Oh they're real and they are spectacular

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/fake_fake_fake_fake.html#ixzz1iKz...

That funny line came from a Seinfield episode. Dr Singer discusses the result of the BEST research by Dr Muller. The results did show that there was a warming in the land based temperatures from the 1950s till 2000. However the ocean based temperatures and atmosphere showed no warming. Zero, none, nada, zilch.

"What the BEST result shows is that surface thermometers from the land area of the globe (about 29% of the earth's surface) show a warming trend. But this is not global warming. And BEST director Professor Rich Muller explicitly disclaims that his trend results indicate a human cause.

He also correctly points out that many of the weather stations used are badly distributed, mostly in the U.S. and western Europe, and possibly subject to local heating effects, such as urban heat islands. He cautions that a third of his monitoring stations show a cooling, not a warming. And that 70% of the U.S. stations are poorly situated and don't satisfy the requirements of the U.S. Weather Service. It is likely that stations elsewhere have similar problems."

Dr Muller also do not claim that the warming prior to 2000 was human induced and that no warming has occurred since 1998. Ooops, CO2 levels have gone up but warming has not. The theory doesn't work does it?

Folks, the emporer has no clothes. CO2 does not cause global warming. We've been had.

Comments

You sir

are full of crap. And even if you weren't burning oil, natural gas, and coal is a dead end street. Fake Consultant made that point to you in spades, and your inability to consider the fact that you might be wrong has grown tiresome.

But if you insist on gettin' all researchy regarding climate change, you might want to spend just a bit of time following the money.

Singer may believe what he says, but he is clearly also a professional shill for the big energy corporations. SEPP, the George C Marshall Institute, and various other climate denial organisations have since been exposed and dissected in numerous articles and a few major television documentaries.

::

He is therefore able to continue in his chosen profession as a loudspeaker for the lunatic right of the Republican party, and because of people like Singer, American think-tanks have increasingly gained a reputation as inhabiting a world not entirely divorced from Lewis Carrol.

::

Singer's latest book "Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming's Unfinished Debate" was published in late 1997 ... but only by the Independent Institute [A right-wing publishes-on-payment think tank]. Clearly he now has no credibility with conventional publishers when he has to resort to this sort of vanity publishing venture.

Singer, whose career has been a spiral down the rabbit hole since he began taking money from the dark side, reminds me of Bob Orr ... an enlightened former supreme court justice who, when he went to work for Art Pope, found himself shilling for the right in their attacks on democracy and equality.

A mind is a terrible thing to waste, Frank. Come to the light. Work for something good. Don't go to your deathbed having spent your life defending something so patently stupid as burning the very earth we live on to charge your iPhone.

____________________________________

“Don't tell me what you value, show me your budget, and I'll tell you what you value.”
― Joe Biden

No sir, I am full of facts.

Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities. Truth isn't.
Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)

The fact that you shoot the messenger when the truth doesn't suit your story line is understandable. It doesn't matter that the left doesn't like Dr Singer, this article could be written by anyone, it only presents the facts.

Are you anti science or something?

Actually Frank you seem to be full of other people's opinions

and not doing much thinking for yourself. I remember reading a disheartening article about the NIH (and Congress) authorizing a study on the effect of eating whale blubber on the sex lives of Eskimos. Beyond the appearance of being a waste of taxpayer's monies, I wondered what academic would willingly spend time on such a project. The answer seemed to be, if you're gonna eat shit, make sure it's wrapped in a lot of bread. Some people will do anything for money...and just because their title is impressive, it doesn't mean their ideas are or ought to be.

Our planet is ultimately a fragile place. You don't have to go far in North Carolina to see the effect of acid rain. The Texas-sized patch of floating plastic refuse in the Pacific likely isn't helping keep our marine life healthy and reproducing at the rates needed to help feed a growing world population. Our weather pattern and the increasing frequency of violent storms and drought ought to lead us to do some serious thinking and demands that we try to reduce the known man-made poisons and pollutants in our atmosphere.

Seems just sensible. The folks fighting this the most are the one's who have the most money at stake...and they are not interested in your health or much more than their own pocketbooks. Titan Cement here in Wilmington is a prime example.

Stan Bozarth

I defer to science not fraud.

Stan, I do support a clean environment, I do not support fraud by any name. You are right about people doing anything for money and we have certainly seen that from all those "climate researchers" getting on that government gravy train to keep on feeding the beast of a flawed theory that CO2 is causing global warming.

You make a big point of acid rain, let me remind you that CO2 emissions has nothing to do with acid rain. Scrubbers have cleaned up the smoke stacks now and acid rain is no longer a problem. The floating plastic has nothing to do with CO2 emissions.

Science?

It is basic science that greenhouse gases including CO2 moderate the earth's temperatures by keeping it warm. It's not a theory. It's a fact.

It's a theory

that CO2 emissions from mankind is causing global warming. It's also basic science that the majority of greenhouse gases are water vapor or clouds.

This is a theory which has not been proven by observations. The only thing they have are their models.

From Dr Spencer, "For instance, clouds, water vapor, and precipitation systems can all be expected to respond to the warming tendency in some way, which could either amplify or reduce the manmade warming. These other changes are called “feedbacks,” and the sum of all the feedbacks in the climate system determines what is called ‘climate sensitivity’. Negative feedbacks (low climate sensitivity) would mean that manmade global warming might not even be measurable, lost in the noise of natural climate variability. But if feedbacks are sufficiently positive (high climate sensitivity), then manmade global warming could be catastrophic."

More Scientific Theories

Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity is the basis of nuclear fission...

Newton's Law of Gravitation is actually a scientific theory.

Natural selection is a scientific theory that is part of what many lay people lump into the theory of evolution.

Big Bang Theory is the most popular theory of the origin of the universe...also a sitcom on CBS.

______________________________________________________________________

The measure of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little. - FDR

CO2

The average water molecule lasts just over a week in the atmosphere. CO2 survives for decades. CO2 is part of a system that retains the sun's heat. We would have a hard time surviving without it, but also with too much of it.

Increased CO2 helps increase the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, and without necessarily immediately increasing atmospheric temperature (latent heat). Atmospheric CO2 has increased in the last century. Some of that increase has come from human activity.

For your statement to be true it must also be held that a theory that CO2 emissions from mankind is not causing global warming is also a theory which has not been proven by observations.

Your making a comment on sensitivity of CO2...

for which you are not qualified to make. For a theory like this to be true without even considering the impact of water vapor and the clouds is just plain silly.

Anyone in the country knows that when the clouds come out temperature goes down.

Actually...

Anyone in the country knows that at night, when the clouds are out, temperatures remain higher.

______________________________________________________________________

The measure of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little. - FDR

Hot air

You don't know anything about my qualifications.

For the record my comment referred to water vapor, not clouds.

I'd have thought that someone who hung round power plants for 20 plus years would understand time of use, thermodynamics, and the difference between water vapor and clouds.

Later when we talk about clouds we can discuss how particulate pollution is changing cloud formation resulting in global dimming, interference with hydrological cycles, and regional cooling that may be compensating for global warming.

CO2 is Irrelevant in Climate Debate says MIT Scientist

I hope this article helps your understanding.

http://www.examiner.com/civil-rights-in-portland/carbon-dioxide-irreleva...

"What this data does tell us is if CO2 concentration should double, global temperatures will not rise by the devastating 6 degrees F the UN predicts, but by a completely harmless 1 degree F. The ERBE data shows an Earth system that is radiating more heat into space as sea surfaces warm, in other words a system at equilibrium, and is clearly demonstrated by observed data. The UN theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming is dead wrong."

This reference is a farce

Neither you nor the writer appear to understand what you are talking about, you don't seem to read what you refer to, and haven't even looked at the original report. The writer chopped up and rearranged an anthology/newsletter that made brief reference to an MIT scientist but that MIT scientist, Richard Lindzen, in the referenced article, did not make the statements attributed to him by the writer. The statements were actually opinions written by the editor of the newsletter, one Christopher Walter Monckton aka 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, a writer with a bizarre pedigree associated with Science and Public Policy Institute, which publishes the newsletter, run by Robert Ferguson whose $300K salary is paid by the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change which has been claiming for years that CO2 has little or no effect.

The reference I provided..

provides quotations from the Lindzen study. How difficult is that? You can choose to ignore Dr Lindzen's remarks if you want, don't give some lame excuse about Monckton to divert attention from the non issue of CO2 and global warming.

Sorry Frank

Lindzen did not make those remarks. I followed the paper trail through to Lindzen's original study. Those are Monckton's remarks and are not found in the study. You have officially proven that you don't know what you are talking about.

You head is buried in the sand

Monckton prepare a presentation using Lindzen's paper. Chuckle, Monckton does get under the warmist skin, doesn't he?

Monckton

Letter to Viscount Monckton of Brenchley from the Clerk of the Parliaments

Dear Lord Monckton

My predecessor, Sir Michael Pownall, wrote to you on 21 July 2010, and again on 30 July 2010, asking that you cease claiming to be a Member of the House of Lords, either directly or by implication. It has been drawn to my attention that you continue to make such claims.

In particular, I have listened to your recent interview with Mr Adam Spencer on Australian radio. In response to the direct question, whether or not you were a Member of the House of Lords, you said "Yes, but without the right to sit or vote". You later repeated, "I am a Member of the House".

I must repeat my predecessor's statement that you are not and have never been a Member of the House of Lords. Your assertion that you are a Member, but without the right to sit or vote, is a contradiction in terms. No-one denies that you are, by virtue of your letters Patent, a Peer. That is an entirely separate issue to membership of the House. This is borne out by the recent judgment in Baron Mereworth v Ministry of Justice (Crown Office) where Mr Justice Lewison stated:

"In my judgment, the reference [in the House of Lords Act 1999] to 'a member of the House of Lords' is simply a reference to the right to sit and vote in that House ... In a nutshell, membership of the House of Lords means the right to sit and vote in that House. It does not mean entitlement to the dignity of a peerage."

I must therefore again ask that you desist from claiming to be a Member of the House of Lords, either directly or by implication, and also that you desist from claiming to be a Member "without the right to sit or vote".

I am publishing this letter on the parliamentary website so that anybody who wishes to check whether you are a Member of the House of Lords can view this official confirmation that you are not.

David Beamish
Clerk of the Parliaments

15 July 2011

He sure does get under the skin

That often happens when one is confronted with a person who is an unapologetic liar.

____________________________________

“Don't tell me what you value, show me your budget, and I'll tell you what you value.”
― Joe Biden

You need to take a good look in the mirror on this ...

I do not support fraud by any name

You certainly do support fraud. you presented a chart to me as part of your "proof" against AGW in which charts with different units were deliberately overlayed to present an inaccurate picture of GW. You have presented cherry picked data (1998) to "prove" your points. Your doublethink is worthy of Orwell if you really believe that you do not "support fraud by any name.".

The article you link to is just one man's spin on the BEST results, no data links, no hard facts to back up his opinions.

The real data is here at an NOAA site. And commentary about the BEST data can be found here and here.

You can keep throwing up these clay pigeons all you want; I'll keep shooting them down.

You gave me nothing in your note....

that contradicted what I reported. Is that your idea of shooting clay pigeons? You need some practise.

Fact is there has been no increase in global temperature land temperatures since 1998.
Fact is the ocean is not warming.
Fact is the atmosphere is not warming.

1998?


Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature FAQ

Some people draw a line segment covering the period 1998 to 2010 and argue that we confirm no temperature change in that period. However, if you did that same exercise back in 1995, and drew a horizontal line through the data for 1980 to 1995, you might have falsely concluded that global warming had stopped back then. This exercise simply shows that the decadal fluctuations are too large to allow us to make decisive conclusions about long term trends based on close examination of periods as short as 13 to 15 years.

My statement stands.

In your comment, some people who argue no temperature change during the period 1998 to present, are you referring to the authors themselves?

Because they confirm my statements, contrary to your leftwing talking point website.

Such claims left Prof Curry horrified.

‘Of course this isn’t the end of scepticism,’ she said. ‘To say that is the biggest mistake he [Prof Muller] has made. When I saw he was saying that I just thought, “Oh my God”.’
In fact, she added, in the wake of the unexpected global warming standstill, many climate scientists who had previously rejected sceptics’ arguments were now taking them much more seriously.
They were finally addressing questions such as the influence of clouds, natural temperature cycles and solar radiation – as they should have done, she said, a long time ago.
Yesterday Prof Muller insisted that neither his claims that there has not been a standstill, nor the graph, were misleading because the project had made its raw data available on its website, enabling others to draw their own graphs.
However, he admitted it was true that the BEST data suggested that world temperatures have not risen for about 13 years. But in his view, this might not be ‘statistically significant’, although, he added, it was equally possible that it was – a statement which left other scientists mystified.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-c...

http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/30/discussion-with-rich-muller/#more-5540

Do you just not read?

Richard Muller, is the Founder and Scientific Director of the Berkeley Earth Team, authors of the BEST study, partially funded by the Koch Foundation. Muller is a global warming skeptic. Curry is one co-author.

The graph, and the link to the FAQ (which I provided), and the quote (which is in a quote block) come from the Berkeley Earth Team website, not a "leftwing talking point website".

You misrepresented Muller's statements in the original post by suggesting that warming has not increased since 1998. Muller's own website rebutted that mischaracterization. The full statement is in the link under the heading "Has Global Warming Stopped?" There is also a joint statement by Judith Curry and Richard Muller. Also, in a more recent post, Curry said the the Daily Mail had mischaracterized some of her statements.

Show me.

From the following paper of Muller, http://berkeleyearth.org/pdf/berkeley-earth-summary-20-october-2011.pdf

at the end he states, "What Berkeley Earth has not doen is to make an independent assessment of how much of the observed warming is due to human actions." In other words, yes the earth has warmed 1 degree since 1950. Period. That is not to assume that it is related to CO2 emissions.

Can you give me a link to his own website where he rebuts that characterization of no warming since 1998?

I guess you don't read

Has Global Warming Stopped?

Some people draw a line segment covering the period 1998 to 2010 and argue that we confirm no temperature change in that period. However, if you did that same exercise back in 1995, and drew a horizontal line through the data for 1980 to 1995, you might have falsely concluded that global warming had stopped back then. This exercise simply shows that the decadal fluctuations are too large to allow us to make decisive conclusions about long term trends based on close examination of periods as short as 13 to 15 years.

I asked for the link, pretty please.

to where you got this quotation. thankyou.

I gave you the link, twice

Your inability to find it, and click on it, sure does explain a lot.

You left out this part of the web site.

Sorry I did not realize the heading was the link.

Did you read this part? With CO2 levels going up why is the temperature not going up or flattening?

Do Judith Curry and Richard Muller disagree?

Below is a joint statement by Judith Curry and Richard Muller:

In recent days, statements we've made to the media and on blogs have been characterized as contradictory. They are not.

We have both said that the global temperature record of the last 13 years shows evidence suggesting that the warming has slowed. Our new analysis of the land-based data neither confirms nor denies this contention. If you look at our new land temperature estimates, you can see a flattening of the rise, or a continuation of the rise, depending on the statistical approach you take.

Continued global warming "skepticism" is a proper and a necessary part of the scientific process. The Wall St. Journal Op-Ed by one of us (Muller) seemed to take the opposite view with its title and subtitle: "The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism -- There were good reasons for doubt, until now." But those words were not written by Muller. The title and the subtitle of the submitted Op-Ed were "Cooling the Warming Debate - Are you a global warming skeptic? If not, perhaps you should be. Let me explain why." The title and subtitle were changed by the editors without consulting or seeking permission from the author. Readers are encouraged to ignore the title and read the content of the Op-Ed.

We do not agree with each other on every feature of climate change. We have had vigorous discussions, for example, on the proper way to analyze hurricane records. Such disagreements are an essential part of the scientific process.

Cherry-picking data to

Cherry-picking data to support a preconceived point of view? If these disagreements are part of the scientific process, then I'm Elizabeth Taylor.

Truth is, we're all trying to make sense of an extraordinarily complex system that is difficult to understand. Common sense suggests that the waste generated by seven billion people must have some deleterious impact on the environment in which they live.

The truly conservative position would be to work to mitigate those impacts, to reduce waste, to reduce pollutants, to restrain population growth, to use refinements in public policy to reward responsible behaviors. This is where true conservatives and free-market extremists find themselves on opposite sides of most issues. Sadly, there are frighteningly few true conservatives left in our sad country.

____________________________________

“Don't tell me what you value, show me your budget, and I'll tell you what you value.”
― Joe Biden

Ocean warming

Robot Floats Record Sharp Increase in Upper Ocean Warming -- Study (NY Times)

The upper ocean warmed considerably over the past decade and a half, according to a new study that attempts to make sense of conflicting analyses of the amount of heat stored in the world's seas.
---
Several research teams have attempted to determine how quickly the ocean is warming. But while they agree the seas have warmed over the last 15 years, the year-to-year estimates of the groups don't agree.
---
Since about 2003, the rate of upper ocean warming appears to have slowed to a crawl, and scientists aren't sure why.

Measurements of the solar radiation at the top of the atmosphere suggest the upper ocean should be warming faster than it has in recent years. Trenberth suspects the ocean may be warming at depths Argo floats and other instruments aren't reaching.

What ocean warming?

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=1041

A crawl doesn't sound like the ocean is warming does it? Scientists aren't sure why? Do you reckon its because the ocean is not warming?

Trenberth suspects the ocean may be warming at depths Argo floats and other instruments are not reaching. Yeah? Based on what?

You got nothing.

http://climaterealists.com/?id=8174 Trying to explain the pause.

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/08/25/met-office-admits-that-the... MET office admits the pause.

http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/09/lack-of-ocean-heat-affirms-massive-fa... NOAA data confirms no warming.

Analysis by Dr. Spencer, reknowed climatologist. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/06/more-evidence-that-global-warming-is...

You obviously do no not understand the units involved

There's no data in most of your links. They are repetitious opinion pieces without supporting data. Worthless.

The C3 link does show a chart, but it's a chart of the heat anomaly, not the straight out heat content of the ocean. The anomaly was still very positive and so confirms the FACT that the ocean's heat content is increasing. A flat trend of anomaly only shows that the heat buildup is not accelerating. You continue to show sources that play fast and loose (mostly loose) with their presentation of the data. Your continued use of these sources only shows that either you really do not understand what they show or you are being extremely dishonest.

See, I actually follow your garbage links and respond accordingly. The real data is at NOAA, NOAA, NOAA, NOAA - it's all you need, right there.

That's a negative.

I fully understand the units. Your sources repeated the Climategate emails whining, " where's the heat?". It's a travesty that there is no heat. You alarmists blame everything on CO2. If it doesn't snow, it's global warming. When it does snow, again it's because of global warming. There is no credibility left with your "science". As Obama and Gore keep repeating, "the science is settled". Do you actually believe that?

If you understand the units then you are just

selling snake oil. I guess you still haven't checked out the NOAA charts nor have you realized that YOUR link shows the anamoly to be very positive which confirms the heating!! You are either totally dishonest or not as smart as you think you are. Either way I am done with you.

Have fun in 3%-land.

I guess you missed the links I embedded

in my post. About every chart you'd need is at the NOAA site. NOAA, you know, the folks that make weather and climate SCIENCE their business.

Fact: the 1998 based trend line is utterly bogus.
Fact: You have yet to present ANY real data confirming your assertions concerning ocean and atmospheric warming.

Bang, Bang

Frank....

There isn't a blackboard big enough to cover all the stuff you want laid out for you so you can make a decision.

Other than calling you out now and then for being a weeny, I;m gonna pass on your stuff.

Stan Bozarth

If you don't understand a subject, why comment?

OK Stan, I understand you completely.

Good question

Maybe you should take it to heart.

____________________________________

“Don't tell me what you value, show me your budget, and I'll tell you what you value.”
― Joe Biden

Good answer

I do take it to heart and therefor don't comment on subjects that I don't know much about such as homosexuality issues.

Some people just don't want to hear opposing views.

I'm no expert...

More than 15 years ago at an engineering association meeting, I heard a pollution apologist say that "the solution to pollution is dilution" in talking about then-Champion International's application for a water discharge permit for it's Haywood County mill. To a person, the engineers in the room -- many of them staunch conservatives politically -- came away shocked.

Now if you believe the atmosphere to be an infinite heat sink, then all that heat dissipates with no ill effect. That's essentially what this so-called "scientist" said about the Pigeon River downstream of the Canton mill, applying the infinite capacity of the "environment" to absorb whatever we dumped.

I don't know all the intricacies of the atmosphere, exactly how the greenhouse effect works chemically and thermodynamically and physically. But common sense (and the laws of thermodynmics) say that the heat that is keeping my house warm on this 20-degree day in Haywood County doesn't stay in my house forever, because my furnace keeps kicking on much too frequently. So the heat goes somewhere, and the products of combustion go somewhere, just as the treated process water from the paper mill goes somewhere.

But, as many others have said, common sense ain't so common....

______________________________________________________________________

The measure of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little. - FDR

do you reckon it may go into outer space?

the heat that is.

It may go into outer space...

....but thanks to the greenhouse effect, some of this heat (in the form of infrared radiation) is absorbed by greenhouse gases (including carbon dioxide), and is reradiated back to the surface.

The concentration of carbon dioxided in the atmosphere is about 390 ppm, up from about 270 ppm prior to the industrial revolution of the 19th century. According to the theories I have read, the increased concentration of these greenhouse gases results in more of the sun's infrared radiation being trapped in the atmosphere, as there are more molecules available to absorb the IR and radiate it again.

So now in addition to the greenhouse gases absorbing IR that is essentially radiated from earth (in black-body radiation), we have heat (IR) from human activity like the furnace in my house. With more heat, there is more IR available to be absorbed and re-radiated; and with more greenhouse gas molecules, there is more capacity to absorb IR and re-radiate that IR.

Which goes back to the clouds at night. Clouds are essentially water vapor. At night, when the earth is radiating IR back into space (simple black-body radiation stuff), this increased water vapor absorbs some of that radiation and re-radiates it in all directions -- including back down to the earth's surface. That's why -- all things being equal -- cloudy nights are generally warmer than are clear nights.

Most of this is pretty basic stuff, and generally undisputed. Of course, there are those who dispute that Neil Armstrong walked on the moon in 1969.

Your mileage may vary.

______________________________________________________________________

The measure of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little. - FDR

Here is a good summary of the theory.

Below is a good summary of the global warming theory from a scientist who is researching the field. He is studying cloud feedbacks.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/

The basic assumption

It seems this Spencer guy is assuming that the radiated IR from earth is constant, which may be true as a purely black body theoretical construct.

But consider on a micro scale two separate 1,000 square meter parcels, each at the same latitude. One is "virgin land," wooded, grass, whatever natural state. The other is paved with black ashpalt. Which would produce more infrared radiation?

Then consider how many square meters of paved black ashphalt exist, along with tar or dark shingle roofs, etc. etc. etc.

______________________________________________________________________

The measure of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little. - FDR

Urban heat island

Yes no doubt, what you are referring to is what they call the urban heat island. Cities have increased heat retained due to the hard surfaces which absorb heat.

But don't get confuzzled

Urban heat islands are not the result of human interference on the environment. They are simply the natural by-product of humans, well, just being human.

Where does all that human stuff go? I heard it evaporated into outer space too.

Heh.

Just kidding Frank. When it comes to this discussion thread, it's either laugh or cry, and I've done too much of the latter today already. I'm starting to feel like I'm channeling John Boehner and Newt put together.

____________________________________

“Don't tell me what you value, show me your budget, and I'll tell you what you value.”
― Joe Biden

Frank is the only person in

Frank is the only person in North Carolina who is smart enough to understand Everything That Matters (even if he is not smart enough to spell correctly) and the rest of us are dumb hippies who have been tricked by Socialism into believing Science and Economics "theories."

Thus, I am going to save us from ourselves and close this thread off so we can all survive to fight another day.

Think of this as a Happy New Year present!

____________________________________

“Don't tell me what you value, show me your budget, and I'll tell you what you value.”
― Joe Biden

I spoke too soon

Two people wrote to me by email saying this discussion should continue, and neither of them was Frank.

Let the slugfest continue! My current scoring has Frank down for the count, but likely to resurrect himself when the clouds cover the moon tonight.

____________________________________

“Don't tell me what you value, show me your budget, and I'll tell you what you value.”
― Joe Biden

You said that James, not I.

I never said that I know everything, I did say that I have my own opinions which I'm presenting. I don't consider you dumb hippies, misguided perhaps but certainly not dumb.