^^^ not trying to troll, but #s 6 and 8 in my mind take away some of the group's credibility. those points are not about climate science, and the note would've been more convincing had they left those off the list. not saying that we shouldn't take more time to understand global warming and its impact, but arguing that there needs to be proof that we (and wildlife) can't adapt to changes is not compelling.

the focus should be simply "do human-generated GHGs have a meaningful impact on the climate, yes or no?", not "can future generations deal with it?".

[Edited on December 9, 2009 at 12:48 PM. Reason : .]

12/9/2009 12:47:37 PM

So much for the "global cooling" we've supposedly had for the past decade.

Quote :

"The decade of 2000 to 2009 appears to be the warmest one in the modern record, the World Meteorological Organization reported in a new analysis on Tuesday."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/science/earth/09climate.html?_r=1&hp

Despite some posters frequent insistence, the fact the hottest year on record was 1998 does not mean we saw an end to the warming trend. This 2000s were warmer than the 1990s and the 1990s were warmer than the 1980s and so on.

[Edited on December 9, 2009 at 12:52 PM. Reason : ``]

12/9/2009 12:49:49 PM

Quote :

"The data also indicates that 2009 was also the fifth warmest year on record, he said, although he noted that the figures for the year were incomplete."

Yeah uh, we don't have all the data, and we haven't analyzed all the data that we DO have, but trust me, 2009 is the 5th warmest year on record. We'll prove that with our future numbers, just wait. For now the important thing is to remember that 2009 is the 5th warmest year on record. I'm sure the next 3 weeks will support that claim.

I'd also like to note that February, 2010 was the warmest February on record.

12/9/2009 12:53:08 PM

Here's Why People Don't Buy Global Warming
Mona Charen: Skepticism About Global Warming Predated The CRU Flap
December 8, 2009

Quote :

"(National Review Online) Though professional hysterics may seek to 'hide the decline,' there has been a noticeable drop in the number of Americans who believe that global warming is a man-made phenomenon. Pause on that for a moment. Though Americans have been harangued about global warming for more than a decade, only 35 percent told a recent Pew survey that global warming is a serious problem, compared with 44 percent the previous year. This skepticism predated the exposure of the East Anglia e-mails - those playful missives that reveal some of the most prominent climate researchers to be, if not outright charlatans, at least partisans. Why don't people buy global warming? Doubtless the poor economy has pushed less immediate worries to the background. But even before the e-mails revealed that supposed neutral truth seekers were prepared to 'redefine peer review,' and engage in statistical sleight of hand 'to hide' inconvenient truths, there were ample reasons for skepticism. * It's chilly. There is the pesky fact that, contrary to the dire predictions of climate alarmists, there has been no measurable increase in world temperatures since 1998. Yet the amount of carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere has continued to rise. The computer models immortalized by Al Gore did not anticipate this; in fact, they predicted that temperatures would continue to rise steeply more or less forever, except that human beings would all die in 50 years or so with unknown (though presumably salutary) effects on the by-then Venus-like surface of planet Earth. * Bullying. Every time a scientist or policymaker slammed his hand on a desk and growled, 'The science is settled!' he demonstrated how remote he was from the scientific method. In true science, nothing is ever settled. * It's Freudian. The Viennese analyst taught that if you say you hate your mother, you hate your mother. And if you say you love your mother, you are in denial about hating your mother. Climate-change believers are like Freudians. If the weather is warm, it's proof of global warming. But if the weather is cool, this is evidence of the sinister tricks global warming can play. * Look at the graphs comparing sunspot activity since 1860 with global sea surface temperatures. They look like matching S curves (unlike the graphs comparing temperatures with CO2 output). Harvard astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon notes that 2008 may have been a cold year because sunspot activity was low. The sun has been quiet in 2009 too. 'If this deep solar minimum continues,' Dr. Soon explains, 'and our planet cools while CO2 levels continue to rise, thinking needs to change. This will be a very telling time and it's very, very useful in terms of science and society, in my opinion.' * Nuclear energy. Global-warming priests, while sermonizing about the need to spend trillions on new energy sources, almost never have a kind word for nuclear power - casting doubt on their motives. If the goal were really to reduce our carbon output (and not to recast our way of life), clean, efficient, affordable nuclear power would be the obvious choice. * Fool me once. The same people whose hair is on fire now about climate change have dressed up in fright masks before. Thirty years ago they were (no joke) enormously agitated about the coming new ice age. From these same precincts (the Club of Rome, 1972) we were warned that the world was rapidly running out of oil, gas, aluminum, lead, zinc, copper, tin, and uranium. (We didn't.) At the same time, all of the smart people were absolutely convinced that overpopulation was the greatest threat to the globe and to humanity itself. Paul Ehrlich, author of The Population Bomb, offered in 1980 that 'if I were a gambler, I would bet even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.' That same year, the Carter administration issued a global forecast predicting that 'the world in 2000 will be more crowded, more polluted, less stable ecologically . . . and the world's people will be poorer in many ways than they are today.' Um, no. The scaremongers' track record is poor. For people who seem to worship Mother Earth, they are oddly arrogant about their ability to understand complex systems like climate. Every day brings new discoveries about the incredibly complicated interplay of oceans, atmospheric gases, algae, wind, plants, animal excretions, solar radiation, and so forth. The East Anglia e-mails reveal a priesthood becoming more and more hysterical as their certainty evaporates. Like all orthodoxies under duress, they are making war on heresy."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/08/opinion/main5939027.shtml

Hear, hear!

12/9/2009 1:08:35 PM

Quote :

"* Nuclear energy. Global-warming priests, while sermonizing about the need to spend trillions on new energy sources, almost never have a kind word for nuclear power - casting doubt on their motives. If the goal were really to reduce our carbon output (and not to recast our way of life), clean, efficient, affordable nuclear power would be the obvious choice."

This cannot be emphasized enough.

12/9/2009 1:15:59 PM

Quote :

"The Viennese analyst taught that if you say you hate your mother, you hate your mother. And if you say you love your mother, you are in denial about hating your mother. Climate-change believers are like Freudians. If the weather is warm, it's proof of global warming. But if the weather is cool, this is evidence of the sinister tricks global warming can play."

global warming --> climate change

12/9/2009 1:48:31 PM

Quote :

"* It's chilly. There is the pesky fact that, contrary to the dire predictions of climate alarmists, there has been no measurable increase in world temperatures since 1998."

Didn't I just post a link from NYT that shows this is wrong? I think I did.

1998 was the hottest year on record, yes. But that does not mean the warming trend has ended. El Nino contributed to 1998 being so hot. Once El Nino ended that doesn't mean the over all warming trend ended. Indeed, the 2000s have been warmer than the 1990s on average.

It also cracks me up anyone cares what "most people" think about global warming.

hooksaw, most people also voted for Obama in 2008. Does that make you support him any more or any less?

12/9/2009 2:58:31 PM

Its ok guys... Conservatives were wrong about WMD... We survived, you will survive being wrong about gw

12/9/2009 3:03:17 PM

^^well if "most people" don't think it's a big problem then the government that represents us should do their job (that we pay them to do) handling other matters in this country.

Here's a link to a good blog post showing how some numbers in Autralia have been "cooked": http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/

[Edited on December 9, 2009 at 3:33 PM. Reason : its too long to post in here]

12/9/2009 3:12:46 PM

I never saw anything in the constitution that says Gallup had a vote.

The people have their voice in who they elect. And so far it looks like most of our representatives have the good sense to be working on this issue. In fact, I would be surprised if we don't have some cap-and-trade system installed by next year.

12/9/2009 3:33:15 PM

^lol, true.

2010 is an election year. Cap and trade will not pass unless Senators and Representatives want to lose their seats.

12/9/2009 3:41:27 PM

Quote :

"Here are a few general statements that can be supported with using my Cherry-Pickers Guide: • For the past 8 years (96 months), no global warming is indicated by any of the five datasets. • For the past 5 years (60 months), there is a statistically significant global cooling in all datasets. • For the past 15 years, global warming has been occurring at a rate that is below the average climate model expected warming And here are a few more specific examples that the seasoned cherry-picker could tease out: • There has been no (statistically significant) warming for the past 13 years. [Using the satellite records of the lower atmosphere]. • The globe as been cooling rapidly for the past 8 years. [Using the CRU and satellite records] Or on the other side of the coin: • Global warming did not ‘stop’ 10 years ago, in fact, it was pretty close to model projections. [Using the GISS and NCDC records beginning in 1998 and 1999] • Global warming is proceeding faster than expected. [Using the GISS record staring in 1991 or 1992—the cool years just after the volcanic eruption of Mt. Pinatubo] I am sure the more creative of you can probably think of many others."

12/9/2009 3:52:50 PM

Quote :

"Didn't I just post a link from NYT that shows this is wrong? I think I did. "

No, not really. Considering that, IIRC, the NYT is implicated in some of the East Anglia emails, their credibility is suspect. Now, I'm not gonna just attack the messenger, so I'll also note that we haven't seen the data or the study that supports such a claim, so we can't really say otherwise. However, I'd be willing to bet that the data is all based on ground stations, which we already know are 100% suspect at this point

12/9/2009 7:03:07 PM

Hey, here's a good one. Check out the massive difference between the raw station data and the adjusted data for one station in Northern Australia. I like those adjustments. You stay classy, GHCN... The best part is that there is a clear problem with the raw data in 1941. But, all of the temps past that in the raw data agree with four other nearby stations (nearby, as in within a couple of miles)



full article here
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/

hmmm, odd GHCN adjustments to alaska temperatures, too. how strange...
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Alaska_Climate.pdf

Quote :

"Here is the GHCN annual temperatures for the same region. The GHCN data is dominated by an upward trend. My analysis gives an upward linear trend of 0.69 C/century (due to starting during a cold PDO and ending during a warm PDO), while the GHCN trend is 2.83 C/century - over 2 degrees larger!"

hey, what's wrong with this temperature reconstruction based on tree-rings. oh, right, it contains that pesky medieval warm period.

Quote :

"In a June 2003 e-mail to Jones and company, Mann discussed the notion of expanding CRU charts to two millennia in an effort to try to "contain" the putative "MWP." No deception in that, I suppose. Of course, an honest 2000-year reconstruction, such as this one from CO2Science.org, adapted from a 2005 Moberg, et al  temperature history derived from tree-rings and lake and ocean sediments, would actually emphasize rather than “contain” the MWP: Any questions why Mann and friends work so diligently to “contain” (hide) the MWP? As you can see, the post-LIA warming that began around 1850 is neither unprecedented nor spectacular. And it's certainly not worth rewiring the economic circuitry of the planet over."

12/9/2009 8:53:25 PM

shhh!! you hush your mouth! them there is inconvenient truths!

12/9/2009 8:57:15 PM

^^well done. I came across that posting on Anthony Watts' site today, but didn't have to time to post that info over here.

But no matter, you can't sway these people b/c it's about wealth distribution and changing the American way of life b/c it's "wrong".

[Edited on December 9, 2009 at 10:42 PM. Reason : y]

12/9/2009 10:41:57 PM

I have yet to hear what exactly this "change in way of life" is. As in what is it now and what would it go to. To me, it's just a boogyman from the right. ^ You've admitted that you adhere to fairly decent sustainable practices so it surprises me that you of all people would parrot such silliness.

12/9/2009 10:47:32 PM

Well I like to travel. I enjoy doing motorsports events with my car. I like not spending a lot of money to heat and cool my house. I enjoy eating red meat. I don't like CFLs and don't want to worry about mercury every time I break one. I don't consider myself wasteful (and I'm glad you noticed) but I do things that consume/give off a lot of CO2. And I have no problem with that, as I view it as a harmless trace gas. But I care about the environment. I don't litter. It infuriates me when people throw trash out of their car, even a cigarette butt. I'm against toxic dumping in bodies of water, toxic gases being venting, and deforestation

But I don't want the gov't using "climate change" as an excuse to greatly increase their control and influence over the average citizen. Bush's administration had a plan in motion to decrease our CO2 output by 16% by 2050 without massive gov't regulation, taxing, and artificially raising the cost of energy. Obama seems to support all these, and only pledges 18% reduction. I also have a serious problem with a regulatory body (the EPA) tailoring an existing law to suit their fancy. That's taking violating the Constitution to a whole new level.

12/9/2009 10:57:47 PM

I think nitrogen run-off into our waterways is a FAR worse problem than tiny amounts of harmless CO2 in the atmosphere.

12/9/2009 10:59:45 PM

and, not only that, but the EPA isn't even following the actual letter of the law. There is no precedent for them being able to ignore the 250ton limit, and they are just going to do it anyway. I don't see it holding up under any court proceedings. So, like it or not, this WILL affect the "American way of life." I'd imagine the average city bus emits more than 250 tons of CO2 a year.

12/9/2009 11:01:51 PM

^Here's the problem with that. It will definitely be challenged in court but you'll have all those fucking crazy greenies calling for them to adhere to the 250 tons/year statute. That means millions of buildings within the US will have to be regulated. And forget about new construction. Besides the paperwork all some green organization will have to do is protest the CO2 potential and its game over.

12/9/2009 11:04:36 PM

Quote :

"In a nutshell, to keep my answer short my big problem with all this proposed government regulation over CO2 is quite simple. It gives the government (and in this case possibly an international governing body, NO THANKS) control over almost everything you do. Creating a articificially high cost for anything that results in the emissions of CO2 (READ 99% of everything) greatly extends the influence of government over you all in the name of the environment. Biggest scam I've ever heard of. Additionally, it would cost far less money to adapt to changes instead of trying to "control" the climate (what a joke). Even the proposed plans to reduce CO2 enough to reduce the temp less than 1 degree Celsius will cost the world trillions upon trillions of dollars. It's pure madness."

What's funny, I agree completely with this. My position has been that CO-2 regulation will likely be a policy mess and will also likely be completely ineffective. It also occurs on geological timescales which we, as humans, have demonstrated we can adapt to. Furthermore, I think global warming distracts from more important environmental issues more dear to my heart, such as wilderness conservation.

The major difference I have with conservatives is that I doubt the science is incorrect. The amount of shit people link to is unbelievable, it's honestly just like the arguments I use to have with creationists.

[Edited on December 10, 2009 at 12:28 AM. Reason : x]

12/10/2009 12:25:49 AM

^ Yeah, all "conservatives" are just alike and think exactly the same--way to paint with a broad brush. But you happen to be above it all, right?

12/10/2009 12:56:04 AM

^^ not really, although I can see how a desire to fit in with "polite society" would make you want to believe that.

Honestly, I don't understand how trained skeptics (read scientists and engineers) can just swallow this crap without even the slightest skepticism. There are alarm bells everywhere you look in global warming science.

[Edited on December 10, 2009 at 6:46 AM. Reason : s]

12/10/2009 6:46:12 AM

^^^
So, you don't think that this is incorrect[/i]? Really?

12/10/2009 7:02:35 AM

^ that graph is turning into a most unexpected inconvenient truth

12/10/2009 7:05:43 AM

aaronburro,

MY blogger says YOUR blogger is lying about the Darwin data.

Quote :

"Eschenbach, however, simply declares the NOAA's adjustments "blatantly bogus" that created a "false warming". This isn't a strong argument, but maybe there is a way to check the NOAA's work? Oh look, here's the Australian Bureau of Meteorology's high quality climate data for Darwin aiport Their notes state: "A change in the type of thermometer shelter used at many Australian observation sites in the early 20th century resulted in a sudden drop in recorded temperatures which is entirely spurious. It is for this reason that these early data are currently not used for monitoring climate change. Other common changes at Australian sites over time include location moves, construction of buildings or growth of vegetation around the observation site and, more recently, the introduction of Automatic Weather Stations. The impacts of these changes on the data are often comparable in size to real climate variations, so they need to be removed before long-term trends are investigated." "

But honestly, I am not sure how you could put more weight in a blogger than the WMO. It to seems to me that if you think the WMO is capable of lying, then so is everyone. But I don't think these arguments are ever about the truth of the situation. They're more about the politics involved.

12/10/2009 9:39:45 AM

^you're posting homogenized data to prove...what?

12/10/2009 10:56:13 AM

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

12/10/2009 12:55:53 PM

^ what that seems to be saying is that the temperature data is right, but the conclusion that it's anything to worry about is what's wrong.

So what is the "deniers" position then?

That the data is flawed and wrong, therefore the interpretation is wrong?
or
That the data is right, but the interpretation is wrong?

It can't be both ways. It's almost like "they" are trying to throw some bullshit against a wall, and see what sticks.

[Edited on December 10, 2009 at 1:45 PM. Reason : ]

12/10/2009 1:43:26 PM

I am going to graph the temperatures from this morning at 6am to this afternoon at 3pm and not take anything else into account

You know, hockey stick style

12/10/2009 3:00:46 PM

Quote :

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

--Kevin Trenberth, ScD, MIT
National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO
Lead author of the 2001 and 2007 IPCC Scientific Assessment of Climate Change

12/10/2009 3:07:44 PM

^^ OMFG THE EARTH'S TEMPERATURE INCREASED 15 DEGREES IN 5 HOURS!!! WE ARE ON TRACK FOR MELTDOWN IN 1 WEEK!!!!! CLEARLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE FARTS I LET OUT THIS MORNING

MUST PASS A FART EMISSIONS TRADING SCHEME UNDER THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL FLATULENT MONITORING COMMISSION!

12/10/2009 3:10:29 PM

"Hide the Decline"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk

12/10/2009 3:15:18 PM

Quote :

""The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't.""

Here is that comment in context, and with arguments against it from other scientists:

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1053

Quote :

"So in that sense, we can "explain" it."

Quote :

"Both methods show that what we are seeing is not unusual."

[Edited on December 10, 2009 at 3:59 PM. Reason : .]

12/10/2009 3:55:52 PM

^ Evidence that there is, in fact, debate--even among fervent believers in global warming.

QED.

12/10/2009 4:00:46 PM

Debate among scientists happens all the time and is a good thing.

Despite what you wanted everyone to think, the exchange involving that quote does not cast doubt on the existence of global warming.

12/10/2009 4:22:25 PM

Quote :

"MY blogger says YOUR blogger is lying about the Darwin data. "

Bullshit. if you had bothered to read the post, you would see that it was noted there was a downward shift around 1940. Sounds like the "early 20th century," right? But, that was a ONE TIME thing. So why, then, do they have the pyramid stepping up several times AFTER 1940? Especially when all of the surrounding stations are in agreement after 1940?

Quote :

"Oh look, here's the Australian Bureau of Meteorology's high quality climate data for Darwin airport"

If you had even bothered to read the blog post, you would have seen that the ABM's data is based on the GHCN data. As in, one leads in to the other. As in, they are the same thing. As in, that post had no fucking point.

Quote :

"Here is that comment in context, and with arguments against it from other scientists: "

I actually read a full article about the context. And it's FAR worse. You do realize the "decline" they are talking about is the fact that the tree-ring models fall precipitously after 1969, right? You know, the time when temperatures supposedly started soaring across the world? So you know what they do, then? They just stop using the models and tack on the actual measured data. In short, their models FAIL to reproduce what is happening, so they "hide" that by posting in other data. in what fucking world do you have to live in to assume that "hey, it works fine before time X, trust us" and call that "good science?" It's the scientific equivalent of "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"

12/10/2009 7:16:22 PM

"so, in that sense" translated to normal people talk becomes, "here's a good way to explain away our errors"

12/10/2009 7:26:32 PM

no, it translates to "here's a good way to perpetrate a fraud"

12/10/2009 7:30:16 PM

There's a massive, international conspiracy of scientists propagating a myth of global warming.

Is that what you're thinking when you say "here's a good way to perpetrate a fraud"?

[Edited on December 10, 2009 at 7:51 PM. Reason : ]

12/10/2009 7:51:33 PM

i wouldn't call it a conspiracy so much as groupthink and survivalism

would you say that there is a conspiracy amongst middle schoolers to all watch twilight? no... but yet they all do.

12/10/2009 8:12:12 PM

^5 I'm assuming you're talking about the "trick to hide the decline" quote, which is completely unrelated to the quote hooksaw tried to use.

Anyway, I thought that had been debunked a while ago.

Quote :

"tree-ring models "

You don't even know what you're talking about. It wasn't tree ring "models." It was tree ring proxy data as part of a model. And by every account I've seen, the data became unreliable after 1969, which is why they stopped including it.

Face it: It is the words "trick" and "hide" that set you and every other denier into paranoid hysterics. If it had been worded differently, it would have been completely ignored.

[Edited on December 10, 2009 at 8:13 PM. Reason : .]

12/10/2009 8:12:25 PM

LOL.... it "became unreliable"

nice. I wonder why?

12/10/2009 8:18:42 PM

^^^ fraud:

Quote :

"deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage."

A group of individuals committing fraud is conspiracy--which is why I asked aaronburro if that's really what he meant.

It has absolutely nothing to do with why Twilight is popular amongst teenyboppers and everything to do with deliberately inflammatory rhetoric.

[Edited on December 10, 2009 at 8:19 PM. Reason : ]

12/10/2009 8:19:17 PM

Quote :

"There's a massive, international conspiracy of scientists propagating a myth of global warming. Is that what you're thinking when you say "here's a good way to perpetrate a fraud"?"

Why would you think that, when what I am talking about is one person.

Quote :

"Anyway, I thought that had been debunked a while ago."

you are correct, that fraudulent study has been exposed.

Quote :

"You don't even know what you're talking about. It wasn't tree ring "models." It was tree ring proxy data as part of a model."

you are seriously going to argue that? REALLY? Tree-ring model. As in, a model based on tree-rings. And, yes, it WAS only based on tree-rings. They are talking about Briffa's study, which was exclusively done using tree-rings. Seriously, do some research.

Quote :

"And by every account I've seen, the data became unreliable after 1969, which is why they stopped including it. "

And, how was it unreliable then, but NOT unreliable before that? Really, that's the argument you want to make?

12/10/2009 9:11:06 PM

Quote :

" what that seems to be saying is that the temperature data is right, but the conclusion that it's anything to worry about is what's wrong. So what is the "deniers" position then? That the data is flawed and wrong, therefore the interpretation is wrong? or That the data is right, but the interpretation is wrong? It can't be both ways. It's almost like "they" are trying to throw some bullshit against a wall, and see what sticks."

No, it can be both ways. Because it's 2 different groups of people.

You've got the flat-out deniers and conspiracy theorists like aaronburro and TKE-Teg, and then you've got the more restrained skeptics like me, LoneSnark and Solinari, who understand the science fine but simply don't buy into the doomsday scenarios and end-of-the-world rhetoric that comes from the alarmists camp, nor do we see the need or practicality of drastic regulations and monstrous bureaucracies to address something that may or may not turn out to be a serious problem. Hell, it sounds like Wintermute falls into that category as well, and he probably knows more about climate change than anyone else in this thread.

[Edited on December 10, 2009 at 9:19 PM. Reason : 2]

12/10/2009 9:18:55 PM

^^ well, yes, that is the most convenient argument for him to make...

these inconvenient truths are so inconvenient.

[Edited on December 10, 2009 at 9:20 PM. Reason : s]

12/10/2009 9:19:32 PM

Quote :

"Why would you think that, when what I am talking about is one person."

Half this thread is you talking about misleading and misrepresented data. Please forgive me for not realizing you only ascribe global warming fraud to a single individual.

12/10/2009 9:46:46 PM

^^ tell me. We already have seen that Mann's models were fraudulent. We've seen that Briffa's model conveniently relies on only 12 trees. We are learning that the CRU was hopelessly corrupt. All of James Hansen's "mistakes" conveniently end up helping his hypothesis. The US data stations are hopelessly polluted by poor placement, with no honest attempts to correct for it. Accepted science from the past 50 years is ignored, such as UHI, and attempts are made to rewrite accepted phenomena such as the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. At what point does all of this exit the realm of "honest mistake" into outright fraud? At what point does it stop being an exaggeration of facts and become bogus science to you?

^ considering that THE ONE POST YOU REFERENCED was clearly in reference to ONE SPECIFIC PERSON, it's obvious you are reaching and just trying to paint me in to a corner

12/10/2009 9:47:42 PM