going to quote a couple of examples of where he appears to contradict himself but I got caught up in the "Reset" problem so decided to keep it simple.
He is (as his later posts here demonstrate) infatuated with himself and appears to consider himself an authority on .... well, just about everything.
Today, Global Warming; tomorrow ... who knows!
Zed (in her proper incarnation of 'Zeds Dead Bed') only gets four results from Google, by the way!

Jun 8, 2011 at 9:52 AM | Unregistered CommenterMike Jackson

"Comparing you to deniers is a fair thing.
Nobody forced you to do it. You did it all by yourself."

Do you realise how much you sound like an Austrian tub-thumper with a bad moustache?

Jun 8, 2011 at 9:53 AM | Unregistered CommenterGixxerboy

Mike. Thanks for the tip. With Cedric's omniscience now cheerfully available perhaps we could cut straight to the chase.

What is the climate's coefficient of sensitivity, then, CK?

Jun 8, 2011 at 10:07 AM | Unregistered CommenterGixxerboy

I and others before me made no reference to the USGC...

You didn't even bother to check. Some skeptic you are. Look up the USGS now.
Go ahead.
Every scientific community on the planet is on board. No exceptions.
I'm not asking you to take my word for this. A quick google search will reveal the same.

...though I would not be so naive as to think the CDC have an impartial line on vaccine safety or efficacy...

Uncanny. An anti-vaxxer would be happy to say exactly the same thing. Jenny McCarthy just did a little happy dance.

Your willingness to believe in the CO2 CAGW hypothesis...

You are not listening.
I rely upon scientific communities for my science. I don't go for the wannabees.

My methodology is better than yours.
If I need information on diseases or vaccines, I'll go to the CDC.
That's the smart thing to do. They do the work.

If I need information on volcanoes...then I'll go to the USGS. They know all about volcanoes.
Why would you NOT go to the USGS for scientific information on volcanoes? Doesn't that sound reasonable and fair to you?

...for which despite $80bn and 20 years of research, there is not a scrap of empirical evidence...

Who says so? You?
And I should believe you because.....?
I go to NASA. On their website, they have tonnes of information about climate change.
Ok.
I go to the Royal Society.
They also have information on climate change. Their information matches up with NASA's information.
Fine.
I go to the RMET.
Same story.
I go to the American Physical Society.
Same deal.
It doesn't matter how many science communities I check out. They are all saying the same thing.
ALL OF THEM. That did not happen by magic.

But you tell me I'm gullible.
You don't like NASA. You don't like the Royal Society.
They are "bad".
Then you tell me to go read some blog somewhere.
You prove my point for me.

Your methodology is exactly the same as the HIV deniers and the anti-vaxxers and the moon-landing deniers and all the others.
Look at your own words:

As for the blogs, it is critical thinking and the scientific method which is important - whether good science is published on a blog or in a paper is irrelevant. Peer/pal-review pal-review is far from perfect, likewise how science is funded. And that goes for medical science also.

No need to change a thing.
It's perfect just the way it is. It fits neatly into the mouth of a HIV Denier or a creationist or whatever.
This is why people like you are put in the same box as other brands of science deniers.
It's not the results; it's the methodology you have to worry about.

Gixxerboy said ...Do you realise how much you sound like an Austrian tub-thumper with a bad moustache?

Godwin! :)

But seriously folks...
How does going to NASA and reading up on what they have to say about climate change make me a Nazi?

Jun 8, 2011 at 10:08 AM | Unregistered CommenterCedric Katesby

"But seriously folks...
How does going to NASA and reading up on what they have to say about climate change make me a Nazi?"

It doesn't. Your repetitive insistence on labeling people does that. Along with your OC need to make point-by-point-rebuttal postings.

Except of course where I described you as a pointy-fingered would-be State Inquisitor.

Interestingly, you've taken that in your stride. Badge of honour?

Jun 8, 2011 at 10:18 AM | Unregistered CommenterGixxerboy

I felt a compulsion to react to the barbs fired by CK, then I felt it might be more profitable to go and read a good book until the feeling passes. So I will.

Jun 8, 2011 at 11:11 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlexander K

The real problem with the CAGW bubble is that when it bursts, it is going to set the professional Greeniu movement back 20 years, and they know it.

All the big organisations such as Greenpeace, WWF, Oxfam even, have nailed their colours to the CAGW mast, and once it's exposed for what it is, they won't be able to raise a red cent from a populace that thought it was paying to save the red-banded quoll but instead was paying for a shiny-suited lawyer lobbying the EU in Brussels over CO2 emissions.

They can see it coming, and they're scared s**tless, which is why they are becoming shriller by the minute.

Jun 8, 2011 at 11:33 AM | Unregistered CommenterRick Bradford

Typo -- that's Greenie.

Jun 8, 2011 at 11:36 AM | Unregistered CommenterRick Bradford

I rely upon scientific communities for my science. I don't go for the wannabees. Oh dear. I didn't realise just the level of intellect I was dealing with here. For some reason I am now thinking about Douglas Adams and the second ship full of hairdressers, middle management etc.

[the CO2 CAGW hypothesis] ...for which despite $80bn and 20 years of research, there is not a scrap of empirical evidence...

Who says so? You?
And I should believe you because.....?
I go to NASA. On their website, they have tonnes of information about climate change.

CK - since you are so familiar with NASA's "tonnes of information", please cite the empirical scientific evidence they have for CO2 induced CAGW. Btw, empirical means observational, i.e. not based on computer models. Otherwise please don't post here again, as you are just making a fool of yourself.

Jun 8, 2011 at 11:55 AM | Unregistered Commenterlapogus

Hi Cedric
Hope you've been doing well. Happened to catch your comments here and there after running into you on the Bishop Hill VS thread. Kind of had a deja vu.

Hope your refrain, of invoking smokers, vaccines, HIV, creationism, evolution, lung cancer survivors, Nazis and assorted pot pourri, has been working well in your hands though. Incidentally I found that the American Pediatrics Society believes in the theory of CAGW, I believe. Seriously, you can check it out - and perhaps add them to your list of techniques. (And say things like, 'if your kid falls ill, who do you go to? The American Pediatrics Society. Am I a Nazi for thinking of doing that?')

If you'd wanted 'information' on the Himalayan glaciers melting due to climate change, where would you go to, Cedric? The IPCC, one supposes. Tell me Cedric, if there is a 'mom' who is concerned that her SUV is causing global warming (because her kid's pediatrician happened to mention it) and she, like you believes in the right things: CDC for vaccines, BBC for news and the IPCC for global warming, what would she think today Cedric?

Jun 8, 2011 at 11:59 AM | Unregistered CommenterShub

Nice post, Shub. You too, Iapogus. But it looks like CK bugged out when the pointy-finger inquisitor comment got close to home. Clearly didn't want to answer the sensitivity coefficient question either, which is rather surprising given his P-B-P rebuttal MO.

Funny that.

"If I want an ice cream. I go to Mr Whippy. Why would I not go to Mr Whippy for an ice cream!"

Jun 8, 2011 at 12:25 PM | Unregistered CommenterGixxerboy

It doesn't. Your repetitive insistence on labeling people does that. Along with your OC need to make point-by-point-rebuttal postings.

The shoe fits.
I've read what you have written. It matches up with denialists of other stripes.

You did use the "Galileo Gambit".
You did react scornfully to NASA.
You did recommend me getting my science information from blogs.
You did paint yourself as being a friend of science, bravely fighting against the "corruption".

A moon-landing denier could do it no better.

It fits the pattern. If you don't want to be a denier, then don't copy them.

Rick Bradford said :All the big organisations such as Greenpeace, WWF, Oxfam even, have nailed their colours to the CAGW mast, and once it's exposed for what it is, they won't be able to raise a red cent from a populace that thought it was paying to save the red-banded quoll but instead was paying for a shiny-suited lawyer lobbying the EU in Brussels over CO2 emissions.

Yep. This is the "they are in it for the money" gambit.
Just like the "Big Pharma" conspiratorys and the Moon Landing deniers.

"We Never Went to the Moon: America's Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle By Bill Kaysing".

(And when did NASA get taken over by Oxafam of all things? Was it before or after they were taken over by the Elders of Zion?)

Iapogus said ...CK - since you are so familiar with NASA's "tonnes of information", please cite the empirical scientific evidence they have for...

I have a better idea.

[the CO2 CAGW hypothesis] ...for which despite $80bn and 20 years of research, there is not a scrap of empirical evidence...

Who says so? You?
And I should believe you because.....?

You make the half-baked claim. You support it.
Focus.

Shub said...Hope your refrain, of invoking smokers, vaccines, HIV, creationism,...

Look. It's really easy to understand.

Deniers exist.
They really do.
They behave in a certain way. They use specific kinds of arguments and pleading. They use specific resources. They discredit or discount the mainstream scientific communities.

You are exhibiting the same behaviour. Your methodology for getting your science information is bad.

Jun 8, 2011 at 12:46 PM | Unregistered CommenterCedric Katesby

And the coefficient of climate sensitivity is...

Or don't you know?

Or you know that engaging on that debate is a sure loss.

Or you're so stuck on rhetorical repetition that you can't answer anything except with a list.

I can tell it. Smell it off every word.
You're a believer.

You did invoke the "Galileo Gambit".
You did defend NASA's recent mediocre record
You did turn your back on any science information from other than your treasured sources.
You did paint yourself as the knower of true science, bravely fighting against the "corruption".

A believer like Edwin Chadwick could do it no better.

It fits the pattern. If you don't want to be a credulous believer, then don't copy them.

And the coefficient of climate sensitivity is, oh Pointy-fingered one?

Jun 8, 2011 at 1:09 PM | Unregistered CommenterGixxerboy

And the coefficient of climate sensitivity is...
Or don't you know?
Or you know that engaging on that debate is a sure loss.

Why are you trying to go off on a different topic and not focus on your methodology?
Is your position that weak?

I'm asking you to look at the way science deniers get their information and then compare that to the way you get your information.

The way you get your science information has to be rational.
Getting your science information from blogs is...bad.
Very bad.

Getting your science information from, say, NASA is a much more sensible option.
There's no reason to entertain conspiracy theories.

They didn't lie to you about the moon landings.
They are not lying to you now about climate change.
Conspiracy theories are for suckers.

Jun 8, 2011 at 1:19 PM | Unregistered CommenterCedric Katesby

Run! Katesby balloon out of air and about to crash land.

Perhaps on the moon.

'They' are apparently not lying to us. As one who has occasionally been one of 'they', that's immensely reassuring, Cedric.

Have you been one of 'they'?

Jun 8, 2011 at 1:34 PM | Unregistered CommenterGixxerboy

Ahem, NASA's method for getting science information has been deficient. They've subcontracted the Sorcerer's Apprentices to run digital simulacrums of the Master's Big Analog Computer.
===============

Jun 8, 2011 at 1:47 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Look, I'll try one more time to treat you like an adult.

Deniers exist.
They behave differently from actual skeptics.

You have to have a solid, reasonable methodology to get science information. Otherwise, you are ripe for any crank or outlier selling snake-oil.

Your methodology is flawed and it forces you to turn your back on mainstream science and embrace conspiracy theories.

"What you'll find is that most reading these pages are strong supporters of empiricism and the scientific method, and are disappointed at how debased the modern practice of science has become - by money, ideology, politics, groupthink and fear."

Deniers argue that because scientists receive grant money, fame, and prestige as a result of their research, it is in their best interest to maintain the status quo. This type of thinking is convenient for deniers as it allows them to choose which authorities to believe and which ones to dismiss as part of a grand conspiracy. In addition to being selective, their logic is also internally inconsistent. For example, they dismiss studies that support the HIV hypothesis as being biased by “drug money,” while they accept uncritically the testimony of HIV deniers who have a heavy financial stake in their alternative treatment modalities.

"Aggressive, fixed-minded scientific consensus has a dangerous reputation and its 'deniers' include the likes of everyone from Galileo to John Snow."

Deniers also paint themselves as skeptics working to break down a misguided and deeply rooted belief. They argue that when mainstream scientists speak out against the scientific “orthodoxy,” they are persecuted and dismissed. For example, HIV deniers make much of the demise of Peter Duesberg's career, claiming that when he began speaking out against HIV as the cause of AIDS, he was “ignored and discredited” because of his dissidence. South African President Mbeki went even further, stating: “In an earlier period in human history, these [dissidents] would be heretics that would be burnt at the stake!” HIV deniers accuse scientists of quashing dissent regarding the cause of AIDS, and not allowing so-called “alternative” theories to be heard. However, this claim could be applied to any well-established scientific theory that is being challenged by politically motivated pseudoscientific notions—for example, creationist challenges to evolution.

HIV Denial in the Internet Era-Tara C Smith

Jun 8, 2011 at 1:55 PM | Unregistered CommenterCedric Katesby

Dearie Me! Here I am in beautiful Paris, spending too much time in the archives, bothering to collect actual evidence, and I check back to find a perfectly good conversation has been hi-jacked by a troll who thinks that because one counters the fallacy of argumentum ad populum with a reference to Einstein's version of the 'Galileo Gambit' that somehow he is right!

Cedric, go learn some logic. Einstein and Galileo were insisting on evidence in preference to belief, even popular belief. Just because the 'Galileo Gambit' is seen as a debating technique does not make the point of both Galileo and Einstein wrong - regardless of what their views were on: the risks of smoking; moon landings; September 11; holocaust denial; vaccination; Obama's birth certificate; the death of Elvis; the JFK assassination; etc.

They (or anybody else) could be wrong on all those things and still be right on astronomy, relativity, evidence for AGW, the absence of the low tropospheric tropical hotspot, or any other scientific statement that can only be solved by reason and evidence. What is the falsifiable proposition and is there evidence that refutes it?

That is all you need - a point that you miss in all your extensive ramblings. Guilt by association, accusations of evil, etc have long been abandoned as a means to settle scientific debate. As Bill Clinton might have said, 'It was the Enlightenment, stupid!'. (Not that makes Clinton right on the treatment of young intern, mind you).

Jun 8, 2011 at 2:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterAynsley Kellow

I wonder what Cedric would go to Osama bin Laden, the Mafia, Enron, cybercriminals, and VAT fraudsters for?

Because they're all bought into CO2 bedwetting too.

If Osama bin Laden agreed with CO2 bedwetting does that add to or subtract from its credibility?

Jun 8, 2011 at 2:18 PM | Unregistered CommenterJustice4Rinka

Cedric. It's time to take your medication. If you haven't yet been able to engage in debate without cut 'n' paste from fruit-loop academic papers, there isn't much hope for remission.

The stuff you cite has the ring of Soviet orthodoxy. Do calm down, wipe the spittle from your cheek and follow the debate. Sometimes you might happen upon scientific findings that suggest it's not 'settled'.

You'll find many 'luke-warmists', AGW proponents and a wide spectrum of views here on BH. It would clearly shock you to know that my current position is slightly 'luke warm'. On balance, my opinion is that (of course) the climate has been warming (not as much as often stated), that some of this is due to humanity's existence on the planet (the majority is clearly traced to natural cycles), some of this (to be determined) is due to the rise in C02 levels and the rest to myriad other human influences.

That's before we get into projecting outcomes.

Your effort to reduce the debate to a 'my methodology is better than yours' conflict is tiresome, stupid and circular. I'll grant you sufficient intelligence for knowing that to be true and therefore deliberate.

Which brings me back to: what's the coefficient of earth's climate sensitivity?

Don't be shy. Hey, baby, if you're stuck for a number just tell me if it's positive or negative? And why?

Jun 8, 2011 at 2:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterGixxerboy

Look, I'll try one more time to treat you like an adult.
Coming from someone whose posts remind me of the ramblings of a hyperactive teenager, that really is a bit rich.
You have so far taken up more space on this thread than any other half-dozen of us put together and have still not produced an argument or a credible point of view that even a moderately intelligent adult can get to grips with.
This stream of consciousness thing was all the rage among English lecturers in the 1960s but, to my knowledge, it has never been seen as a reasonable way of carrying on a scientific discussion. AGW (as a hypothesis) is a crock because it is based entirely on computer models. The observations of temperature may (or may not, who knows?) be accurate but the subsequent conclusions drawn from them and from other climatic phenomena omit so many possible variables that to draw any meaningful conclusions is not practically possible.
Added to which I have seen no evidence (if you have, please provide it) of climate scientists getting their hands and knees dirty. They sit in front of computer screens and assume that what they are seeing is the real world and throw a hissy fit when anyone actually tries to explain why they are wrong and how to do it right.
That alone makes their science suspect.
Incidentally, Cedric old fruit, you are right when you say that climate science is not a theory. It hasn't even come within a thousand miles yet of being a theory. It's barely even a hypothesis and this is where I start to be surprised that anyone bothers to give you the time of day (me included, but I never could resist a good argument). Relativity is only a theory; evolution is only a theory. To say that AGW has got past the stage of being a theory demonstrates an abysmal ignorance of scientific principles.

Jun 8, 2011 at 2:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterMike Jackson

Dialogue with Cedric is a waste of time. His argument from authority is trite and unassailable since he has total faith in the infallibility of the august organizations supporting CAGW. Never mind the numerous instances where the fallibility of these institutions has been plainly demonstrated. Of course, these demonstrations have been made by the great unwashed, not the anointed few privy to the arcana of climate science.

Question: Cedric, have you read "The Hockey Stick Illusion"?

Jun 8, 2011 at 5:34 PM | Unregistered CommenterRobert Austin

From the Ecclesiatical Uncle and old retired bureaucrat in a field only remotely related to climate with minimal qualifications and only half a mind.

To all the stalwarts doing battle with Cedric Katesby:

Would it not be appropriate to point out to Cedric that NASA, the Royal Society and all the other august bodies he refers to have more in common than their support for his views on climate - they are all either directly funded by, or in thrall with or under the thumb of people who are funded by governments that thought there would be votes in appearing green when being green actually did not require them to do anything, and that now, for one reason or the other, cannot find a way of reversing their stance.

Jun 8, 2011 at 6:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterEcclesiastical Uncle

Very well put, Uncle.
God save us from politicians without an exit strategy!

Jun 8, 2011 at 7:17 PM | Unregistered CommenterMike Jackson

All of the august institutions whose authority Cedric vicariously arrogates unequivocally supported the Hockey Stick.

The Hockey Stick was comprehensively demolished by bloggers.

Ergo the appeal to authority in this and related matters is invalidated.

Jun 8, 2011 at 10:23 PM | Unregistered CommenterJake Haye

The 50 Cent Party might be one explanation for some prolific posters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party

Who is funding them....? Good question...

Though in some cases I think it might be a dime short.

"people hired by the PRC Government (both local and central) to post comments favorable towards the government policies in an attempt to shape public opinion on various Internet message boards.[1] The commentators are said to be paid for every post that either steers a discussion away from anti-party or sensitive content on domestic websites, bulletin board systems, and chatrooms,[2] or that advances the Communist party line.[3] Pro-party comments claim that the term is sometimes extended to discredit anyone who posts an excessively patriotic comment about China online.[4]"

Jun 8, 2011 at 10:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterWillR

bishop

your blog is not alone in the attention of Cedric to counter the so called denier hearsay on the net.

see the air vent post - http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/06/01/more-venus-discussion/#comment-51072

he has been tasked (wonder who may be concerned) or volunteered to educate the lurkers & uphold the consensus against us evil old free thinkers, or goad posters & derail threads.
if i were to guess were these "mind"ers (you know who i mean i hope) are coming from
well "rapid response" springs to mind for some reason.

hope you can accommodate all views on your blog, out of curiosity, have you banned anyone ever?

Jun 9, 2011 at 12:02 AM | Unregistered Commenterdougieh

The other big problem with the AGW movement (and the Green/Left in general) is that they are destroyers and not creators.

They talk about 'creating a green energy market' in the UK, when in fact what they mean is destroying the fossil-fuel industry.

Creating 'green' jobs has clearly been shown to be a destroyer of employment, while, further afield, their drive to 'create equality' in education has simply lead to the destruction of academic excellence and achievement.

Filled with hatred and envy, all they know how to do is break things. This is why all their policy prescriptions turn out to be utterly disastrous.

Jun 9, 2011 at 2:36 AM | Unregistered CommenterRick Bradford

...Do you realise how much you sound like an Austrian tub-thumper with a bad moustache?
(...)
The stuff you cite has the ring of Soviet orthodoxy.

So we've had the Nazi reference and now we've had the Communist reference.
Ok.
Maybe someone will start calling me an Elder of Zion next?
(shrug)

Sometimes you might happen upon scientific findings that suggest it's not 'settled'.

Sure, but how do you know that the stuff you are reading is worth anything?
Cranks publish on the internet. They dress it up to make it look very sciencey.
Methodology.

On balance, my opinion is that (of course) the climate has been warming...

Yes, you have an opinion. How did the way you formulate your opinion differ from some other science denier out there totally unrelated to the issue of climate change?
You say the climate has been warming, right?
Ok.
You get your information from blogs, right?
Ok.
Yet there are blogs out there that will be happy to tell you that the climate is cooling.
How do you engage with someone who is firmly convinced of the opposite opinion from yours without it devolving into a meaningless link fight?

Your effort to reduce the debate to a 'my methodology is better than yours' conflict is tiresome, stupid and circular.

Deniers exist.
They really are out there.
HIV deniers do exist.
They behave in a certain manner on the internet. They get their information a certain way.
They share commonalities with other denier groups.
The way you identify a denier of any type is by looking at their methodology.

Those of us who have grown to be sceptical of the claims put forward by believers in AGW have had to put up with 'denier' insults and comparisons with many 'doubters': about moon landings, evolution, HIV etc.

The easy way to avoid this is to have a different methodology from say the HIV deniers or the Moon Landing deniers. If you being labeled as a denier is completely unfair then what is it that you do that makes you so very different?

...NASA, the Royal Society and all the other august bodies he refers to have more in common than their support for his views on climate - they are all either directly funded by, or in thrall with or under the thumb of people who are funded by governments...

Yep. They are all in it for the money. Of course they are. The Moon Landing deniers claim the same thing. As do the creationists. And the anti-vaxxers.

Claim CA321.1:
The conclusions of scientists are motivated by scientists' pay; they cannot be considered objective.

His argument from authority is trite and unassailable since he has total faith in the infallibility of the august organizations supporting CAGW. Never mind the numerous instances where the fallibility of these institutions has been plainly demonstrated. Of course, these demonstrations have been made by the great unwashed, not the anointed few privy to the arcana of climate science.

Faith? August organisations? Fallability? Annointed few privy to arcana?
Hardly.

Claim CA611:
Evolutionary theory, for a variety of nonscientific reasons, has obtained the status of sacred revelation. To express doubts by bringing up the counterevidence to the theory is to brand oneself an intellectual infidel.

Jun 9, 2011 at 4:30 AM | Unregistered CommenterCedric Katesby

Cedric
Your arguments are very nice. But they are suitable for children. (Moreover, did you just say 'yep'?).

Can you, for example, stand your ground and argue on the relative merits and demerits of the 'theory of evolution', as it is understood in the present day? Or, can you do the same about vaccines? Somehow I have the feeling that you cannot. And then, who gives a rat's ass about the 'theory of evolution' today? Only those who are scared about about a few other people not believing in the theory of evolution. People like you perhaps, and people like PZ Myers.

Incidentally, you can look at this post by PZ Myers to understand why Myers is gradually turned into an embarrassment to humankind in general. And apparently, Myers has filed the post under creationism! Darwin would probably wilt if he were to see what his theory of evolution has evolved into.

Also incidentally, are you aware of this joke? You can show Richard Dawkins PZ Myers as proof that god doesn't exist and that the theory of evolution is false.

More importantly, why are you talking about evolution and cigarretes, on this thread? Clearly, you can rattle away this type of stuff on any thread anywhere-it has no connection whatsoever to the present topic. Surely, it must take a lot of courage and time to copy-paste the same material over and over again, on various threads.

Jun 9, 2011 at 5:52 AM | Unregistered CommenterShub

And then, who gives a rat's ass about the 'theory of evolution' today? Only those who are scared about about a few other people not believing in the theory of evolution.

Perfect.

Can you, for example, stand your ground and argue on the relative merits and demerits of the 'theory of evolution', as it is understood in the present day? Or, can you do the same about vaccines?

Or Atomic theory, Germ Theory, Heliocentric Theory, Theory of Gravity etc.

More importantly, why are you talking about evolution and cigarretes, on this thread?

I've been very clear about it.
The word "denier" has meaning. Deniers exist.
There are people that deny the theory of evolution. There are people that deny the link between tobacco and cancer. There are people that deny the safety of vaccinces. There are people that deny that NASA went to the moon.
The way you identify a denier of any type is by looking at their methodology.

And then, who gives a rat's ass about the 'theory of evolution' today? Only those who are scared about about a few other people not believing in the theory of evolution.

Wonderful. Why deny only climatology when you can deny biology too? The same methodology can get you there. No need to change a thing. There are many, many more people out there in the blogosphere that think exactly like you.

Jun 9, 2011 at 6:23 AM | Unregistered CommenterCedric Katesby

But Cedric, you've again put out a lot of words,...without saying anything.

And, it is quite clear that you have been clear about the 'existence of deniers' - you have been repeating it,... about half a dozen times already. So,.... What is the connection here? That was more the question. For instance, I know that warmists exist (they really do). They think in a certain way. Its like a disease really. So?

And,...in your copy-pasting frenzy, you copy-pasted a portion of my paragraph twice. And wrote two different 'responses'. And one of them, is just a single word: 'perfect'. Again just as I stated above, I know that. I was more interested in knowing if you can discuss modern understanding of the theory of evolution, in any depth. More depth than can be managed to be conveyed by the use of single word responses, that is. Why don't you gather your thoughts and take a deep breath before posting?

I'll suggest the next lead as well. It can be argued that the theory of evolution (or evolution theory, or evolution, whichever you prefer) is now a dead duck. Indeed I would argue that PZ Myers and the hyper-moralist evolution brigade are busy stuffing this dead duck to be mounted on the wall one day. You know a theory is well and truly dead when even geniuses can understand it.

Jun 9, 2011 at 6:58 AM | Unregistered CommenterShub

It can be argued that the theory of evolution (or evolution theory, or evolution, whichever you prefer) is now a dead duck. Indeed I would argue that PZ Myers and the hyper-moralist evolution brigade are busy stuffing this dead duck to be mounted on the wall one day.

Wonderful. No need for me to change a thing.

But Cedric, you've again put out a lot of words,...without saying anything.

Yes I have. I've been quite clear about the existence of deniers.

...it is quite clear that you have been clear about the 'existence of deniers'...
(...)
So,.... What is the connection here? That was more the question.

The way you identify a denier of any type is by looking at their methodology.

The same way a person can deny the Theory of Evolution is the same way a person can deny AGW.
The same way a person can deny AGW is the same way a person can deny the link between tobacco and cancer.
The same way a person can deny the tobacco-cancer link is the same way a person can deny the link between HIV and AIDS.

The methodology is the same. The thinking is the same. That's the connection.

Jun 9, 2011 at 8:04 AM | Unregistered CommenterCedric Katesby

I'm going to be the latest one to bite at Cedric's silly taunts. Don't feed the troll, I know. Anyway, here goes: It appears that if you post on all sorts of threads on all sorts of blogs in a preachy way, it does not leave you much time to actually read what other people write let alone think about it. Shub was not - at least I think not, he may correct me - suggesting that he does not believe in the theory of evolution. He was venturing to suggest that shrill preaching about evolution from PJ Myers or Dawkins may go slightly beyond the scientific. Shub is not a denier - nor am I. But we are sceptics about some aspects of global warming theory - why? Because we think about it in shades of grey, not your bombastic, self-contradicting black and white. Now push off.

Jun 9, 2011 at 9:14 AM | Unregistered Commenterj

Shub was not - at least I think not, he may correct me - suggesting that he does not believe in the theory of evolution.

No doubt. No doubt at all. Shub's own comments are perfectly clear. Right?

Shub is not a denier - nor am I. But we are sceptics about some aspects of global warming theory - why?

If you are not a denier then what separates you from them?

Because we think about it in shades of grey...

Not much to go on really.
What makes your methodology different from science denier of another stripe?
Anybody (including a creationist nutter) can say the same thing.

Jun 9, 2011 at 9:36 AM | Unregistered CommenterCedric Katesby

Cedric - this time yesterday somewhere on page 2 I asked you a question:

CK - since you are so familiar with NASA's "tonnes of information", please cite the empirical scientific evidence they have for CO2 induced CAGW. Btw, empirical means observational, i.e. not based on computer models. Otherwise please don't post here again, as you are just making a fool of yourself.

Are you going to come up with any empirical evidence? (It doesn't have to be from NASA, the IPCC, the CDC, or even the American Association of Ice Cream sellers would be fine. As long as it comes from an organisation, any will do as they are all totally trustworthy of course).

Jun 9, 2011 at 10:11 AM | Unregistered Commenterlapogus

Cedric - this time yesterday somewhere on page 2 I asked you a question:

CK - since you are so familiar with NASA's "tonnes of information", please cite the empirical scientific evidence they have for CO2 induced CAGW. Btw, empirical means observational, i.e. not based on computer models. Otherwise please don't post here again, as you are just making a fool of yourself.

I know you asked me a question yesterday.
You did it to deflect attention from a claim you made.

This is your claim:
...for which despite $80bn and 20 years of research, there is not a scrap of empirical evidence...

To which I answered: Who says so? You?
And I should believe you because.....?

Maybe there is not a scrap of empirical evidence for whatever. Maybe you are absolutely right.
Yet there's no reason for me to just accept that such a statement is true just based on your say-so.

For example: Why only 20 years of research? Are you suggesting that the research has only been going on since 1991? Sounds a bit late in the day.

NASA claims they have been doing research long before that. Are they lying?
What would be a fair and honest way to find out the truth?
What would be the correct methodology?

Jun 9, 2011 at 10:27 AM | Unregistered CommenterCedric Katesby

Anybody getting that Cirque de Soleil fatigue yet? There's only so much contortion one can watch with feigned interest.

Jun 9, 2011 at 11:23 AM | Unregistered CommenterGixxerboy

Carry on, Cedric. At this rate you'll eventually tie yourself in a knot that won't come undone. Haste the day!
Let's run lapogus' question past you again. Just in case your little brain didn't quite get a grip on it the first time

.... since you are so familiar with NASA's "tonnes of information", please cite the empirical scientific evidence they have for CO2 induced CAGW. Btw, empirical means observational, i.e. not based on computer models...
You seem to be in some difficulty with this since you immediately start to flannel, probably to "deflect attention" from the fact that you can't answer the question.
Lapogus (and a lot of other people, me included) claim that there is so far no empirical evidence for CO2 induced CAGW. I thought you claimed that there was but now you are saying
Maybe there is not a scrap of empirical evidence for whatever. Maybe you are absolutely right.
So which is it, Cedric? Is there or isn't there? Are we right or not? And if we're not, where is this empirical evidence? Nobody seems able to find it (bit like Trenberth's lost heat!) but you insist it exists. Or do you?
Enlighten us, Cedric. The people who sit in darkness await your great light. Or at least an answer to a simple question.

Jun 9, 2011 at 11:31 AM | Unregistered CommenterMike Jackson

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>