Buy
Books
Click images for more details
Currently discussing
-
Nov 19 - Barbie Jacket
on
Need an economic adviser? Here are 5 ideas for finding the very best one -
Nov 11 - US Design Hub
on
Launched my very own online store.
Links
A few sites I've stumbled across recently....
-
Science blogs
-
Political blogs
-
Other blogs
Subscribe
Bishop Hill
Copyright © 2006-2013, Bishop Hill All rights reserved.
Reader Comments (97)
macsporen says:
Oh good. Please 'enlighten' me about the treatment of moist convective transport in the GCMs.
Bluecloud
The folk at Realclimate never ever admit a mistake unless forced to. Here is a trivial but amusing example.
In the Supplementary Info to Mann's 1998 paper, he transcribed rainfall from New England to Paris. This was pointed out and satirised in posts on ClimateAudit as "The rain in Maine falls mainly in the Seine". When pointing this out, Steve McIntyre agreed that the transcription error made absolutely no difference to the results - it was just a humorous example of a minor error.
Rather than admit the mistake, which would mean crediting Steve McIntyre with spotting it, the exact mistake was repeated in Mann's 2007 paper, and still has not been corrected to this day.
Macsporan
"fight them"?
Are you on a crusade? (I won't say jihad, I haven't read the Qu'ran and am not, therefore, qualified to comment on the relevant doctrine.)
For those who cannot bring themselves to read a whole book, how about reading a single blog post?
This post tells one part of the hockey stick story. It was received so well that the author was encouraged to write THSI, which is similar but much broader in scope.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html
Tip sent.
Happy Christmas to the Montfords!
Best wishes from NZ.
It's Christmas ! Why not keep the flame burning - we're getting closer to the truth, there is no MMGW! It's cyclical, IMHO!
We need BH and his like to continue the exposing of the falsity of the "illusion".
Merry Christmas, and a happy new year to all "deniers". Way to go, as our colonial cousins say !
X
manacker:
A spectacular piece of cherry-picking there, assuming that all these scientists actually say what CO2 science says they say, which should never be taken for granted.
While there were various temperature anomalies here and there during the so-called MWP, some of them in unexpected places, there were even more regions where the temperature were well below 20th levels, to whit Siberia/Central Asia, Eastern Australia, North-Western Canada and above all the oceans which were much colder than today.
On average the climate was slightly colder than today and nothing in the MWP compares to the spike in global temperature we have seen in the late 20th early 21st century due to CO2 put there by the Human Race.
Perhaps we should not take too seriously a website of an organization run by stooges of Western Fuels in receipt of (and you won't believe this) Exon-Mobil funding especially when according to Greenpeace:
"Center is run by Keith and Craig Idso, along with their father, Sherwood. Both Idso brothers have been on the Western Fuels payroll at one time or another. Keith Idso, then a doctoral candidate at the University of Arizona, was a paid expert witness for Western Fuels Association at a 1995 Minnesota Public Utilities commission hearing in St. Paul, MN, along with MIT's Richard Lindzen, Patrick Michaels, and Robert Balling (The Heat is On). According to news from Basin Electr ic, a Western Fuels Association member, Craig Idso produced a report, "The Greening of Planet Earth." Its Progression from Hypothesis to Theory," in January 1998 for the Western Fuels Association (Basin Electric Latest News no date given)." http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=24
In other words the usual suspects, a small and unrepresentative group of ratbag scientists whoring themselves and their profession for a variety of motives, none of them wholesome, to a bunch of corporate nasties who'd kill half the world for a quick buck.
So much for reliable sources of scientific information.
"we're getting closer to the truth, there is no MMGW! It's cyclical, IMHO!"
If that is your humble opinion than you have much to be humble about.
Global Heating will be tormenting your great-grandchildren long after they've forgotten you even existed.
Superstition and wishful thinking are no substitute for science and truth.
manaker
Got any real science? CO2science is not recognised in the literature as a serious source.
macsporan
Comment is free, but facts are sacred :)
Macsporan
I’m a lukewarmer, not a sceptic.
I do not disagree that:
I have no problem with the basic argument for AGW. The trouble starts with quantification and projection, and blooms into political fleurs du mal.
The first step is to isolate a no-feedbacks value for climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 ppmv. This is tricky in itself. Judith Curry (boo, hiss) provides a balanced view of the uncertainties:
http://judithcurry.com/2010/12/11/co2-no-feedback-sensitivity/#more-1476
http://judithcurry.com/2010/12/14/co2-no-feedback-sensitivity-part-ii/#more-1519
Uncertainty about the no-feedbacks forcing from CO2 is compounded by uncertainty over the feedbacks themselves.
I initially asked you about moist convective transport in the GCMs because it is a vital element of the climate system response to forcing.
But it is artificially represented in GCMs. It is a sub-gridcell process and so can be ‘tuned’.
It is also a big knob. Like the ‘sulphate aerosols’ knob. Twiddling either a little allows hindcast tuning
(curve-fitting with knobs on).
And suddenly an edited virtual process of hindcasting is validating the virtual process ofprojection.
Warming, certainly, but how much?
This may not worry you, but it worries me.
Bluecloud
Your question above at 3.57 asked about the Hockey Stick Illusion book. You have been desperately trying to go off at tangents ever since, and seem to be avoiding the question you raised. If you wish to seriously debate the subject, read the book, then your comments will be worth reading. Your diversion about Islam/Koran is irrelevent, as one can discuss the religion in many different facets, but in this case you have specifically made THSI your subject (and taking the thread off topic in the process) and then you avoid the one step that would qualify you to take part. Now, there's a good lad, go and buy the book (and thereby enhance His Lordship's tip jar, which brings the thread back on topic) and then read it, and come back in January and politely post a comment on unthreaded, whereupon we can resume an appropriate discussion. Happy Christmas.
(curve-fitting with knobs on).
Prove it BBD. So far no one has disproved the Hockey Stick.
Bluecloud - I'm really beginning to wonder if you are actually the (in)famous William Connelley. If so the Bish is honoured.
Cumbrian Lad,
I challenged the author about the science. So far I have not received a scientific response. I do not need to read a book to ask a basic question as to whether the author had a scientific explanation for his claims.
You are simply attempting to shut down debate.
Global Heating will be tormenting your great-grandchildren long after they've forgotten you even existed.
Superstition and wishful thinking are no substitute for science and truth.
Barring a super volcanic eruption or a massive asteroid strike, Global Climate Normality With All Its Ups and Downs (Climate Optimum?) is what your great-grand children will live in, just as we do now and just as our ancestors did for the last 10.000 years.
What CAGW cultists call 'wishful thinking', others call optimism (pun intended). What the modern day Millenarian movement call 'science and truth', others call group-think and scientific speculation.
The superstitious, pessimistic outlook of the Climate cult, like all Doomsday cults that preceded it, is positively depressing.
Bluecloud says:
We are talking about different things.
Your defensiveness about the Mannean Hockey Stick is misplaced. Although it has been ably discredited I do not argue that this 'invalidates' AGW.
Rather it illustrates the eagerness of the lead authors of the IPCC TAR to bulldozer a change in energy policy based on an argument for a high climate sensitivity - which remains in doubt.
If you could just bring yourself to read the book it might help clear up the misunderstanding.
Bluecloud says to Cumbrian Lad:
No, you are.
I thought even RC had given up on the Hokey stick!
Bluecloud
If you had looked at bit more closely, you would see that several of the studies I cited are linked directly to the study itself (not to co2science). The ones linked to co2 science are all referenced, so can easily be checked out.
These independent studies using different paleo-climate techniques from all over the world (and I have more I could cite) all show that the MWP was global and a bit warmer than the current period.
This is confirmed by historical records and physical evidence uncovered under receding glaciers, for example. It's really a no-brainer.
Face it, Bluecloud, the thoroughly discredited Mann et al. hockeystick has not only been shown to be a statistical fraud by M+M, as confirmed in testimony by the Wegman committee and the NAS panel, but has also been refuted scientifically by all these many studies.
If you are unable to understand this, then I suggest you read Montford's blow by blow description - it's a good read and you will definitely learn something by reading it.
Max
I got bored of "debating" with warmists a few years ago since they never bring anything new to the table: choose from a selection of ad-homs, big-oil type rants, appeals to authority (often the "authority" under question which I've always found amusing) and requests that the opposition prove something to their satisfaction or provide and prove an alternative hypothesis - which is never satisfactory because the goalposts are moved on a regular basis. We've seen examples of these on this thread alone.
As far as I'm concerned CAGW doesn't get off the ground due to the tenuous and ultimately circular reasoning* viz:
"CO2 causes warming which has positive feedbacks, and since humans produce CO2 therefore any warming is human derived and likely disastrous, and models and/or the IPCC agree(s)"
and it's the various links in this basic chain which are never addressed, just assumed as a given, by those who claim that the sky is falling. The Hockey Stick is in one sense a side issue, but the manner in which our host explains the shenanigans around it in THSI simply hammers home how slim the main argument is if it needs a prop like that.
Given it is the CAGW side which is pushing the hypothesis and, funnily enough, all manner of related social, economic and political change, it's their side's duty to establish it. Please bring some evidence. Proper evidence, not junk science, and we'll take it from there. I suspect there really isn't any or we'd have seen it by now.
*circular reasoning seems especially prevalent in climate science, but CAGW adherents seem not to see it. That's probably a subject in itself.
Fascinating - if hockey sticks various had seen the light of day in genuine scientific disciplines, the journals on which they had been inflicted would have placed red stamps on the offending articles marked 'Withdrawn", and the authors forced to resign in shame and ignominy - even the acknowledgedly corrupt field of medical science manages it - e.g. the Wakefield MMR hoax.
Given the 'multiple lines of peer-reviewed and established science' that is claimed by CAGW proponents, why do they feel the need to so continuously defacate in their own nest through so desperately supporting a fraud that has been so comprehensively debunked? As Woodentop suggest above - if that's the best they've got, and it needs so much aching and sightless support, then it comprehensively discredits the rest of those 'multiple lines'.
Which brings me onto more cognitive dissonance issues. Apparently Piers Corbyn is predicting more murderously foul weather next week. Presumably this further confirms catastrophic warming; so should we ban the use of fossil fuels if that'll make it warm again?
As further above, I love this mythical and obligatory link between skeptics and 'big oil'.
Are there no green interests, government interests, or banking interests relying on climate change hysteria?
Is there really a big separation between hydrocarbon interests and carbon constraint?
Why is it that Sir John Houghton, former co-chair of the IPCC, was also a trustee for the Shell Foundation?
Why is it that the CRU took money from the likes of Shell & BP and allowed them to influence the research agenda. The CRU approached Exxon, did they not, for funding for the Tyndall Climate Research Centre?
Why is it that oil companies such as Exxon, BP, Total etc provide support for research that attempts to justify 5.2C AGW temperature increases by 2100?
Just a few of many well known examples.
"Why are you pushing this book? This is not science"
Bluecloud is a leader of the Guardian vampire womble brigade. He is an unemployed graduate of Kingston Polytechnic with a degree in environmental science (clearing litter from river banks). He lives in Germany, (while claiming to live in London for a Guardian article. ) and is an enthusiastic member of the Greenpeace brownshirts.
He smokes a lot of dope and previously drove his car all over Germany in a determined attempt to kill us all from CO2 contamination (from Guardian messages).
"As for Germany, I drive regularly along such Autobahns where business executives drive at full pelt (over 200 kmh) simply because it's a company car and the fuel is invariably paid by the firm. Merkel is fully in the grip of the car industry and opposed the EU's proposed policy of reducing CO2 in cars."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/16/car-makers-credit-crunch?commentpage=1
Ignore him. He has nothing to say apart from witless insults. The brazen idiocy of criticising a book he hasn't read on the author's blog is typical of a brainwashed cultist.
zeds, you are far better.
On that note, can you believe this? macsporan wants to have the underdog advantage.
I propose "Bishop's Law": Anyone who posts, as a rebuttal to statements made by X, that X {works for / is paid by / speaks with / was once photographed standing next to a member of} { an oil company / Greenpeace / IPCC / Conservative Party / Labour / LibDem / Republicans / Democrats }, is immediately disqualified from further comment in the thread.
The application of Bishop's Law is to post something like "I call Bishop on your post." The offender must go off to his/her house of worship -- here's where atheists have an advantage, they can just stay home -- and recite 20 times: "argumentum ad hominem non est argumentum."
Coming late to this, I have to say well done to everyone for the handling of Bluecloud. He left the comfort of the Guardian blog and came over here with a predetermined view of what he would find and how he would be treated.
Whatever that view was, you all did not meet it.
It is clear that whatever Bluecoud says further, you made an impression on him, an uncomfortable impression on his world view. He did not expect what he found.
You would hope that Bluecloud would get the book (I think many of us would supply a copy). To criticise and ridicule a book you have not read, ranks along the lines of old style state censorship where a book is banned, and you know the censors have not read it, but do not need to.
I hope Bluecloud reads the book, comes back and slays the dragon. But I fear he will retreat back to the comfort of his world view. That is far easier.
But there is always hope. How about it Bluecloud? Your opinion of the THSI is based on others within your world. How about you form your own opinion? Then come back and share it?
In fact you could become the most informed CAGW supporter on the blog, because so far no one has entered battle on this blog having actually read the book. Your service to the CAGW cause would be great.
I do not think anyone here thinks you will, but prove us wrong. Come and slay the dragon, we will even supply the sword. Imagine the glory?
"I slayed Bishop Hill!"
e smith - "He smokes a lot of dope and previously drove his car all over Germany in a determined attempt to kill us all from CO2 contamination "
Ah, it suddenly all makes sense. Bluecloud. Of course.
Bluecloud,
the gist of the HS contraversy for me, is why not show what the tree ring data shows for after the 1960's? Why is it necessary to go to the thermometer data to show this "unprecedented" warming? If you are going to use proxy data for the previous 1500-2000 years, then finish with it. And if the blade of the stick is not there, then report that and give us hypothesis as to maybe why this divergence exists. If ya can't, then you aint doing science.
Pretty simple really.
Well it is nice to see that everyone is full of bonhomie and is playing nicely with this warmist troll.
My previous comment (also pretty polite) has disappeared. (Spam folder, Bish?)
But whilst the troll is boldly quoting the likes of Wikipedia and Bob Ward (Jeremy Grantham's paid attack chihuahua) as authorities, don't let's all forget that even as you read this, someone is loosing their job and someone's Grannie is dying of Hypothermia. Thanks to the troll's stupid religion.
@macsporan
Sorry, but there's no "cherry-picking" (unless you are referring to the process used in creating Mann's "hockey stick" - refer to THSI by Andrew Montford for specifics).
And when you wrote:
were you referring to Mann's "hockey team"?
What I posted to blogger bluecloud (who sounded a bit confused) was simply a couple of dozen of independent studies from locations all over our planet, using different paleo-climate techniques (not just "cherry-picking" a few hand-selected bristlecone pines or other such nonsense), all of which confirm that the MWP was slightly warmer than today.
That's all.
I have shown the links to the original studies for several of these; others are cited by co2science.
Check it out and you'll learn something new (that every schoolchild knows anyway: unlike "Santa's flying reindeer", there was a MWP, which was a bit warmer than today).
We see physical evidence of this (vegetation, signs of civilization) under retreating Alpine glaciers, just as they found a complete medieval farm buried in the Greenland permafrost. How do you think that stuff got there?
And then there are crop records from all over the civilized world at the time, which point to warmer temperatures.
It's all there. All you have to do is open your eyes (and your mind).
And forget about those "cherry-picked" bristlecone pines - that groaner has been buried long ago, even though the authors have not realized it yet.
Max
GrantB
Bluecloud reveals his personal philosophy here.
"I could write books about the advantages of cannabis, whereas the evidence for harm has not yet been found! Cannabis was made illegal in the sixties/seventies because of a draconian US drugs policy. Why? The war on drugs? Maybe, but it was about money and control.
Dope is hard to tax if everyone is growing their own, so the revenue does not fill the taxman's pockets like alcohol or tobbacco. And all those stoned hippies are useless when it comes to working as a slave to the system. Smokers tend to be alternative types, thinkers; that's dangerous to those in power."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/discussion/comment-permalink/6630791
He is a 45-50 year old dope smoking member of a subculture which he refuse to grow out of.
Dope smoking may be good for writing rave music, but utterly useless for science. The problem is that it is a culture linked to the mainstream corporate media. He believes the lies of the Guardian which is promoting global warming for big business. Namely
International Emissions Trading Association (IETA)
BP, Conoco Philips, Shell, E.ON, EDF , Gazprom, Barclays, JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs.
@bluecloud "Can you comment on evolution without reading Darwin?"
I tend not to comment because there are so many more learned people here, but this really got up my nose. No, of course you don't have to read *anything* to comment but it helps credibility if you have maybe some inkling of what you are talking about. If I hadn't read Darwin I could beat the drum for intelligent design or for the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But I have read Darwin so I can't. (Well, perhaps the FSM)
@e smith
Thanks for the insight into the drug abuse - it explains an exchange I had with him on the Guardian's comments pages a few weeks ago which ended up with me genuinely fearing for his mental wellbeing. The Guardian didn't do the normal mods announcement about posts being censored, they were just removed without trace. The abusive nature of his comments were easily sufficient for him to have been barred from posting, but to my utter amazement he was back a few hours later, not even on moderation.
I'm surprised to learn he has a poly degree too - his sort of certainty is usually restricted to those whose 'knowledge' was shaped by being taught 'science' as a series of unchallengeable facts - i.e. secondary school.
I suspect I’m simply feeding the troll here but FWIW here’s a summary of why I’m a sceptic, and one I think is broadly indicative of most.
The default hypothesis we start from is that we’re seeing merely natural climate variation from decade to decade. It is not up to anyone to prove that this is so; it is up to those who think otherwise to prove that it is not so.
Thus we come to the claims that peer-reviewed science supports this alternative view. This is sometimes expressed as “X% of scientists” share this view. It is often accompanied by the assertion that if you disagree, you are unqualified to do so.
I’m unconvinced by this argument for a number of reasons. Looking at peer review first, the evidence from the Bishop’s book and from Climategate is that this is a seriously misunderstood term and an overstated hallmark of quality. It appears to be most uncommon practice for any actual review to take place. That is, data is not checked by reviewers, algorithms are not examined, reproduction of results is not attempted, and so on, which Steve M discovered when he asked for these materials himself.
Given this, all that peer review can achieve is to blackball papers whose conclusions don’t agree with what the reviewer thinks he already knows. Moreover, neither do the reviewers appear to be “peers”. I had previously imagined this to mean neutral experts. It’s the way I use the term at work, for example. In climate science, they are more usually friends of the author, or bitter opponents if the author is a sceptic. This is abundantly clear in THSI in which the Bish lays out the network of connections between the members of the Hockey Team. It appears that the supposed worldwide consensus is preserved by the activities of about 50 academics, who as Climategate showed connive to prevent the publication of work they disagree with.
Consensus itself is anyway a poor argument, because you don’t establish the facts by voting on them. Recent history is rife with instances of apparent consensus, or expert opinion, being farcically or even tragically wrong: bird flu, swine flu, foot-and-mouth, CJD, AIDS, Sir Roy Meadow. Weight of opinion proves nothing. Quality of opinion is what matters. The quality of climate science in general is best summed up for me by the fact that you only need three Bs at A Level to get into UEA to read the subject. This takes in 52% of A Level candidates, which does not suggest to me that this is an intellectually rigorous environment.
Those who claim a consensus are in fact arguing from authority: so-and-so believes X, so you should also believe X. The trouble I have with this is that it is then logically indefensible to ignore the odious people who also agree with you. If your argument is “look at all these worthies who agree with me,” then it is one sided and should also take in all the detestable people who believe in your cause. They undermine any such appeal to authority. I won’t rehearse them all here, but a large number of the world’s organised criminals appear very keen on global warming, as do a number of its least ethical commercial companies. Thieves are part of the consensus too.
Every other step in the logic chain appears flawed to me, too, but I’ve gone on long enough. The above, however, is why claiming that scientists support CAGW and thus it must be right is no more convincing to me than telling me that it's OK to stone adultresses because the Bible says so.
Macsporan/Bluecloud
Please see here:
http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fil:NH_temperature_2ka.png
Which shows a reconstruction by A. Moberg, D.M. Sonechkin, K. Holmgren, N.M. Datsenko, W. Karlén, and S.-E. Lauritzen - which has a Medieval Warm Period intact. Sources are also given for this at wikipedia page.
I would be interested to hear your thoughts on this.
Thank you.
SayNoToFearmongers
TheNGO astroturferslike Bluecloud, GP Wayne, Snufkin, JBowers, ElliottCB are allowed to be as psychotic as they like and never banned. It's because the Guardian was openly sponsored for a year by Shell to promote carbon trading. I assume they are still being paid by someone because they are broke. The standard of journalism is somewhere between Viz and the Daily Star.
They don't have one useful brain cell between them. Snufkin is an exception, he isn't a nasty, vicious moron like the rest of them, he went to university, but he is a very extreme environmentalist who has been arrested more than once for criminal damage.
"Bluecloud is a leader of the Guardian vampire womble brigade. He is an unemployed graduate of Kingston Polytechnic with a degree in environmental science (clearing litter from river banks). He lives in Germany, (while claiming to live in London for a Guardian article. ) and is an enthusiastic member of the Greenpeace brownshirts..........................
Dec 23, 2010 at 2:56 AM | smith"
I remember when he unwisely attached his personal photo album to his Grauniad CIF profile (gone now).
Dashing pix of Dopecloud interfering with shipping in his Greenpiss rubber dinghy and vandalising a hotel on a Thames island - interspersed with holiday snaps of him and mates cruising around Europe in cars & boats or sitting in expensive restaurants quaffing bubbly.
It was an illuminating insight into the life of the more "Gold Card" brand of eco-warrior - and a complete contrast to his CIF buddy "Snufkin" who appears to spend his time crouched in a muddy tunnel under an airport runway somewhere.
As well as being parasites on the productive economy, these people are hard core activists with no real interest in discussion - beyond propagandising their obsession.
Not worth debating with them IMHO.
Tip duly deposited Bish ( & doubled up this time in honour of Dopecloud's visit!)
Thanks Foxgoose
The problem with these idiots is that they couldn't pass an 'A' level maths to save their lives. I put a mathematical equation on CIF yesterday and was immediately banned. They don't like the truth.
Climate science is a model based pseudo science in which it is very easy to introduce biases. There is no direct mathematical relationship between levels of CO2 and global temperature. It is much more like economics than physics, even though the elements may be based on physics.
As a senior citizen facing huge heating bills because of all this global warming my resources are limited. I've learned a lot from this website, though, as well as from THSI so my modest tip is winging it's way to you Bish.
And back to the original message before the stoner invasion - many thanks for all your good work Bish - tip on its way.
Re Macsporan at 22.30pm 22/12.
Is that the best you've got? Evidence, dear boy, Evidence, to paraphrase somebody famous.
If my great-granchildren don't even remember my existence, that means they will exist, despite the claims of the leftie tree-hugging greenie folk that we're destroying whats left of our planet. I don't anticipate that my descendants will have an existence that is as difficult as people had, even a generation ago. Progress will ensure an adequate food supply, and the infrastructure of the future civilisations will be infinitely more effective than even ours. And, once this MMGW "bubble" is burst, progress will be rapid. To everyone's benefit.
Stop wearing the sandwichboards, and join the real world.
Best regards, and have a happy christmas.
X
e smith!!!!!! You scared a Troll away with an excellent expose!
Damn donating to Paypal using an iPhone on GSM. I failed again but will give it a go to get my second Installment of three payments into your coffers Dear Bishop with my work PC, hopefully tomorrow.
Is it just me or do others find it slightly odd that adding to your warchest via concerned citizen donations rattles cages, inversely proportional to the amount of funding that CAGW attracts?
At times, it does appear that the anti-global, anti-capitalist, anti-almost anything that keeps the lights on
forces of darkness are deemed to be evil just because they stump up the cash to keep the Internet on-line, the spliffs charged to inanity and the loins girded up to continue the fight against the global capitalists who stump up the cash to allow the former to take place!
Don't bite the hand that feeds you, silly trolls, while licking the appendages of those who simultaneously appreciate your labours while they look down their noses at you.
Just a thought but don't get too depressed. History, without the gullible, would have been very different.
A parting thought for BlueBoy person; loved your pontification about how you didn't need to read a book to make meaningful comments about it. Is your real name Bob Ward or are you just one in the Kristalnacht literary society ?
RoyFOMR
Kristalnacht Literary Society is quite choice. Thanks.
A 5-er in tip jar to The Bish. For keeping it real :)
Another penny in the piggy bank
From Climategate2, here is the original email sent out by Gavin Schmidt when he and Dr. Mann founded RealClimate.org
http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=5745
Chris Shaker