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
« Manndacity, integrity and Amazon reviews | Main | Carbon confusion - Josh 292 »
Saturday
Sep062014

A saching 

From time time to time I have noted the tendency among upholders of the climate consensus to hurl strongly worded accusations of wrongdoing or abusive epithets at their opponents, apparently without considering it necessary to provide any evidence in support of their allegations. I'm thinking here of Nigel Lawson or Owen Paterson being described as "deniers" by just about every left-wing journalist in the country, without apparently needing to justify the accusation in any way and despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

There was yet another example of the same thing today, with economist and left-wing talking head Jeffrey Sachs aiming brickbats at Matt Ridley on account of his recent article about the lack of any surface temperature rise:

Ridley climate ignorance in WSJ today is part of compulsive lying of Murdoch media gang. Ridley totally misrepresents the science.

Not a shred of evidence is presented, not a hint of an explanation as to how he considers that the science might have been misrepresented. It's almost as if evidence is seen as superfluous. (This is somehow familiar. Now what does it remind me of?)

This kind of wild namecalling makes Sachs look rather deranged in my opinion, although as we have seen this kind of thing is common on the other side of the lines in the climate wars. I really think we need a word for it: a "saching", perhaps. Maybe readers can think of something better.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (147)

Agouts
Never in my lifetime has "liberal" meant or even implied "tolerant".
A true "Liberal" tolerates nothing that he disagrees with and nobody whose views differ from the "proper" liberal view of the world.

Sep 6, 2014 at 6:15 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

I met Sachs at Columbia University and also listened to him "preach", the only polite word I can use to describe his oratory.
Like so many of the visible CAGW promoters my impression was of a self serving politically motivated sleaze artist hiding his real objectives behind emotionally charged pleas for relief of humanitarian distress in third world countries. Credibility of his protestations zero.

Sep 6, 2014 at 6:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterMike Singleton

"sachsting"?? "saxting"??

Sep 6, 2014 at 6:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterSteve McIntyre

I've always thought of people like this - and Guardianistas in particular - to be climate eunuchs: no balls. However, when it comes to trolling and trolls, I've always consider that what they do is bait sceptics: they are baiters, and like to think they are masters of their craft. Who am I to deny them their well-deserved title?
Sep 6, 2014 at 11:10 AM | Harry Passfield

Are their thermodynamic ideas based on the 18th century theory of caloric and frigoric?

Sep 6, 2014 at 6:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterAllan M

Hey Smiffy, how are you ?

If you dont like my scud , how about being a Romulan ? due to the way the greenie activists employ the cagw cloaking device to hide their true beliefs and intentions. Allowing stealth attacks on our civilsation

Sep 6, 2014 at 6:39 PM | Unregistered CommenterEternalOptimist

EternalOptimist

I did realise your post was too complex for my little brain, so I put the phaser on default mode which is 'assume enemy, heavy stun'.

Sorry.

Sep 6, 2014 at 6:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterE. Smiff

Thwack!:

Something unpleasant that sticks probably maloderous and deep green. Slime! I suggest Sliming.

Slimed has a sturdy history in the field. I was walking on the beach trying to remember what term Steve had used and lo, you came up with it on my return. Thanks.

Sep 6, 2014 at 7:29 PM | Registered CommenterRichard Drake

I really think we need a word for it: a "saching", perhaps. Maybe readers can think of something better.

Bish I'd really like to help you out with your request for some better insults for Jeffrey. But there are many other people more deserving of my time (which today is costed at ~$0.00/hr).

Sep 6, 2014 at 7:44 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

The tacky tax-dodger Jimmy Carr used to enjoy referring to sliming after he found a reference to it in an Australian documentary about the porn industry. Perhaps more appropriate than we would like to think.

Sep 6, 2014 at 7:45 PM | Unregistered CommenterDavid S

Start in 1996 instead of 1995 and you get a warming trend of 0.12C in 18 years, 0.07C/decade.

A pause which disappears when you move the start date forward a year is hardly a robust phenomenon.

This leaves two possibilities.

1) Matt Ridley has naively accepted Mc'Kittrick's flawed analysis in which case he is a fool.

2) He knows the analysis is flawed and presents it deliberately as false proof of a pause, in which case he is a denier.

Sep 6, 2014 at 8:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Fanaticizing -- combo of fanatic and fantasizing

Sep 6, 2014 at 8:10 PM | Unregistered Commentertom currie

EM:

Start in 1996 instead of 1995 and you get a warming trend of 0.12C in 18 years, 0.07C/decade.
Is that with error bars, EM? And if not, is 0.07C/dec (FFS!!!) going to kill us? Do get a sense of proportion.

Sep 6, 2014 at 8:51 PM | Registered CommenterHarry Passfield

Entropic man.

to measure the pause, you start now and work backwards

as well you know.

it is impossible to cherry pick the pause.

Sep 6, 2014 at 8:53 PM | Unregistered CommenterEternalOptimist

Entropic want to buy a Hoover a Cordless one.

Bit off topic .

Second TV advert i have seen for a cordless Vacuum Cleaners from Bosch and Vax.
Must be how European Companies are getting round the EU normal power vacuum cleaner ban.
Must be a loop hole where battery powered electrical goods aren't covered.
Oh that is quality.

So use they use the same amount of electric and same amount of CO2 charged in a Lithium Cell Battery same size electric motor instead of a power cable straight from the mains socket.

So mining lithium how much damage does that do to the environment instead.

Sep 6, 2014 at 9:08 PM | Unregistered Commenterjamspid

Mike Jackson:

The obvious point, at heart very disturbing, is that at least since WW2 Western 'liberals' have consistently congratulated themselves on their superior understanding, their capacity for informed, inclusive thought rendering them by their own definition patently wiser than the rest of us unfortunates. It inevitably follows that those who do not agree with them must either be very stupid or deliberately perverse. Simultaneously, the left-leaning beliefs adopted by this self-proclaimed intelligentsia, have rendered anyone espousing even the most modest of Conservative beliefs easy targets.

The net result is an astounding intolerance entirely at odds with their self-proclaimed liberalism. Precisely those achievements that have allowed the West to become rich, stable and, historically, extraordinarily successful are denounced despite the obvious fact that they have simultaneously allowed the rise of these so-called Liberal elites.

This suggests either a terrifying stupidity or an ingrained death wish, extended to us all, that is seriously alarming.

Either way, I would defy anyone with even the most casual knowledge of history not to be appalled by the apparent determination of 21st-century liberal elites to destroy precisely that which has made made the the West patently the world's standard bearer of civilisation – by which I mean above all to have devised an economic model that has created a standard of living for hundreds of millions that even 100 years ago was unimagineable.

That this model could and should now be extended to the Third World is, to coin no phrase at all, a self-evident truth. That it is opposed by precisely those 'liberals' seeking 'renewable' sources of energy or who, despising Murdoch, allow this distorting hatred to tramp any vestige of rational thought, is a lot more than simply scary.

Sachs and his gloating, sneering self-congratulation is a depressingly familiar example of this relentless stupidity.

Enough. Au lit!

Sep 6, 2014 at 9:10 PM | Unregistered CommenterAgouts

Agouts

Something I have believed for years. We have to get the philosophers involved in all this.
they, not the lawyers or politicians will be the ones to nail this stupidity

Sep 6, 2014 at 9:17 PM | Unregistered CommenterEternalOptimist

Richard D. Thanks for the reference back to Steve M. I think subconsciously I was also thinking of this :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2nYqyfDMnQ

The more I think about it the more 'Slime' seems to apply. Unpleasant slippery and un-evolved.

Sep 6, 2014 at 9:19 PM | Unregistered CommenterThwack!

Harry Passfield, EternalOptimist

I used the same World for the trees graph shown in the Daily Mail, but starting with January 1996 instead of 1995 and running to the last sample ie the present as they did. I got a definite warming trend where the Daily Mail showed none. Putting rubbish like the Daily Mail and Wall Street Journal articles out is disinformation.

If those doing so believe what they are saying it reflects badly on their competence. If they know it is bullshit and present it as fact, they are deliberately lying. Regardless of whether there is a pause or not, this blackens the escutcheon of climate scepticism. Do you really want to associate yourself with such people?

Sep 6, 2014 at 9:53 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

When a case is going badly, American trial lawyers are trained to distract the jury with any means the Judge will tolerate in the Courtroom.
Sachs is just practicing this regarding climate catastrophism because it is more and more clear that the "A" in AGW is "Anthropomorphic", not "Anthropogenic".
Think of how much the climate obsessed parasites and promoters have riding on this crisis: Their careers, huge social capital, lots of money for themselves and their entorage courtisans, etc.
And here is that darn reality, just ignoring all of their posing and bluster. It ain't fair! Anyone pointing it out is obviously wicked.

Sep 6, 2014 at 9:57 PM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

Entropic man (Sep 6, 2014 at 8:08 PM), do you really understand how stupid you make yourself look by these sorts of statements?

I once thought you came here to make a serious attempt at sensible debate, now I'm not sure you're any different than ZDB... well, at least she doesn't pretend to be rational.

Sep 6, 2014 at 10:11 PM | Unregistered CommenterDave Salt

Dave Salt
Raff or Bit Bucket with a PGCE.

Sep 6, 2014 at 11:19 PM | Unregistered CommenterSandyS

David Salt

I know bad science when I see it. I know propaganda when I see it. The two articles I mentioned show both. I see the same low quality output from the greens and from the sceptics.

It takes considerable intellectual honesty to be able to spot propaganda and poor science especially when it comes from ones own side! That is not a quality widely seen in ClimateBall.

Sep 6, 2014 at 11:26 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

'Slime' is good, couple it to its origins for 'ecoslime'???

Sep 6, 2014 at 11:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterGeoff Sherrington

Re jamspid and lithium mining -
As a miner, I am sensitive to ecoslimes of my proud industry and its global achievements.
Lamentably, it is criticised almost axiomatically by many, a conditioned response like that to nuclear energy or farting at the dinner table.
Stripped down, one of the aims of modern mining is to find high grades so that the least volume of Earth is affected. It is often economically rewarding to do this as well. Mining is a highly evolved public service with no persona that can be attacked legitimately.
Try doing without it.
Mine is not an over-reaction to your blog. We should all strive to avoid unwarranted, gratuitous insult to those we love, which is part of the theme of this thread.

Sep 6, 2014 at 11:43 PM | Unregistered CommenterGeoff Sherrington

Incidentally, in the Daily Mail did you notice the increase in ocean temperature starting at the same time as Mc Kittrick's pause. It was kind of the Daily Mail to show evidence that the slowdown in surface temperature rise is due to energy being redirected into bulk ocean warming. I wonder if this was what the editor intended?

Sep 7, 2014 at 12:00 AM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Now sit down and pay attention!

Prof Cox stamps his feet and insists you must stop name calling!

It would appear somebody has ruffled his plumage! h/t Lord Beaverbrook- unthreaded

You will have to read the rest yourselves, witness a "scientist" delivering an appeal to authority performance.

Enjoy!

Sadly you are not allowed to comment. Maybe Equity card holders? Ho hum....

Sep 7, 2014 at 12:33 AM | Registered CommenterGreen Sand

Geoff S

Yes, like it. Maybe contract it a bit and make it E-Slime :-)

Sep 7, 2014 at 12:36 AM | Unregistered CommenterThwack!

Geoff Sherrington, well said. I feel the same about the drilling industry, my own corner of resource extraction (and storage).
Without it, none of us would be here online.

Despite the relentless slime and misrepresentation, I'm proud of the high technical and ethical standards we aim for and frequently achieve. Our industry does more for humanity than all those who attack us.

Sep 7, 2014 at 12:41 AM | Unregistered Commenterkellydown

EM
does your finger glow, No? Well never mind, please call home, it's past your bedtime.

Sep 7, 2014 at 1:53 AM | Unregistered CommenterMike Singleton

Desperation sums up all this mud slinging from Sachs and co. They have run out of ways to fiddle the figures , twist the wording of reports, they are losing a lot of political clout in some countries and the energy policies of many countries (eg UK ) are starting to be shown up for what they are --woeful.

Sep 7, 2014 at 2:18 AM | Unregistered CommenterRoss

Entropic Man proclaims: “I know bad science when I see it. I know propaganda when I see it.”

Checkmate:

http://s6.postimg.org/jb6qe15rl/Marcott_2013_Eye_Candy.jpg

Sep 7, 2014 at 2:36 AM | Unregistered CommenterNikFromNYC

Entropic Mann uses the plot updated by paranoid data destroyer Phil “Hide The Proxy Decline” Jones after he joined a Saudi university that was included as his affiliation of the paper introducing his version 4 update that boosted the recent decade of temperature up, to join Jim “Coal Death Trains” Hansen and Richard “Fake Former Skeptic” Muller along with Cowtan & Robert “Anthony Watts In Handcuffs” Way in erasing the temperature decline:

www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2004/last:2014/every/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2004/to:2014

With fanatical friends like these, EM’s solid science assertions invoke the laugh test.

Sep 7, 2014 at 2:57 AM | Unregistered CommenterNikFromNYC

Enron Mann postures: “I got a definite warming trend where the Daily Mail showed none. Putting rubbish like the Daily Mail and Wall Street Journal articles out is disinformation.”

A baseline isn't dishonest unless it labeled as a trend line. Yet a base line *can* be used dishonestly when used to visually conceal the fact that recent warming has near perfect precedence in the former low emissions era, as the NOAA does on its web site, deconstructed here:

http://s22.postimg.org/4fd7417wh/image.jpg

NASA’s web site similarly misleads by cutting tide gauge data off for the full satellite era and then plots the two next to each other, asserting visually that a boost in the rate of sea level rise has occurred which would be utterly falsified were the recent tide gauge data be included.

Likewise, misdirection by nitpicking helps distract attention from how the pause in fact now falsifies alarm since it all relies on highly speculative water vapor feedback to amplify the greenhouse effect into the alarm zone. His own preferred trend line also falsifies alarm. That modelers refuse to empirically accept now measured low climate sensitivity is scientific malpractice as they lyingly claim their positive feedbacks derive from basic physics when they address policy makers and the public.

Sep 7, 2014 at 3:14 AM | Unregistered CommenterNikFromNYC

Green Sand (Sep 7, 2014 at 12:33 AM), thanks for the link to Prof. Cox's blog post... interesting reading.

He acknowledges that climate science is 'politicized' and then provides a link to the SPM, rather than the core documents. This suggests that he's either unaware of how that document was written and by whom, or he's doing his bit for the CAGW cause. Either way, this piece tends to reinforce my opinion of him (i.e. he's no Richard Feynman).

Sep 7, 2014 at 4:32 AM | Unregistered CommenterDave Salt

I think the correct phrase sould be a "goring" rather than a "saching". The phrase "to gore" means "to attack with a horn or a tusk etc" And, this is precisely what AGW believers unfairly and inappropriately do when they attack sceptics. And, goring also fits the bill since Al Gore is/was one of the prime movers when it comes to attacking sceptics. The allusion to being "boring" is not unwelcome since the attacks have become boring by virtue of endless repetition.

Sep 7, 2014 at 6:23 AM | Unregistered CommenterTed Swart

Bish, I find this kind of crowd-sourcing of content-free, predictable comments not up to your usual high standards

What next - a post called "Michael Mann is a baddie" - although I note that you have already had quite a few of those via Josh's cartoons.

It's all too reminiscent of undergraduate student newspapers, and while many of us like to relive our youth, enough! (as they say in several European languages).

Sep 7, 2014 at 7:11 AM | Registered Commenterjohanna

Agree with Johanna, this has gone on long enough. To my mind the best was early on in the thread: Masters at Baiting - ie W.Anchors.

Sep 7, 2014 at 8:02 AM | Unregistered CommenterGummerMustGo

You can find out more about Sachs here, correct at the time of writing, in February 2011:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/un_progress_governance_via_climate_change.html

"Jeffrey D. Sachs is the Director of The Earth Institute, Quetelet Professor of Sustainable Development, and Professor of Health Policy and Management at Columbia University. He is also Special Advisor to United Nations Secretary-General, Ban Ki-Moon. From 2002 to 2006, he was Director of the UN Millennium Project and Special Advisor to United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan on the Millennium Development Goals."

This is what they say about themselves.

“The Earth Institute has been deeply and centrally involved for more than a decade with the global challenge of man-made climate change, and member institutions of the Earth Institute – including the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, for longer than that.”

Members of the external advisory board include George Soros and Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC chairman. Soros has funded Sachs via his Open Society Institute. Pachauri is also a member of the Earth Institute's Commission on Education for International Development Professionals and on the board of their International Research Institute for Climate and Society. Pachauri and Sachs are also co-chairs of the Indian Commission on Sustainable Development.

In 2009, Sachs addressed the annual conference of the Party of European Socialists: http://vimeo.com/8673040

He asked for PES leadership “for the sake of the world” on social principles, financial regulation and solidarity with the poor. In advance of Copenhagen, he claimed that millions were suffering because of drought caused by western induced climate change and a carbon levy was needed.

In 2010 he wrote a short piece on Global Governance for Nature:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7277/full/463026a.html

“Within a few years, a new world environment organization should be established to oversee and provide technical support for the major treaties. Two proposals have been made that could improve things: a small tax on cross-border financial transactions, and a global levy on carbon emissions. Both should be implemented alongside more traditional forms of aid to secure a more reliable source of development finance.”

Sep 7, 2014 at 9:21 AM | Registered Commenterdennisa

Pompous are we, johanna and GummerMustGo ? I last looked at this thread at 7:29 PM last night. I get back to discover ecoslime, which I think is great. I agree with the Bish in initiating this and with those that have entered in. I especially dislike those who feel they need to make such comments rather than remaining silent and focusing their efforts elsewhere, if that's the way they feel.

Sep 7, 2014 at 11:29 AM | Registered CommenterRichard Drake

After five years on Columbia campus as a chemistry graduate student and then nearly a decade living blocks away, I had never heard of the Earth Institute. Only discovering John Daly’s plot of a cooling South Pole made me into an instant skeptic who then required about three years to realize it was all a big scam rather than just soft science bias. About then is when I heard my alma mater associated with this obscure off campus institute, and learned too that the touristy Tom’s Diner housed NASA’s rogue climate office above it. My old lab mate became chemistry department chairman. The chemists on campus see climate alarm as simply below their level, something akin to sociology or economics, and they are running scared from all the ridiculous safety regulations thrust upon them since the 1990s, lamenting how hard it is now to keep large libraries of chemicals and how it costs more to dispose of them than to buy them. The greens put sensors on the sewer drain pipes, to stop us from cleaning out glassware with acetone in the sink. We has to start saving it in big cans, mixing random chemical residues in with flammable solvents, dangerously. They treated out little benchtop operations like a huge industrial factory, rather oppressively, making no friends in the process.

Sep 7, 2014 at 1:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterNikFromNYC

Instead of playing silly word games with a name of foreign, probably Jewish, origin, wouldn’t it be more useful to comment on the Sachs article which Brent Buckner links to?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/the-wall-street-journal-p_b_5776558.html
In it, Sachs draws the following conclusion from the first sentence of the abstract of the Chen & Tung paper to which Ridley’s article refers: “In short, we humans are filling the atmosphere with carbon dioxide from fossil-fuel use.”
0.04% is “filling the atmosphere”?
There are two more sentences quoted from the Chen & Tung paper which Sachs thinks provide proof that the world is heating up. Both of them have “should” as their principle verbs. It’s on this basis that Sachs accuses Ridley of lying.

Talk about sachsing up a dodgy dossier.

Sorry.

Sep 7, 2014 at 2:20 PM | Registered Commentergeoffchambers

Haha, very good Geoff.

Sep 7, 2014 at 2:32 PM | Registered CommenterRichard Drake

For those who are interested, I have replied to Sachs's article here: http://rationaloptimist.com/blog/whatever-happened-to-global-warming.aspx

Not only does it not contradict me at all, let along "destroy" me (as Bob Ward is claiming hyperbolically), it confirms what I wrote. I have my doubts whether Sachs wrote all of it. The technique -- to say that somebody has got something wrong, then quote a section from a paper that proves nothing of the kind -- is much more like Bob Ward's technique.

If Sachs wishes to put my mind at rest and say he drafted the whole thing, I will be delighted to say so.

Sep 7, 2014 at 4:00 PM | Unregistered CommenterMatt Ridley

Smiff-- Sachs most assuredly is liberal/left once you understand that liberal/left consists solely of a line of propaganda to dupe naive people into allowing rich and otherwise powerful people to accrue even more money and power through political means.

Sep 7, 2014 at 6:07 PM | Unregistered Commenterrwnj

A pause which disappears when you move the start date forward a year is hardly a robust phenomenon.
Sep 6, 2014 at 8:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

So you have your own theory to explain the 'pause'. Too funny.

Perhaps you should publish your theory on the pause for the benefit of the climate 'professionals' currently trying to explain it away.

Sep 7, 2014 at 6:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterJake Haye

Enron Mann falsely claims that start point cherry picking of a mere year alters the trend significantly, but checking HadCRUT4 with his two start dates of 1995 versus 1996 both show nearly exactly the same slightly positive trendlines:

woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1995/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1995/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1996/trend

The same applies to the WoodForTrees temperature index he used instead of HadCRUT.

“I used the same World for the trees graph shown in the Daily Mail, but starting with January 1996 instead of 1995 and running to the last sample ie the present as they did. I got a definite warming trend where the Daily Mail showed none.” - E.M.

He neglected to include both trends in his plot.

Sep 7, 2014 at 7:20 PM | Unregistered CommenterNikFromNYC

rwnj

Can't disagree with that !

Sep 7, 2014 at 7:32 PM | Unregistered CommenterE. Smiff

Geniuses like Sachs - a tenured professor of economics at Harvard at age 28 - do not need to back up their positions with facts.

Anyone interested in knowing more might read "The Idealist: Jeffrey Sachs and the Quest to End Poverty" or listen to the author on CSPAN (http://www.c-span.org/video/?315084-1/book-discussion-idealist). She spent six years researching his Millennial Villages Project.

Sep 7, 2014 at 7:45 PM | Unregistered CommenterFrank

Matt Ridley in his post-script:

There then appeared at the Huffington Post (a media outlet owned by a person with strong views, by the way) an article under Sachs's name. Its style was quite unlike that of Sachs, and strongly resembled the style and debating technique of a spin doctor employed by Lord Stern at the London School of Economics, who writes to newspapers furiously denouncing the author of any article on climate change that he does not like. Indeed that same spin doctor, Bob Ward, alerted me to the Huff Post article in a tweet. The piece purported to -- in the spin doctor's words -- expose

"The Wall Street Journal Parade of Climate Lies - @JeffDSachs destroys daft @mattwridley article in@WSJ".

However, it does nothing of the sort. It's all bluster and careful misdirection, and contradicts nothing in my article, let alone producing evidence against of lies. Paragraph by paragraph, I will expose its daftness, which truly shocked me given that I had respect for Jeffrey Sachs as a scholar before reading this.

Amazing. They really are scraping the barrel.

Sep 7, 2014 at 8:38 PM | Registered CommenterRichard Drake

I don’t think people have quite seized the significance of Matt Ridley’s intervention above. Jeffrey Sachs accused him of being a liar and the henchman of a criminal. Ridley is suggesting that these words were written, not by Sachs, but by Bob Ward, that Sachs is merely pretending to have written them, and has asked for confirmation. Confirmation will reveal Sachs to be a fraud. A denial leaves Sachs open to a libel action. Silence will likely be taken as confirmation of Ridley’s thesis.

Does anyone know if Americans use expressions like “don’t give a hoot” and “lingo”?

Sep 7, 2014 at 8:46 PM | Registered Commentergeoffchambers

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>