« Anti-abortion people promote idea of white conspiracy to kill off blacks | Main | Yes, smarter people are less religious. Really »

February 28, 2010

Comments

From Al Gore's backyard: 11th coldest February ever in Knox County Tennessee, and even colder in the Smokey Mountains:
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2010/feb/27/february-2010-is-11th-coldest-ever-recorded-in/


Its hard to get good climate data of the earth cooling because so many of the measuring stations have been deliberately placed near artifical heat sources, and only readings from the low-altitude and the most southerly stations within a region are being used by the bodies supposedly keeping record. They have "rigged" the recording process in other words, so even though it seems colder to many these past couple of years, they can point to their "measurments" and say its holding.


BTW---On Gore: Gore revealed his stupidity a while back when he claimed the center of the earth was "millions of degrees" when discussing the possibilities of geothermal energy (which I have a optimistic opinion of myself). The real temps down there are south of a mere 6,000 degrees according to researchers. Gore was off by at least 900,000+ degrees. Vox Day mentioned this snafu on his blog. Could you imagine if a right winger had made such a mistake? We'd hear about it like we heard about Dan Quayle's "potato(e)".

Knoxville's coldest Februaries.1. 1895 - 30.5 degrees

2. 1958 - 31.9 degrees

3. 1899 - 32.2 degrees

4. 1905 - 32.3 degrees

5. 1947 - 33.2 degrees

6. 1968 - 33.3 degrees

7. 1902 - 33.8 degrees

8. 1885 - 34.0 degrees

9. 1978 - 34.6 degrees

10. 1875 - 34.8 degrees

11. 2010 - 34.9 degrees (as of Feb. 26)

Source: The National Weather Service
Weather.

Up on Clingmans Dome, it got even colder, said Bob Miller, Great Smoky Mountains National Park management assistant.
The average high this month there was 20 degrees, well below the normal February average of 35 degrees, he said. The normal average low for February is 18 degrees, according to Miller. This month the average low was 9.


Global warming is one powerful theory, all right, since it can explain any kind of weather, not matter what. The guys that came up with it must be some real smart motherfuckers.

Of course I agree with your post. I would add that Al Gore et al would have a lot more credibility if they had consistently and uniformly predicted snowy winters before the fact.

Of course, warmists are great at predicting stuff after it's already happened. Much like TV Psychics.

HS: Please don't post anymore on global warming. You are obviously ignorant of the accepted findings, and you don't agree with the overwhelming scientific consensus on this matter.

On other topics, you're interesting to read. On this you're just plain ignorant, and it's embarrassing.

[HS: There's even more of an overwhelming scientific consensus that the black white IQ gap is caused by poverty and racism. Joe Bastardi can write blog posts skeptical of global warming and still keep his job at Accuweather. If a journalist/scientist wrote against the IQ consensus, he'd be fired.

I am not ignorant of the accepted findings. I know very well about the global warming zeitgeist. This blog is about seeking the truth, and not caving in to politically correct modes of thinking.]

"Please don't post anymore on global warming. You are obviously ignorant of the accepted findings, and you don't agree with the overwhelming scientific consensus on this matter."

You should just stuck your fingers in both ears and say in your best Pee-wee Herman voice, "LALALALA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU! LALALALA!" That way, at least, you would come across as less pompous.

Global warming...is there *anything* it can't do?

H. Sigma,
Go easy on guys like Mark. He (like all other liberal fucktards) is getting rabbit punched by reality and donkey punched by Gore, Pelosi and the rest of the scammers who run the AGW con game.

"From the standpoint of governance, what is at stake is our ability to use the rule of law as an instrument of human redemption."

This sentence sounds vaguely religious in nature.

This is how its done. Any data is interpreted to support the hypothesis.

That's not disinterested science, it's political posturing. Too bad some theories become entrenched with the intellectual class and it's hard to get rid of them. I read in Newsweek only 34% of Americans accept AGW (though to be fair Americans don't have the best track record as only 33% accept evolution).

Global warming is better analyzed as a psychological phenomenon. Gore sounds more like a Bible preacher...

Good point. Most such urges to political action are a variation on the theme "you must repent and change, or you will go to Hell."

"You are obviously ignorant of the accepted findings"

This reminds me of an anti-feminist poster who had some pithy words about the word "ignorant":

"Mistake #8: “I cannot believe how ignorant you are!”

I think that feminists don’t know what the word “ignorant” means. It means that the person doesn’t know something. For example, I am ignorant of the Mandarin word for 'insect', because I have never studied Mandarin.

The only way this charge would make sense would be if you thought that the person you were talking to had never heard the glad tidings that women are equal to men. Unless you can come up with convincing evidence that someone on this planet hasn’t heard this nonsense, calling an MRA 'ignorant' makes no sense whatever. We have all heard the feminist gospel. We aren’t ignorant of it. We simply don’t believe it. Indeed, given that feminists apparently believe that it was a heroic feminist campaign that won women the right to keep blogs and clearly don’t know that IQ tests are slanted against men, you are clearly the ignorant ones.

Of course, as a male blogger pointed out and I discussed, what women actually mean when they say this is that it’s stupid to believe unfashionable things because unconventional opinions make it harder to be socially accepted."

__________

It seems to me the same logic applies in discussions of global warming. I'm not ignorant of the scary claims, arguments, and evidence on the warmist side. On the contrary, I have studied this stuff very carefully. I simply don't believe it.

Indeed, whenever I debate against folks like "Mark," it usually becomes clear pretty fast that they have very little understanding of the warmist position. In other words, they are the ignorant ones.

And as the above blogger points out, what folks like "Mark" really mean when they accuse skeptics of ignorance is that it's stupid to go against the intellectual fashion inherent in mainstream liberal thinking.

HS,

I wonder, after all the talk that weather is not climate, that the warmist will blame the storms in France on global warming.

My guess is that it has already started.

That Junkscience article is not good. How can someone believe that aerosols and nuclear fallout delayed the effect's of the sun's radiation, but much, much larger amounts of an infrared absorber CO2 doesn't? He says important details of the climate are incalculable then proceeds to quote Lindzen and Pielke's calculations of those quantities. He points out that the CO2 doesn't correlate linearly with global temperature in a way to show that its an unrelated parameter, but then mentions, as if 0it didn't matter, the CO2 response is known to be logarithmic and depending on convection currents. He also includes some terrible back-of-the-envelope which ignore even the most basic physics of radiation transmission.

The problem with solar explanation of the earth's warming is that the stratosphere is cooling not warming and the solar luminosity has been stable or declining slightly the last 30 years when there has been the strongest trend of warming.

I couldn't find any wrong statement in Al Gore's op-ed.

They actually don't call it "global warming" much anymore. It's just "climate change", which happens 4 times a year in temperate latitudes.

Global warming sounds like such a good deal that I want to start a group of people dedicated to warming the earth. We will all drive SUV's, burn tires in our yards every Sunday, and hyperventilate. I wonder if we would be arrested as eco-terrorists?

Half Sigma, if you are not following the news of Larry Auster's coverage of the missing teenage girl in San Diego you are missing a lot.

All of us here know HBD to be true, but Larry seems incredibly surprised and disappointed that the teenage girl was attacked and perhaps murdered by an anglo / nordic type and not by an illegal alien.

I wish others in the HBD blog o sphere could understand that just because the average illegal commits many times more crimes than the average non illegal, that the vast majority of violent crimes against white females are still committed by white men

January 2010 warmest January in history.

CO2 doesnt affect temperatures much. Someone tell Venus.

"They actually don't call it "global warming" much anymore."

"They" being Republicans?

==
The US Republican party is changing tactics on the environment, avoiding "frightening" phrases such as global warming, after a confidential party memo warned that it is the domestic issue on which George Bush is most vulnerable.
==

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.climatechange

From the Associated Press:

Nashville had 11th coldest winter in its recorded history (going back to the 1880's):
http://www.newschannel5.com/global/story.asp?s=12044949
February Coldest In Nashville Since 1979
Posted: Feb 25, 2010 1:59 PM CST
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) - The National Weather Service said February shapes up as the coldest in Nashville since 1979.

With continued cold temperatures in the forecast, it looks like the month will end up 6.8 degrees below normal making it the 12th coldest February on record in the city.

FOR THE WINTER, the temperature has averaged 35.6 degrees making it the 11th COLDEST WINTER ON RECORD.

Bobby Boyd of the NWS said this has been the snowiest winter in the Nashville area since the winter of 2002-2003 when 15.1 inches fell. Snowfall this winter has totaled 7.1 inches thus far.

(Copyright 2010 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

-----------------------------------------------
Alaska had its coldest January on record:
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/wcstates.htm

Warmists are claiming that January 2010 was the second warmist on record, but that the ocean's SURFACE temperature, which isn't the land's or the air's temperature. Warm things rise folks. Don't be fooled by this sleight of hand. If the air stays cold (and it has been), eventually the water will cool also.

Gore flunked out as the creator of the web , got a "D-"as a politician. Gets an "A+" for keeping the ignorant informed with his vast scientific ability in the analysis of global warming.

"'They' being Republicans?"

That's a typical refuge of a liberal who's been cornered -- lash out at the Republicans. As if it makes any difference. Let's stipulate for the sake of argument that the Republicans suck, ok?

Al Gore cynically exploited Hurricane Katrina to sell his warming scare, warming alarmists have claimed that global warming is making hurricanes and cyclones worse. Gore then seized on the cyclone which devastated Burma in 2008 as proof of a warming world. Yet the evidence for this scare has always been dubious at best, and the World Meteorological Organisation have now nailed that exaggeration (or lie) in a paper published in Nature Geoscience. That paper states that “Hurricane counts ... do not have a significant trend from the 1850s or 1860s to present” and “Landfalling tropical storm and hurricane activity in the US shows no long-term increase”. Now that the snow has melted, Al Gore has appeared again with an op-ed piece in The New York Times titled “We Can’t Wish Away Climate Change”. In the piece he claims that “I, for one, genuinely wish that the climate crisis were an illusion”. Ha! As Al Gore has invested heavily in companies that are set to exploit that climate change scare and according to a report in the telegraph in November 2009 he could become the world’s first carbon billionaire, I find that one difficult to believe. Oh well, spring is upon us and before we know it summer will be here with its heatwaves, claims of record temperatures (don’t mention the Medieval Warm Period) and perhaps a natural disaster or two - and no doubt Al Gore will be ready to jet around the world warning us that civilization as we know it will end... unless we stop wasting resources and start paying some serious carbon tax. Paul L, http://www.climatejournal.org/

"January 2010 warmest January in history."

Global surface temperatures have been declining since 1998. Ocean temperatures have been declining since at least 2003.

"Someone tell Venus."

There have been many periods on Earth with higher CO2 levels and lower temperatures than now. So maybe you better send the Earth that memo which says CO2 drives the climate.

Thought out loud:


"If Global Warming is true, then why are they having to fabricate data to prove it?"

"Global surface temperatures have been declining since 1998. Ocean temperatures have been declining since at least 2003."

You know why there was a temperature peak in 1998. You also know that the OCH temperature shot up an unprecedented amount from 2000-2003.

http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

The global ten-year averages of ocean heat, surface temperature and ocean level are all rising. Those are the most important metrics for the scientific problem.

"There have been many periods on Earth with higher CO2 levels and lower temperatures than now. So maybe you better send the Earth that memo which says CO2 drives the climate."

What you ignore in this comment is that each time the CO2 content was high, the temperature went up significantly from the time CO2 started rising. There has been times on Earth where both the CO2 level and the temperature were hotter than they are now.

You can choose not to believe the paleoclimate data, but then your statement is pointless.

"Global surface temperatures have been declining since 1998. Ocean temperatures have been declining since at least 2003."

This statement is false. Surface temperatures have not been declining since 1998. Both 2005 and 2009 were hotter than 1998.

"You know why there was a temperature peak in 1998"

Not really. People say it was due to an El Nino condition, but what causes El Nino Conditions?

"Those are the most important metrics for the scientific problem"

They are certainly more important than simply looking at the hottest Januaries. But I'm skeptical that they are really that useful. Basically using these sorts of averaging techniques allow warmists to ignore the flat temperatures over the last 10 years by hooking in the warming which took place in the 1990s.

In the 1990s when global surface temperatures were rising at a decent clip, I never heard any warmists claim that the temperature increases were far less if you use an averaging technique.

In other words, it smacks of cherry picking. Which was my point when I responed to the claim about Januaries.

"What you ignore in this comment is that each time the CO2 content was high, the temperature went up significantly from the time CO2 started rising"

That's just not true. For example, during the late Ordovician period, there was a time when temperatures took a nosedive despite CO2 levels being far higher than now -- and increasing further still.

"You can choose not to believe the paleoclimate data, but then your statement is pointless."

You can choose not to believe the paleoclimate data, but then your statement is pointless.

"This statement is false. Surface temperatures have not been declining since 1998. Both 2005 and 2009 were hotter than 1998."

So you reject the UAH, RSS, and CRU temperature records?

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1998/to:2009

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/to:2009

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2009

"Not really. People say it was due to an El Nino condition, but what causes El Nino Conditions?"

Heat rising to the surface in ocean currents, mostly.

"In other words, it smacks of cherry picking. Which was my point when I responed to the claim about Januaries."

Using 10-year averages is not cherry-picking because it includes all the data. Its just averages out the short-term processes and the IPCC predictions are on a per decade basis, so its convenient.

"during the late Ordovician period, there was a time when temperatures took a nosedive despite CO2 levels being far higher than now -- and increasing further still."

The wikipedia article on the Ordovician period states that the CO2 level dropped before the temperature dropped. The CO2 level was still higher, but I've read that the Earth moves around in its orbit over 100 million year time scales (its thought that this is the reason for the Ice Ages), so one would have to adjust the radiation balance for that.

"Heat rising to the surface in ocean currents, mostly. "

In other words, El Nino is caused by El Nino. Is that it?

"Using 10-year averages is not cherry-picking because it includes all the data."

Lol, it includes all the data necessary to conceal the fact that temperatures have been essentially flat for the last 10 years. That's the essence of cherry picking.

Anyway, I just checked the 2001 IPCC report with its famous Hocky Stick Graph. As far as I can tell, there is no 10-year averaging there. Instead, they did a 40-year average through roughly 1950 on the proxy data and no averaging or smoothing of the instrumental data.

Thus the IPCC was able to maximize the impact of warming which took place in the 1990s.

Of course, now that temperatures have been basically flat for the last 10 years, we are suddenly told that a 10 year average is the proper metric. Give me a break!!!

"The wikipedia article on the Ordovician period states that the CO2 level dropped before the temperature dropped"

Are you denying that CO2 levels increased towards the end of the Ordovician period even as temperatures were dropping?

"but I've read that the Earth moves around in its orbit over 100 million year time scales (its thought that this is the reason for the Ice Ages), so one would have to adjust the radiation balance for that."

So you agree that there are probably other things besides CO2 which can and do have a big impact on the climate?

"In other words, El Nino is caused by El Nino. Is that it?"

Hmm, since the Pacific Ocean is a fluid with a heterogeneous heat distribution it naturally undergoes convection. When you boil water it does the same thing.

The Pacific Ocean is huge so the time scales can be quite long for these circulations. When heat from the bottom of the ocean heats the surface, the surface heats the air. Since the thermal mass of the ocean is so much larger than the atmosphere you get an El Nino.

"Lol, it includes all the data necessary to conceal the fact that temperatures have been essentially flat for the last 10 years. That's the essence of cherry picking."

No, its a method of finding a small trend under a large variability. Its like using a capacitor in an electronic circuit to filter out noise. If the temperature is decreasing it still registers in the 'signal'.

You can also fit linear trend-lines, or try a deterministic model if that suits you better.

Picking a peak in the data and say its decreasing is definitely cherry picking.

"Are you denying that CO2 levels increased towards the end of the Ordovician period even as temperatures were dropping?"

If you have a plot or paper I would be interested. I just know what I've read.

"So you agree that there are probably other things besides CO2 which can and do have a big impact on the climate?"

Obviously, but the warming in the last 30 years is best explained by CO2 emissions.

"Hmm, since the Pacific Ocean is a fluid with a heterogeneous heat distribution it naturally undergoes convection. When you boil water it does the same thing"

When I boil water I can predict that after I turn on the stove, the water's surface will steadily rise in temperature until the water reaches the boiling point.

When will the next El Nino take place? How long will it last? The fact is that you don't know.

All you are doing is describing the El Nino phenomenon. There is a difference between describing a phenomenon and understanding what causes it.

"No, its a method of finding a small trend under a large variability. Its like using a capacitor in an electronic circuit to filter out noise. If the temperature is decreasing it still registers in the 'signal'."

Then please explain to me why the 2001 IPCC report featured a chart which used 40-year averaging followed by no averaging at all?

Is it your position that the IPCC was using the wrong metric back in 2001?

"If you have a plot or paper I would be interested. I just know what I've read. "

It's not my responsibility to do your research for you. Your claim is that "each time the CO2 content was high, the temperature went up significantly from the time CO2 started rising"

Are you abandoning that position now?

"Obviously, but the warming in the last 30 years is best explained by CO2 emissions."

Whoa . . . we're talking about Venus here. The claim was that (1) Venus is hot; (2) Venus has a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere; (3) CO2 causes warming; therefore (4) the high temperatures on Venus must be the result of CO2.

In any event, you are wrong about the attribution question, which I discuss here:

http://brazil84.wordpress.com/2010/02/14/the-attribution-question/

"All you are doing is describing the El Nino phenomenon. There is a difference between describing a phenomenon and understanding what causes it."

The ocean stores heat from the sun unevenly resulting in a complex convection cycles. I don't think its that hard to understand.

Fluid dynamics are complicated, but what matters most, in terms of understanding long term climate trends, is the total heat content of the ocean, not the pattern of cold and hot spots.

"Then please explain to me why the 2001 IPCC report featured a chart which used 40-year averaging followed by no averaging at all?"

I can't find what you are talking about. There is this plot which has the annual global temperature along with a fancy filter which basically averages over 10 years in a gaussian manner at every point.
http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/

That's actually more accurate way, but its very similar to 10-year averages.

"Are you abandoning that position now?"

After doing my "homework" on the late Ordovician period, I keep reading about these guys and their isotopes :

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/volcanocarb.htm
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2009/11/03-02.html

I can't read the papers because I lost my library access, but it doesn't seem to contradict what I said before.

"Whoa . . . we're talking about Venus here. "

"lena" was talking about Venus. I was responding to "There have been many periods on Earth . . ." from you.

"In any event, you are wrong about the attribution question, which I discuss here:"

The current temperatures agree with the CAGW models. They agree with the Hansen's predictions in 1988.

The instrumentation of today improves the understanding of the current climate far beyond of our record of the "Little Ice Age" period, so if there are problems understanding that time frame, it doesn't imply we can't understand atmospheric physics today.

If there is warming in the ocean and the atmosphere that means that either the sun's radiation changed or the amount the earth absorb changed or both. There aren't other things that can do that. The sun's luminosity has been on average stable the last thirty years, but both the ocean and atmospheric temperature have gone up. The conclusion is that there is something trapping the energy in the earth's climate and the increasing CO2 concentration, which is an infrared absorber and has the exact set of optical properties to do that, is the obvious thing that has changed in the last 30 years. Therefore, that's the best theory for the earth's recent warming

"The ocean stores heat from the sun unevenly resulting in a complex convection cycles. I don't think its that hard to understand. "

Ok, when will the next big El Nino take place? And how long will it last?

"I can't find what you are talking about"

Lol, it's only the most talked about chart for the last 10 years.

Here:

http://www2.grist.org/gristmill/images/user/6932/hockey_stick.gif

Ok, now please answer my question:

By your standard, isn't it true that chart is using the wrong metrics?

"The current temperatures agree with the CAGW models."

Are you talking about models which were tuned to fit past temperatures? Or models, made in the past, which made actual bona fide predictions?

"They agree with the Hansen's predictions in 1988. "

That's completely false. See here for example:

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/06/30/hansenlineartrend.jpg

"Are you talking about models which were tuned to fit past temperatures? Or models, made in the past, which made actual bona fide predictions?"

PS, I was looking back at old threads and I see we touched this issue before. As noted in that thread, the "predictions" you are referring to are not very meaningful -- to put it politely.

For example, you pointed out that the IPCC prediction would have been wrong if over the 8 years from 2001 through 2009 the temperature had dropped by the same amount that it went up in the 21 years between 1980 and 2001.

That's just not very meaningful. It's analagous to me constructing a mathematical model predicting that the Chicago Cubs will NOT win the world series next year. Then, if the Yankees Win, I go around claiming that my mathematical model correctly predicted the outcome of the World Series.

Give me a break!!

"Ok, when will the next big El Nino take place? And how long will it last?"

I actually don't spend my time and money running vectorized hydrodynamic codes on supercomputers, so I don't know. But since its a short time and localized phenomena and the ocean obeys the law of energy conservation, its only of minor importance in long-term climate characteristics.

"By your standard, isn't it true that chart is using the wrong metrics?"

You've got proxy data that looks yearly averaged with large uncertainties with a 40-year average fit. Then you have what looks like yearly-averaged instrumental data with no fit. There is no unaveraged data since its all globally and temporally averaged. There is also a linear trend line which you don't mention.

I think proxies are a worse metric in general because of the large uncertainties independent on how you do the averaging. The are only used in that period because that's all they have. I don't see how the information of the plot changes if you use a 10-year or 40-year averages.

"That's completely false. See here for example:"

No its true. Hansen's Model B and C both are both with in bounds of his uncertainties which were set in 1988. That plot doesn't show them. However, it does have a linear trend line with the error bars (95% confidence interval?) with most of the 21th century data at the top end. Not sure what that's about.

"For example, you pointed out that the IPCC prediction would have been wrong if over the 8 years from 2001 through 2009 the temperature had dropped by the same amount that it went up in the 21 years between 1980 and 2001.

That's just not very meaningful."

But that's what you would expect if there weren't warming. Without a warming source it HAS to go back to the 1980 levels because there is no energy source to sustain them.

"It's analagous to me constructing a mathematical model predicting that the Chicago Cubs will NOT win the world series next year. Then, if the Yankees Win, I go around claiming that my mathematical model correctly predicted the outcome of the World Series."

No that's wrong The chances of picking that the Cubs won't win the World Series is extremely likely. Its much more probable, without a warming source, for the temperature to go down back to the 20th century mean than up. So it is a meaningful prediction, especially when it goes up the 1-2 C/decade you predicted in 1988 over the next two decades.

I have a busy weekend and I'm sure HS and his readers are bored of us arguing on his blog so this will be my last post, but feel free to respond all you want.

Whoops I meant 0.1-0.2 C /decade.

"I actually don't spend my time and money running vectorized hydrodynamic codes on supercomputers, so I don't know. "

Lol, and nobody else knows either.

"I don't see how the information of the plot changes if you use a 10-year or 40-year averages. "

Obviously if you used averaging the warming which took place in the 1990s would look much less pronounced.

And obviously the pre-1950 temperatures would look much less stable.

In other words, the IPCC used metrics which conveniently increased the apparent stability of temperatures before the late 20th century while at the same time conveniently making it appear that there was a rapid and unprecedented increase in temperature in the late 20th century.

But now that temperatures have been flat for the last 10 years, you want to switch metrics. Now you want to use a metric which conveniently obscures the fact that temperatures have been flat for the last 10 years.

That's cherry-picking, plain and simple.

"No its true. Hansen's Model B and C both are both with in bounds of his uncertainties which were set in 1988. "

Lol, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Hansen's Scenario C -- which is the closest fit to the actual temperature record -- assumed that global CO2 levels stopped increasing.

So at best, Hansen's prediction is meaningless and at worst it has been falsified.

"But that's what you would expect if there weren't warming. Without a warming source it HAS to go back to the 1980 levels because there is no energy source to sustain them. "

Again, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Who says that there is no "warming source"?

If some unknown force or forces caused warming in the late 20th century, there is no reason to expect that this force would reverse itself in the year 2000 and cause cooling at 3 times the rate of previous warming.

"Its much more probable, without a warming source"

Again, who says there is no "warming source"? (whatever that means).

And even if there were no "warming source," why would anyone expect cooling to take place at triple the rate of warming?

"I have a busy weekend and I'm sure HS and his readers are bored of us arguing on his blog so this will be my last post, but feel free to respond all you want. "

Lol, here's what I said on my blog the other day:

One thing I’ve noticed over the years is that when people are asked challenging questions which expose the weaknesses in their position, it’s very common for them to suddenly get “too busy” to respond.

The comments to this entry are closed.