Your doubts about climate change are created by the lying oil industry

Dennis commented here:

The oil industry copied the tactics [of] the tobacco industry. Engender mistrust in the science and scientists by lying.

What a devilishly clever piece of logic. It cannot fail, can it? The one fly in its little pot of ointment is that sceptical doubts about dangerous anthropogenic global warming (DAGW) don’t arise from suspicion of science or scientists, they arise from observation and reasoning.

For example, why is there no cogent description of a process by which radiative atmospheric effects substantially heat the ocean? This is not an emanation from my creative imagination, there really and actually is no description of it. If there is, please tell me where to find it. Without it, global warming cannot be dangerous.

Why do some scientists assert that human activities MUST have contributed to warming ONLY BECAUSE they have found no other cause of warming? It’s not a scientific approach to pick a cause, any cause, just because you haven’t found one.

Why do scientists tell us that global mean surface temperature has been rising abnormally, when there’s been no significant warming, according to the satellite studies, for about 20 years?

It’s tiresome being constantly lectured on the imaginary causes of our doubts.

I presume people like Dennis are happy that the atmosphere heats the ocean, so I’d be interested in how you imagine it happens. It’s not a minor point, because it’s the only way that sea level might be raised by our emissions, and sea level rise is the biggest threat posed by the global warming threat.

It’s very strange that science so far is silent on the mechanism.

It’s beyond strange that the IPCC is silent on this; in fact, it encroaches upon the fraudulent.

 

77
Leave a Reply

avatar
77 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
6 Comment authors
Alexander KMagooDennis N HorneRichard C (NZ)Andy Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Andy
Guest
Andy

Dennis’ comment was specifically aimed at Climategate

There are claims that the hacks/leaks were Russian in origin. No one knows.

There is no evidence that the oil industry were involved in Climategate.
Most of the evidence comes from the emails themselves. Since no one has ever claimed these are anything other than genuine, I fail to see where the lying comes in

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”It’s tiresome being constantly lectured on the imaginary causes of our doubts.” Apparently we all think vicariously, via Exxon. Strange, but I’ve never been aware of that process going on in my mind. Must be subliminal – naughty Exxon. Climate Change Dispatch follows all the #ExxonKnew shenanigans. They carry the latest from Washington Examiner: ‘Climate change-doubting group slams AGs for ‘un-American’ investigation’ By Kyle Feldscher • 8/23/16 A group targeted by Democratic attorneys general in a climate change investigation hit back at subpoenas they call “unlawful and un-American” in a new video posted Tuesday. The Competitive Enterprise Institute fought off a subpoena from U.S. Virgin Islands Attorney General Claude Walker earlier this year. Walker’s subpoena was sent to the group to try and get information about ExxonMobil’s donations to the climate change-doubting think tank from 1997 to 2007. Walker believed he was trying to investigate what ExxonMobil knew about how fossil fuels impact climate change and when, but CEI leaders say it was a battle over freedom of speech. “No American should fear being singled out and harassed by a government official who takes a different point of view on public policy questions,”… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”It’s very strange that science so far is silent on the [anthro ocean warming] mechanism.” To be fair, they do have speculation – they “expect” “air-sea fluxes” to be the mechanism. No scientific evidence such as observations so far, but, after 25 years and 5 assessment reports they do have speculation. >”It’s beyond strange that the IPCC is silent on this; in fact, it encroaches upon the fraudulent.” Scientific fraud not in that they have no direct evidence (let alone solid evidence) or a documented mechanism, but that they have gone ahead and made anthropogenic attribution WITHOUT evidence. We looked at this aspect previously, here it is again: SCIENTIFIC FRAUD. The term “scientific fraud” is used to describe intentional misrepresentation of the methods, procedures, or results of scientific research. Behavior characterized as scientific fraud includes fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing scientific research, or in reporting research results. Scientific fraud is unethical and often illegal. When discovered and proven, fraud can end the scientific careers of researchers who engage in it. Nonetheless, the substantial financial and reputational rewards that can accrue to scientists who produce novel and important re-search or… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Without an anthro ocean warming attribution the IPCC are sunk.”

But physically impossible by the IPCC’s own cited energy budget at the surface:

IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapter 2: Earth’s Energy Budget, Stephens et al (2012) Figure 1
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n10/images/ngeo1580-f1.jpg

The only net flux down at the surface is SW solar. Just more evidence of scientific fraud by the IPCC.

Who needs Exxon to deduce this for us? I doubt Exxon even know anything about it or spend time on it. If they did know they’d be suing the IPCC authors (but the UN can’t be sued).

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Just more evidence of scientific fraud by the IPCC”

The second scientific fraud, after their anthro ocean warming attribution, in respect to TFE.4 Figure 1 (b) is their assumption of increased OLR (“radiation response” in b) due to increasing GHGs. They only “infer” OLR from GMST (i.e. they make up stuff) instead of using the, as they put it, “highly precise”satellite measurements of OLR. Those measurements contradict their assumption.

Their OLR assumption implies a relationship between Net TOA Flux, TSI, OLR, and GMST. None exists.

Previously detailed with graphs in the thread – ‘NZ about to ratify Paris agreement – will they ask our opinion?’ here:

https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2016/08/nz-about-to-ratify-paris-agreement-will-they-ask-our-opinion/comment-page-1/#comment-1508531

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>‘Ten things you didn’t know about climate change’ [Renwick, Naish, Royal Society, Victoria University]

Also in the NZ Herald: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11669116

“5 Ninety-three per cent of the heat ………….from humankind’s use of fossil fuels has gone into the ocean”

Overt scientific fraud.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Royal Society have a web page on Ten by Ten but they don’t provide the article as per NZ Herald:

Ten by Ten: Climate Change
http://www.royalsociety.org.nz/events/ten-by-ten/ten-by-ten-climate-change/

At least it is not as nasty as 10:10.

Dennis N Horne
Guest
Dennis N Horne

Richard Treadgold.

While I am flattered to be the centre of attention, I do not flatter myself I could teach you any science. You don’t understand how the greenhouse effect warms the surface. Well, it’s a pity, but there you are. So much time invested and so little learned.

However. Tell me. What do you think the ‘climategate’ emails showed?

Andy
Guest
Andy

You seem to be under the impression that the existence of the greenhouse effect implies dangerous AGW, when the theory relies on positive water vapour feedback to provide the necessary high climate sensitivity

The evidence for any anthropogenic influence on water vapour is pretty sparse

Andy
Guest
Andy

“What did the climategate emails show”

Jeez that was 2009

Haven’t we been over this a thousand times
?

We’re onto Hillary’s emails now

good stuff in there too

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Dennis

>“What did the climategate emails show” ?

Might help to read a few Dennis. Here’s a selection of Climategate 2.0, from The Air Vent. One of the first receptors of the 1.0 emails:

/// The IPCC Process ///

/// Communicating Climate Change ///

/// The Medieval Warm Period ///

/// The Settled Science ///

/// Communicating Climate Change ///

/// The Medieval Warm Period ///

/// The Urban Heat Effect ///

/// Temperature Reconstructions ///

/// Science and Religion ///

/// The Cause ///

/// Freedom of Information ///

https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/climategate-2-0/

# # #

A couple of my personal favourites:

Wils

“What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably …”

Wilson

Although I agree that GHGs are important in the 19th/20th century (especially since the 1970s), if the weighting of solar forcing was stronger in the models, surely this would diminish the significance of GHGs. […] it seems to me that by weighting the solar irradiance more strongly in the models, then much of the 19th to mid 20th century warming can be explained from the sun alone.

I’m sure you will be very interested in “The Cause” section Dennis. That’s your specialty isn’t it?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Dennis

>”You don’t understand how the greenhouse effect warms the surface”

OK, here’s the earth’s surface energy budget:

IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapter 2: Earth’s Energy Budget, Stephens et al (2012) Figure 1
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n10/images/ngeo1580-f1.jpg

How does “the greenhouse effect” warm the surface Dennis?

Please explain, so we can all understand.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Dennis

>”Please explain, so we can all understand.”

Explain In respect to the surface energy budget. In terms of power (Watts – how much?) and actual energy transfer (Joules – how much?).

Remember, the IPCC’s radiative forcing paradigm (RF) is in respect to the top of atmosphere (TOA) energy balance – NOT the surface.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Dennis >”You don’t understand how the greenhouse effect warms the surface” While we’re waiting for your explanation as per above terms, we already have the earth’s standard surface temperature established without recourse to the “greenhouse effect”: “The entire 241 page 1976 US Standard Atmosphere document and database (which still remains the gold standard today and has not changed despite 39 years of greenhouse gas emissions) is posted below. It is an absolute goldmine of detailed information on the physical derivation of the standard atmospheric model and confirmatory observations. It thus provides overwhelming physical proof and overwhelming observational evidence that the Maxwell gravito-thermal mass/gravity/pressure theory of the 33C “greenhouse effect” is correct, and would necessarily falsify any significant “radiative forcing from greenhouse gases” affecting the lapse rates or various atmospheric temperature gradients, and thus as well negate the theory of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. Only one of these two competing greenhouse theories can account for the 33C greenhouse effect, since if both were true, the Earth would be an additional 33C warmer than present.”,/blockquote> ‘US Standard Atmosphere Model & Observations Prove Maxwell’s Mass/Gravity/Pressure Theory of the ‘Greenhouse Effect’ is Correct & Falsifies CAGW’ http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2014/12/why-us-standard-atmosphere-model.html… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘Climate change professor in heated row over Arctic ice caps’ Professor Peter Wadhams was accused of “crying wolf” by one academic, after saying North Pole ice will disappear by September. Pushing his earlier prediction back by a year, he said “the Arctic ice may well disappear…for September of this year”. However, last week the NSIDC issued a statement which said that “it is unlikely that Arctic sea ice extent this September will fall below the record minimum set in 2012.” http://www.varsity.co.uk/news/10586 Not even a record minimum likely, let alone ice free. Richard Betts, UK Met Office Hadley Center: “When someone talks up imminent catastrophe, they might think they are getting a quick win by getting a scary story out there, but in the long term it will be an own goal.” Stephen Henry Schneider (deceased), ex Professor of Environmental Biology and Global Change at Stanford University: “On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Climategate 2.0

[Wilson] >”if the weighting of solar forcing was stronger in the models, surely this would diminish the significance of GHGs. […] it seems to me that by weighting the solar irradiance more strongly in the models…..”

In NCAR’s CAM5 model and previous versions e.g. CAM3 below, “weighting” is either “Ramped” or “Fixed’. “Ramping” is done by adjusting sliders by either percentage or factor.

I raked over this in 2010 back in ‘Open Threads as required’ (page 1 of comments):

Richard C (NZ) on November 9, 2010 at 7:42 pm said:

“User’s Guide to the NCAR Community Atmosphere Model (CAM 3.0)”
http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/atm-cam/docs/usersguide/usersguide.pdf

[F]irst occurrence of CO2 in “B.8 CAMEXP physics namelist variables” but keep going and you find the prefix “Ramp”. Keep going further and you get to “B.13 Complete list of CAM namelist variables”. Basically GHG’s and CO2 (and other forcings) are either “FIXED” or “RAMPED” by a percentage or factor.

https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2010/10/open-threads-as-promised/comment-page-1/#comment-28767

This is in addition to initial parameterization e.g. TSI (solar) and RCP (greenhouse gasses).

Enables “tweaking”.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Dennis

>”While we’re waiting for your explanation as per above terms, we already have the earth’s standard surface temperature established without recourse to the “greenhouse effect”:”

Not just surface but the standard temperature at every altitude of the atmosphere right up to TOA.

Impossible by “greenhouse effect” approach.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

RT >”It [the radiative “greenhouse effect”] certainly warms the atmosphere a little, although the magnitude is disputed” How? Greenhouse gasses are energy TRANSFER gasses. CO2 is a coolant by definition, refrigerant code R744. And warms? Or modulates? Water (H2O) is the weather modulator, either gas (WV) or liquid (clouds), certainly on a diurnal basis: Dry clear sky: Hotter by day, colder by night (Sahara) Humid clear sky: Cooler by day, warmer by night (Singapore) But we are talking in terms of climate. The standard temperature of the atmosphere is determined by molecular constituency and solar energy input. Trace gasses are neglected because inclusion makes no difference to the temperature at a level beyond negligible. Table 7a-1: Average composition of the atmosphere up to an altitude of 25 km. Gas Name, Chemical Formula, Percent Volume Nitrogen N2 78.08% Oxygen O2 20.95% *Water H2O 0 to 4% Argon Ar 0.93% [Constituents below this level are neglected] *Carbon Dioxide CO2 0.0360% Neon Ne 0.0018% Helium He 0.0005% *Methane CH4 0.00017% Hydrogen H2 0.00005% *Nitrous Oxide N2O 0.00003% *Ozone O3 0.000004% * variable gases http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7a.html Actual climate temperature differs from standard temperature only due to long-term and… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Water (H2O) is the weather modulator”

Not the only factor obviously. Wind, pressure, seasons too. But beside the point.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Your doubts about climate change are created by the lying oil industry”

According to the Warmist creed.

I actually have more than just doubt, I’m as sure as I will ever be. But not thanks to the oil industry. I’ve gained exactly nothing from that avenue.

Credit due to NASA, US Air Force Labs, IPCC report data, introduction to and examination in thermodynamics and heat transfer and critiquing in law and legal issues, big pictures laid out by likes of The Hockey Schtick and PSI, an engaged brain and fully functioning BS indicator, and so on.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

RT >”so Arrhenius got it wrong to the extent that CO2 does not warm the atmosphere at all? Absorption coefficients do not automatically equate to “warming” in terms of temperature but Arrhenius made the leap and subsequently Plass, Callendar, Tyndall and others (see Callendar’s “fakery” below at first link) hence squabbling over the effect of a doubling of CO2: ‘The Errors of Arrhenius’ http://www.applet-magic.com/arrhenius.htm ‘Why Tyndall’s experiment did not “prove” the [Arrhenius] theory of anthropogenic global warming’ http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2015/10/why-tyndalls-experiment-did-not-prove.html The leap to GHG “warming” is simply miss-attribution of changes and ignoring the standard atmosphere model and the physics that determines it. >”So water vapour done it?” I didn’t say that. I said this: Actual climate temperature differs from standard temperature only due to long-term and short-term heat fluxes from the surface (think major El Nino heat flux in the latter). A major short-term El Nino heat flux is not “trapped” in the troposphere. Similarly, long-term fluxes from the surface, predominantly from the ocean (Sensible, Latent, Radiation, caused by SSR and TSI change and OHC rise) are not “trapped” either. Some surface radiation is intercepted and re-emitted (transferred), but not “trapped”. If surface heat, ocean… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

RT >”$90 trillion question? I’ve told you a million times, Richard, don’t exaggerate.” Heh. That’s the “transition” and “transformation” needed over the next 13 and a half years apparently (I exaggerate not, I tell you a million times): 17 September 2014 – Calderon predicted that the coming 15 years will prove critical in blazing a path toward a low-carbon way of life. During that time, some $90 trillion will be invested in infrastructure for systems affecting the world’s cities, land use and energy systems. …… Still, the transition called for is a needed one, said UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who is hosting the Summit. “We can no longer afford to burn our way to prosperity,” he told the commission members, whose report he applauded as timely. “We need a structural transformation in the global economy.” http://www.un.org/climatechange/summit/2014/09/report-reducing-climate-change-need-curtail-economic-growth/ # # # Given the modern global economy is built on debt, a “structural transformation” certainly is impending but for reasons other than UN intervention. That means investment of any form becomes problematic, let alone finding $90 trill. The future has already been bought. Paying for it is another story. Ask China or the US or the… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”The “greenhouse effect” version is this: Sun => Ocean => Atmosphere(+Space) => Ocean => Atmosphere(+Space) => Ocean => [Repeat…..]” I am not making this up. Plenty of animations and diagrams showing that repetition on the net. This for example: The Greenhouse Effect http://www.sciencequiz.net/lcchemistry/atmospheric/images/xgreenhouse1b.gif.pagespeed.ic.A2Av5woKvx.png That repetition is bogus to start with because it neglects the net effect of DLR/OLR which is OLR. However, the scare is an “enhanced” greenhouse effect as in this animation from the Australian Department of Environment and Energy: Enhanced greenhouse effect – Animation https://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/climate-science/greenhouse-effect Step 1: Solar radiation reaches the Earth’s atmosphere – some of this is reflected back into space. Step 2: The rest of the sun’s energy is absorbed by the land and the oceans, heating the Earth. Step 3: Heat radiates from Earth towards space. Step 4: Some of this heat is trapped by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, keeping the Earth warm enough to sustain life. Step 5: Human activities such as burning fossil fuels, agriculture and land clearing are increasing the amount of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere. Step 6: This is trapping extra heat, and causing the Earth’s temperature to rise. # #… Read more »

Dennis N Horne
Guest
Dennis N Horne

“Your doubts about climate change are created by the lying oil industry” AUGUST 25, 2016 10:24 PM \ 26 COMMENTS \ BY RICHARD TREADGOLD “Dennis commented here: The oil industry copied the tactics [of] the tobacco industry. Engender mistrust in the science and scientists by lying.” [Treadgold] What a devilishly clever piece of logic. It cannot fail, can it? It is a simple statement of fact. It can fail if it is wrong. The thing is, it isn’t wrong. —————————————————————————————————————— “Richard Treadgold. on August 27, 2016 at 11:39 am said: Dennis, I question the warming of the ocean, is that what you mean by surface? The Climategate emails are off the topic,” About 70% of Earth’s surface is covered by ocean. I thought you’d know that. What was the climategate beat-up then, if not to ” Engender mistrust in the science and scientists by lying.” CO2 is causing global warming and climate change. The evidence is clear and the science incontrovertible. In the past when CO2 has been high, so have sea levels. With our GHG emissions we have already locked in several metres of sea level rise. Don’t know when, but it’s… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”The “greenhouse effect” version is this:
Sun => Ocean => Atmosphere(+Space) => Ocean => Atmosphere(+Space) => Ocean => [Repeat…..]”
>”I am not making this up. Plenty of animations and diagrams showing that repetition on the net.”

Actually it is even sillier in the example given:

The Greenhouse Effect
http://www.sciencequiz.net/lcchemistry/atmospheric/images/xgreenhouse1b.gif.pagespeed.ic.A2Av5woKvx.png

That system is:

Sun => Surface => Troposphere => Surface => Troposphere => Surface => [Repeat…..]”

Magoo
Guest
Magoo

Dennis,

If you really believe that anthropogenic global warming is a problem then how do you explain the following graph from the IPCC (Figure TS.14, page 87, Technical Summary, Working Group I, IPCC AR5 report):

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_TS_FINAL.pdf

Or if you can’t be bothered waiting for the AR5 to load:

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig11-25.jpg

Are the IPCC working for ‘big oil’?

Of course that also means there is no such thing as a ‘scientific consensus’ too, doesn’t it?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Dennis

You’ve studiously avoided ALL the issues upthread and requests for an explanation of how “greenhouse effect” heats the surface except for ocean warming attribution of which you say:

“About 70% of Earth’s surface is covered by ocean. I thought you’d know that.”

We know that Dennis. The question is: HOW is the ocean warmed?

IPCC make an anthro attribution without scientific backup. Renwick and Naish are peddling the “83% of the heat from human fossil fuel emissions” has gone into the ocean meme.

Provably false as upthread. The ocean is where the debate is now Dennis.

>”CO2 is causing global warming and climate change. The evidence is clear and the science incontrovertible. In the past when CO2 has been high, so have sea levels. With our GHG emissions we have already locked in several metres of sea level rise.”

Circular reasoning from a false premise. Argument from Authority. Miss-attribution. Can you get any worse Dennis?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Dennis

>”Richard C (NZ) can tap dance on the head of a pin ……”

Heh, out of your depth Dennis

>”Of course, if you can’t accept the science, the best thing to do, for peace of mind, is to denier it”

Denier it?

I have accepted the science Dennis. Go back upthread and see I have., The science proves the IPCC attribution is wrong.

You are the denier here Dennis. You CANNOT and WILL NOT address the issues raised because all you’ve got is a “tap dance on the head of a pin” rejoinder.

You’ve got nothing Dennis. You’re an empty vessel.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Should be – ““[93%] of the heat from human fossil fuel emissions” has gone into the oceans

Dennis N Horne
Guest
Dennis N Horne

The question looked clear to me, “is that what you mean by surface?” But never mind. Onward.

Let us assume the greenhouse effect means Earth is warmer than it would otherwise be. (This is settled science, but hey, everyone is entitled to his own opinion and facts, isn’t he?)

So, what is the difference between the GHE warming a body of water and an area of clay?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Dennis >[You] “The oil industry copied the tactics [of] the tobacco industry. Engender mistrust in the science and scientists by lying.” [You] >”It is a simple statement of fact. It can fail if it is wrong. The thing is, it isn’t wrong.” It is NOT fact, it is unproven allegation. The US AGs have no case. There is no case proceeding to the US courts against Exxon for example. But let’s say it is fact (it isn’t but let’s) – so what? My position is this (from upthread): “I actually have more than just doubt, I’m as sure as I will ever be. But not thanks to the oil industry. I’ve gained exactly nothing from that avenue. Credit due to NASA, US Air Force Labs, IPCC report data, introduction to and examination in thermodynamics and heat transfer and critiquing in law and legal issues, big pictures laid out by likes of The Hockey Schtick and PSI, an engaged brain and fully functioning BS indicator, and so on.” I would add here, also thanks to the internet and the information age and especially access to observation data. I remember a (female – not old… Read more »

Andy
Guest
Andy

Hi Dennis

I’m not sure where you are at with the so-called “climate debate” but I will give you the benefit of doubt that you haven’t heard the “canonical sceptic argument”.

This is, that the basic blackbody warming due to a doubling of CO2 is 1.2 degrees C. Anything above and below that depends on positive or negative feedbacks, for example from water vapour and cloud cover.

Also, the CO2 AGW theory assumes a logarithmic effect. i.e more CO2 has logarithmically less forcing effect

The “dangerous” warming thesis depends on overall positive feedbacks

We can argue about energy imbalance and whether the CO2 greenhouse gas theory is correct or not, but the above summary is the nutshell. Some argue about details but unless feedbacks are positive, then AGW is basically a non-problem

Dennis N Horne
Guest
Dennis N Horne

Richatd C (NZ). “I cannot even start to think where and by what document(s) or media the oil industry MIGHT have influenced me, even subliminally. Any ideas Dennis?”

Yes. There are about 7 billion people on Earth and you are just one of them.

It’s not all about you, Richard C (NZ)

In fact, you are irrelevant. A crank.

Magoo
Guest
Magoo

Ah Dennis, Dennis, Dennis, resorting to name calling is a sure sign you’ve lost the argument. Now, back to the empirical evidence – what does the following graph from the IPCC tell you? (Figure TS.14, page 87, Technical Summary, Working Group I, IPCC AR5 report):

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_TS_FINAL.pdf

Or if you can’t be bothered waiting for the AR5 to load:

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig11-25.jpg

Don’t run away again now, show us how this graph proves AGW so we can all be as informed as you.

Andy
Guest
Andy

In fact, you are irrelevant. A crank.

We are all irrelevant Dennis

If you died tomorrow in a car crash and you had been slowly burned to death, having experienced a slow and excruciating end, there may be some members of your family that may shed some tears for a few days

Your pointless and worthless existence has no more merit than any of the rest of us.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Dennis >”The question looked clear to me, “is that what you mean by surface?” You obviously didn’t comprehend the comment Dennis. There were TWO elements: [RT] – “I question the warming of the ocean [1], is that what you mean by surface? [2]” The first “warming” question [1] is in respect to the ocean i.e. How, exactly, do GHG emissions warm the ocean as the IPCC asserts by unsupported attribution and Naish and Renwick are promulgating? This has become the US$90 trillion question Dennis because the IPCC case collapses without an ocean warming attribution (see upthread). The second question [2] was just to clarify what you mean by “surface”. You seem to concur that the ocean surface is the relevant surface given its greater relative area – [You] “About 70% of Earth’s surface is covered by ocean”. Also most relevant because the ocean is the earth’s greatest heat sink by far, land is negligible. So we seem to be on the same page, the argument now is in respect ocean warming because that is 93% of the anthro attribution to earth’s system warming by GHGs according to Naish and Renwick.. >”Let us assume… Read more »

Dennis N Horne
Guest
Dennis N Horne

Irrelevant? Indeed.

What is relevant in science it the balance of informed opinion. With climate science, it is strong:

A widespread and profound consensus. That:

CO2 is causing global warming and climate change, to our detriment.

The rest is humbug.

Dennis N Horne
Guest
Dennis N Horne

Richard C (NZ)

The greenhouse effect raises the temperature of Earth from, say, -18 to +14; 33C

It does this by slowing cooling.

Of the surface. Solid or water.

The rest is humbug.

Dennis N Horne
Guest
Dennis N Horne

Climategate was a beat-up by a lying oil lobby to engender mistrust of scientists and disbelief in the science.

It worked.

Otherwise, why would people not believe the science from the Royal Society, US National Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Physical Society, American Chemical Society … preferring instead to believe the business-as-usual merchants?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Dennis >”In fact, you are irrelevant. A crank.” If you are going to resort to Argument by Ad Hominem Dennis then you should know it is an argument fallacy: Fallacy: Ad Hominem Description of Ad Hominem Translated from Latin to English, “Ad Hominem” means “against the man” or “against the person.” An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of “argument” has the following form: Person A makes claim X. Person B makes an attack on person A. Therefore A’s claim is false. The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do… Read more »

Magoo
Guest
Magoo

Dennis,

You say ‘A widespread and profound consensus … CO2 is causing global warming and climate change, to our detriment.’

So where is the consensus and global warming in the IPCC graph? (Figure TS.14, page 87, Technical Summary, Working Group I, IPCC AR5 report):

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_TS_FINAL.pdf

Or if you can’t be bothered waiting for the AR5 to load:

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig11-25.jpg

Come now, show us all the overwhelming evidence, we’re all waiting. Perhaps you think the IPCC are in the pay of ‘big oil’, or maybe Elvis is sending telepathic messages from the alien mothership in Area 51 to corrupt the science?

You are quite entertaining though, in a humorous sort of way, I’ll give you that, especially when you call people ‘cranks’ – it’s very funny.

Now run away again, before the big, bad IPCC graph gets you & eats you all up. ROFLMAO!

Andy
Guest
Andy

Climategate was a beat-up by a lying oil lobby to engender mistrust of scientists and disbelief in the science.

The evidence for this is what, exactly?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Dennis

>”Climategate was a beat-up by a lying oil lobby to engender mistrust of scientists and disbelief in the science.”

You have no proof of this Dennis. No-one else has even made the connection. Actually it was the Climategaters wanting to be in the pay of big oil:

‘Climategate: CRU looks to “big oil” for support’
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/climategate-cru-looks-to-big-oil-for-support/

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”No-one else has even made the connection.”

Looks like a Guardianista did in comments under the article linked below (can’t be bothered delving in for details):

“Big Oil coined the term climategate over nothing”

‘Climategate’ had only fleeting effect on global warming scepticism
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/may/20/climategate-longterm-level-climate-change-scepticism

Didn’t work apparently, contrary to Dennis – “It worked”.

The term Climategate was coined by James Delingpole on 20th November 2009 but Bulldust beat him to it at WUWT:

[Booker] A week after my colleague James Delingpole, on his Telegraph blog, coined the term “Climategate” (Note: Delingpole reports via email he got it from WUWT, commenter Bulldust coined the phrase at 3:52PM PST Nov 19th [hotlink] – Anthony)
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/28/telegraphs-booker-on-the-climategate-scandal/

Dennis N Horne
Guest
Dennis N Horne

Are you telling me that accusing the scientists of being corrupt, telling lies and organising a cover-up didn’t make people suspicious and less inclined to believe the scientists and accept the science?

What was the purpose of the beat-up then?

The false accusations, the lies from the oil lobby?

Magoo
Guest
Magoo

Run, run, run as fast as you can,
You’ll never catch me I’m the Dennis Horne man.
He trusted the fox to help his plan,
And that was the end of the Dennis Horne man.

Hey Dennis … BOO!!:

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig11-25.jpg

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Dennis >It [Climategate] worked. Otherwise, why would people not believe the science from the Royal Society…….” That would be this: “5 Ninety-three per cent of the heat ………….from humankind’s use of fossil fuels has gone into the ocean” James Renwick, Tim Naish, Royal Society Ten by Ten series http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11669116 Not believing that has nothing to do with Climategate Dennis. There’s no reason to believe it because the IPCC’s own surface energy budget precludes it and the IPCC has no observational evidence or documented mechanism to support the assertion and attribution except for speculation. See AR5 WGI SOD Chapter 10: Detection and Attribution of Climate Change: from Global to Regional, 10.4.1 Ocean Temperature and Heat Content, page 32, line 20: [IPCC 2013] – “Air-sea fluxes are the primary mechanism by which the oceans are expected to respond to externally forced anthropogenic and natural volcanic influences” And so, as with all Warmy rebuttals, we go round and round with you Dennis and right back up to RT’s post and the first comment that addresses this in the comment thread. Richard C (NZ) on August 26, 2016 at 10:49 am said: https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2016/08/your-doubts-about-climate-change-are-created-by-the-lying-oil-industry/comment-page-1/#comment-1509050 It’s much like the… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Dennis

>”Are you telling me that accusing the scientists of being corrupt, telling lies and organising a cover-up didn’t make people suspicious and less inclined to believe the scientists and accept the science?”

The Climategate emails were, and still are, the self-evident revelation and confirmation of what had been suspected – a figurative gold mine. There is no need to make allegations, the Climategators indict themselves.

>”What was the purpose of the beat-up then?”

There was no “purpose” Dennis. The emails ended up in the public domain, scrutiny ensued, controversy arose because the emails provided the evidence.

>”The false accusations, the lies from the oil lobby?”

Again, the email revelations were self-evident. The oil lobby had no involvement in Climategate although the CRU Climategaters were chasing big oil money (see upthread). There is no proven case against the oil lobby. No case is proceeding to court.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”The Climategate emails were, and still are, the self-evident revelation and confirmation of what had been suspected – a figurative gold mine. There is no need to make allegations, the Climategators indict themselves.”

>”Again, the email revelations were self-evident.”

Even The Guardian could see this:

‘Climate change emails between scientists reveal flaws in peer review’
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/02/hacked-climate-emails-flaws-peer-review

Features Chris de Freitas, Auckland University.

Not the only Climategate controversy of course.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Not the only Climategate controversy of course.” THE CLIMATEGATE EMAILS by John Costella http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/climategate_analysis.pdf Foreword The Climategate emails expose to our view a world that was previously hidden from virtually everyone. This formerly hidden world was made up of a very few players. But they controlled those critical Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) processes involving the temperature records from the past, and the official interpretation of current temperature data. They exerted previously unrecognized influence on the “peer review” process for papers seeking publication in the officially recognised climate science literature from which the IPCC was supposed to rely exclusively in order to draw its conclusions. The Climategate emails demonstrate that these people had no regard for the traditions and assumptions which had developed over centuries and which provided the foundations of Western science. At the very core of this tradition is respect for truth and honesty in reporting data and results; and a recognition that all the data, and all the steps required to reach a result, had to be available to the scientific world at large. There are two issues which now have to be addressed. The first is the damage… Read more »

Dennis N Horne
Guest
Dennis N Horne

So the beat-up continues. Lies, lies, damn lies.

Scientists exonerated by several inquiries.

Of course science suffered. Reputations do suffer when lies are spread. That’s why the liars spread lies.

So people won’t believe the scientists, who keep saying:

CO2 is causing warming and climate change.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Dennis >”What is relevant in science it the balance of informed opinion. With climate science, it is strong: widespread and profound consensus. That: CO2 is causing global warming and climate change, to our detriment.” Back to “consensus” again Dennis. Science is not a democracy. Miss-attribution on the other hand, is, apparently. “The greenhouse effect raises the temperature of Earth from, say, -18 to +14; 33C. It does this by slowing cooling. Of the surface. Solid or water.” – Dennis N Horne on August 27, 2016 at 7:46 pm https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2016/08/your-doubts-about-climate-change-are-created-by-the-lying-oil-industry/comment-page-1/#comment-1509491 Classic concession Dennis. So, you agree. There is no net heating flux down except solar SW. No GHG ocean heating. Just an insulation effect according to you in this latest statement of yours. This puts you offside with Naish, Renwick, the Royal Society, and the IPCC Dennis (see below). But first the 33 C difference. The temperature of the entire atmosphere, including surface, is already established without recourse to a “greenhouse effect” i.e. it is a redundant proposition (as I’ve already explained – over and over). The 33C difference was explained, as upthread, by Maxwell’s Mass/Gravity/Pressure Theory of the ‘Greenhouse Effect’ and the US… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Dennis

>”Back to your insulation effect Dennis. It contradicts the IPCC. They say there is an “energy inflow” to ocean “storage” in AR5 Technical Summary TFE.4 Figure 1 (b) ………”

Naish and Renwick quantify the IPCC’s GHG-forced “energy inflow” to the ocean:

“5 Ninety-three per cent of the heat ………….from humankind’s use of fossil fuels has gone into the ocean”

James Renwick, Tim Naish, Royal Society Ten by Ten series
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11669116

Anthropogenically-sourced heat flow “into the ocean” is a heat transfer flux from atmosphere to ocean Dennis, NOT an insulation effect.

An insulation effect acts on heat flow from ocean to atmosphere i.e. “slowing cooling” as you put it.

Dennis N Horne
Guest
Dennis N Horne

Richard C (NZ)

What is it with you? What on Earth goes on in your head?

What energy do you think Renwick and Naish are talking about?

For heaven’s sake man, even school children understand the principle of the greenhouse effect: Insulation.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Dennis >”What energy do you think Renwick and Naish are talking about?” This is the “energy” Naish and Renwick are talking about Dennis (in their own words): “Ninety-three per cent of the heat ………….from humankind’s use of fossil fuels has gone into the ocean” Same energy the IPCC says is an “energy inflow” into the. ocean. It amounts to over 200 ZetaJoules. The IPCC have to sink their excess GHG energy SOMEWHERE to keep their theory alive.Their total excess is now in the order of about 2000 ZetaJoules. They say the bulk has gone to space i.e. GHG forcing was totally ineffective in that case. And the bulk of the residual has gone into the surface, predominantly the ocean. That energy into the surface is a heat flow Dennis, a heat flux, a heat TRANSFER. Same heat flux the IPCC speculate (but could not find): [IPCC 2013] – “Air-sea fluxes are the primary mechanism by which the oceans are expected to respond to externally forced anthropogenic and natural volcanic influences” That is NOT “insulation” Dennis. Naish, Renwick, and the IPCC are describing a heating agent: Heating agent: Causes heat flow INTO an object.… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Dennis

You also have to distinguish between a greenhouse effect (however you explain it) and an ENHANCED greenhouse effect.

The Man-Made Climate Change scare (ex AGW) is an “ENHANCED” greenhouse effect as in this animation from the Australian Department of Environment and Energy (from upthread):

Enhanced greenhouse effect – Animation
https://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/climate-science/greenhouse-effect

Sure, the atmosphere makes earth livable in every respect including warmth however you explain the temperature effect, otherwise same as the moon.

But climate scientists like Naish and Renwick are saying the bulk (93%) of human-caused ENHANCED greenhouse effect is now in the ocean. The IPCC do not actually state this “93%” factor. If you look at AR5 Technical Summary TFE.4 Figure 1 (a) and (b) below it is obviously not 93% in the IPCC’s case:

TS TFE.4-1 (a) (b)
comment image

The whole fallacious humans-heating-the ocean meme has entered a new and absurd phase with this “Ninety-three per cent of the heat ………….from humankind’s use of fossil fuels has gone into the ocean” story.

It conflicts with and contradicts the IPCC story for starters.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Naish and Renwick are saying the bulk (93%) of human-caused ENHANCED greenhouse effect is now in the ocean. The IPCC do not actually state this “93%” factor. If you look at AR5 Technical Summary TFE.4 Figure 1 (a) and (b) below it is obviously not 93% in the IPCC’s case” For period 1970 – 2011. In TS TFE.4-1 (a): Theoretical GHG forcing is 1200 ZetaJoules. 93% of 1200 is 1116 ZetaJoules. In TS TFE.4-1 (b): Storage (ocean, land, atmosphere, and ice) is almost 300 ZetaJoules. Measured ocean heat storage in the 0 – 2000m layer was 250 ZetaJoules 0-2000m Ocean Heat Content http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content2000m.png Obviously storage in the atmosphere is a minor component of total storage given ocean is 83.3% of the total (250/300). The IPCC then, have ocean storage at 20.8% of theoretical GHG forcing (250/1200) over the 1970 – 2011 period. Naish and Renwick say 93%. in 2016. For period 1970 – 2016. The percentage has only increased to 21.4% at 2016 because theoretical GHG forcing is around 1400 ZetaJoules 1970 – 2016 and ocean heat storage is 300 ZetaJoules (300/1400 = 21.4%). For period 1950 – 2016. Going back to 1950… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Worth noting too that for period 1970 – 2011 in TS TFE.4-1 (b), between 200 and 900 ZetaJoules has simply dissipated to space by “radiative response”.

In other words, between 16.7% and 75% of total theoretical GHG-forced energy is out of the earth’s system i.e. completely ineffective even within the IPCC’s paradigm and values (200/1200 and 900/1200).

That’s a 700 ZetaJoule range of energy dissipation that the IPCC can’t make their mind up on because they only “infer” “radiative response” (OLR) instead of deferring to “highly precise” satellite measurements.

700 ZJ is 58% (700/1200) of their total theoretical GHG-forced energy that the IPCC cannot tie down.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Andreas Schmittner, associate professor of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences at Oregon State University and paper author on climate sensitivity concurs with Naish and Renwick but contradicts Dennis:

Schmittner 2013 – “Most heat trapped by carbon dioxide and other gases added to the atmosphere is absorbed by the oceans”

Schmittner is however, along with Naish and Renwick, also at odds with the IPCC where most (16.7% – 75%) of that theoretical heat has simply dissipated to space according to their assessment. Less than 20% has been absorbed by the oceans since 1950 if the IPCC are to be believed (I don’t).

Dennis N Horne
Guest
Dennis N Horne

I am travelling again at present and busy.

The ‘climategate’ emails were genuine but the interpretation and subsequent refusal to accept the perfectly valid explanations given by the scientists were, and are continuing to be, a beatup. Clearly you people still think they’re a”goctcha”.

The result of the greenhouse effect is to warm the surface. The energy trapped ends up in the oceans because that is the main heat sink. (You know that “heat” eventually moves from hotter to colder). That does NOT mean that energy arising in one form is the energy that moves. That is, it arises in one form and moves in another. For example, you can heat the end of a rod with radiation and the other end gets hot by conduction. Similarly, a body of water can be heated with short wave radiation and its cooling slowed by maintaining the surface at a higher temperature with long wave radiation.

Anyway, the greatest scientists in the world can’t get past your mental block. Its solid. But hey, it’s been fun. A bit like arguing with homeopaths and other alternative health cranks. In the end you just walk away.

Andy
Guest
Andy

Nice that you are travelling Dennis

I hope you are not using any products from the lying Oil Industy that you despise so much

Anyone who thinks that the Climategate emails showed no wrong doing or misdemeanours is probably the kind of morally and intellectually bankrupt cretin that would vote for Hillary Clinton

Dennis N Horne
Guest
Dennis N Horne

Thank you, Andy, for proving my point. You think the inquiries into ‘climategate’ must ALL be part of a cover-up.

And yes, I’m using lots and lots of JetA1. Why? What has that got to do with the science or the lying?

You really should give up speaking out aloud, Andy, you’re beginning to look more and more like that witless bullshitting imbecile Donald Drumpf.

Andy
Guest
Andy

Presumably Dennis, you think it is quite normal for a Secretary of State to keep state secrets on a private email, to have a $200 million dollar fund funded by doing dodgy deals with tyrants and despots, and to be under investigation by the FBI whilst running for President

Of course, this is entirely normal, just as conspiring to get “sceptics” fired from journal editor roles, telling your colleagues to delete emails that might incriminate them, and refusing to release data and code from your research

I do feel sorry for our children that our society is rotting from the core, celebrated by our media everyday

Do enjoy you travels and your typing Dennis

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Dennis >”a body of water can be heated with short wave radiation and its cooling slowed by maintaining the surface at a higher temperature with long wave radiation. DLR in isolation does not “maintain” surface temperature Dennis. It is just one factor in the surface energy budget (see below). Solar SW maintains surface temperature. Without it there is no surface heat – Period. LWdown (DLR) is 345.6 W.m-2 on global average. Total energy up is 533 W.m-2. In other words, the “insulation” effect of DLR is a lot less than the energy escaping (187.4 less). Now your trio. >”The result of the greenhouse effect is to warm the surface. The energy trapped ends up in the oceans because that is the main heat sink. (You know that “heat” eventually moves from hotter to colder).” Heh, you even manage to mangle gobbledegook Dennis. Lets take this one sentence at a time: >”The result of the greenhouse effect is to warm the surface” You said it was an insulation effect Dennis. The sun heats the surface I think you will agree i.e. the energy is already in the surface in an insulation effect. But there… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Dennis

>”It is this supposed heat transfer that [is] the controversy Dennis. The IPCC, Royal Society, Naish and Renwick, have some explaining to do because their stories are unsupported by any science and their stories differ radically. Their attribution is merely speculation. Their mechanism is not evident in the surface energy budget.”

>”The AGW notion (of IPCC, Naish, Renwick et al) of a massive heat transfer from troposphere to ocean is a violation of the Clausious statement above.”

Suggest you move on to the next post Dennis. Deals with the ethics and (il)legalities of the above in respect to Naish and Renwick’s Ten by Ten: Climate Change series run by the Royal Society.

Dennis N Horne
Guest
Dennis N Horne

Naish and Renwick understand the science.

Science backed by the Royal Society. Here is the history of the Royal Society:
https://royalsociety.org/about-us/history/

Something of a tradition and reputation, wouldn’t you say.

But you know better.

Fine.

Andy
Guest
Andy

Naish and Tenwick understand the science

We know this by virtue of the existence of a scientific body on their her side of the planet

The RS motto is “Nullius in Verba” which means approximately “take no ones word for it”

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Dennis

>”Naish and Renwick understand the science.”

They understand by their understanding of the IPCC’s unsupported SPECULATION in respect to ocean warming attribution. Except their “93%” is wildly at odds with IPCC information so they don’t even understand the IPCC’s version of the story.

The speculation is undeniable Dennis, but go ahead – deny anyway.

>”Science backed by the Royal Society”

Ah yes, that’s were it goes badly wrong for the Royal Society Dennis, both ethically and legally.

Go to the next post now Dennis.

Dennis N Horne
Guest
Dennis N Horne

When I say the “Royal Society” I mean the Royal Society.

Nothing is going wrong for the Royal Society.

The Royal Society has joined with the US National Academy of Sciences to promote the truth:
http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/exec-office-other/climate-change-full.pdf

More facts here:
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

Magoo
Guest
Magoo

Dennis:

Have the Royal Society or NASA explained the discrepancy between the failed computer models and the actual temperature measurements that are published in the IPCC AR5 report? No? One of the 4 temperature datasets used to prove the models wrong is from NASA as well (Figure TS.14, page 87, Technical Summary, Working Group I, IPCC AR5 report):

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_TS_FINAL.pdf

Or if you can’t be bothered waiting for the AR5 to load:

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig11-25.jpg

Funny how NASA goes on about global warming when their own dataset published by the IPCC shows that the computer models are a complete failure. You & NASA can spout whatever ridiculous alarmist rubbish you like, but when the empirical evidence from multiple temperature datasets (including NASA’s) proves the models undeniably wrong, you have absolutely nothing to support your argument except unfounded speculation.

Alexander K
Guest
Alexander K

Now Dennis has gone travelling, I can reveal that I am pleased that I didn’t react in print to his nonsense.
The entire argument that Dennis has raised reminds me that arguing with an idiot takes you down to the idiot’s preferred level.
I am too old to bother,

Post Navigation