The New York Times and the BBC: Global warming activists
Two stories today from the Climategate 2 archives:
- Leaked emails raise questions about NYT’s Climategate coverage
- New emails link BBC executives to Climategate scientists
The first describes how Andrew Revkin, the Times’ primary environmental reporter, was entirely in the global warming camp, and worked with these corrupt scientists to push their agenda. It also quotes, from the climategate emails, Revkin’s contempt for anyone who expressed skepticism about the IPCC process and global warming.
The second describes how the BBC teamed up with these same corrupt scientists to keep any skepticism of global warming from being aired at any time.
Climategate’s second episode comprises a damning discovery that shows staff at the University of East Anglia (UEA) vetting BBC scripts, consulting on how the broadcaster should adjust its program output, and using the media outlet’s contact lists to block global-warming skeptics from the airwaves. Indeed, UEA climate scientists have reportedly developed a decade-long relationship with the government-funded BBC, which disproportionately guides the stream of broadcast news in the United Kingdom.
The problem here is not whether the climate is warming or not. The problem is the corruption of science and news reporting, for the sake of a political agenda. Rather than argue their case based on the facts, these global warming scientists did whatever they could to stifle their opponents. Worse, these two major media outlets, the New York Times and the BBC, eagerly cooperated with this effort.
This second fact, now documented in the second release of climategate emails, tells us that these news organizations are unreliable sources of information. And until they show an effort to clean house, they will remain unreliable.
On Christmas Eve 1968 three Americans became the first humans to visit another world. What they did to celebrate was unexpected and profound, and will be remembered throughout all human history. Genesis: the Story of Apollo 8, Robert Zimmerman's classic history of humanity's first journey to another world, tells that story, and it is now available as both an ebook and an audiobook, both with a foreword by Valerie Anders and a new introduction by Robert Zimmerman.
The ebook is available everywhere for $5.99 (before discount) at amazon, or direct from my ebook publisher, ebookit. If you buy it from ebookit you don't support the big tech companies and the author gets a bigger cut much sooner.
The audiobook is also available at all these vendors, and is also free with a 30-day trial membership to Audible.
"Not simply about one mission, [Genesis] is also the history of America's quest for the moon... Zimmerman has done a masterful job of tying disparate events together into a solid account of one of America's greatest human triumphs."--San Antonio Express-News
Left you a note in “climategate 2” with no response from you, so I will ask you again here.
Please tell me how these emails have “hoodwinked” every single scientific organization that has voiced an opinion about global warming/climate change. To wit, National Academy of Sciences, American Geophysical Union, American Physical Society, American Chemical Society, Royal Society of UK, International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, American Meteorological Society, NOAA, World Meteorological Society, American Institute of Physics, Crop Science Society of America, American Society of Plant Biologists, and many many many others.
All say global warming is real, man plays a significant role in it, and we all should be concerned about it. I know you and Rush Limbaugh do not agree, but your scientific credentials pale compared to the organizations listed above.
So let me ask you once again, would you please tell me one scientific organization that says global warming is not happening, or if they think it is that man plays no role in it.
Just one, Robert. Come on, you can do it.
Jim,
Your comment deserves a detailed answer. I intend to do so, in a long post all its own.
In the meantime, you might want to look at some of my past posts, explaining how the investigations into climategate were all embarrassing whitewashes. Anyone who has read these emails (I have) cannot come away from them being at least disturbed. They raise serious questions about the reliability of the work of these global warming scientists. See this post:
“It’s the coverup, not the crime.”
http://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/essays-and-commentaries/its-the-coverup-not-the-crime
Be sure to click on all the links in the second paragraph, as those all detail what appears to me to be a community-wide willingness to whitewash the abuses found in the climategate emails.
Also check out this post:
“Al Gore and the silencing of debate.”
http://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/essays-and-commentaries/al-gore-and-the-silencing-of-debate
Listing several environmental societies and academics with vested interests in obtaining funds and grant money to push the adgenda driven theory of AGW does not prove that the science is settled.
Listing the signatures of scientists in academia that have a “consensus” of OPINION does not make your case that man-made global warming is the result of increased CO2 in the atmosphere.
The scietific method has been corrupted by the 24/7 activist media and NGO’s that grew out of the ecology and and no-nukes movements of the late 70’s and80’s. There has been an unholy alliance and mixing of ethical responsibilities among legitimate news gathering and politically correct/activist science.
Science needs to be open and objective, not adgenda driven.
Journalism needs to stop being the “change agent” for societal change.
Jim, the undisputed fact is that AGW due to CO2 has NEVER been proven empirically by science and mathematical modelling is not a substitue for actually evidence. The arguement that the crisis to the earth is so great that we must be proactive and not wait to see if the sea levels rise and the sky falls is a ruse to cover for the fact that people who claim the mantle of credentialed scientists are actually frauds implementing a political adgenda of big gorvernment socialism and anti free market capitalism and property rights.
KEEP YOUR POLITICS OUT OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.
As for the Al Gore post, not interested. I did not mention him, and I know he is the boogeyman to all skeptics. I mentioned scientific organizations, so I eagerly await your detailed response as to where their funding comes from, how it relates to climate change, and how they have been bought off and/or unduly influenced by the climategate emails. That is, after all, your contention.
I did go to your previous post, and clicked on the links. I am already well familiar with the Harold Lewis resignation, so I will post here what APS said, which you avoid:
“On the matter of global climate change, APS notes that virtually all reputable scientists agree with the following observations:
Carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere due to human activity;
Carbon dioxide is an excellent infrared absorber, and therefore, its increasing presence in the atmosphere contributes to global warming; and
The dwell time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is hundreds of years.
On these matters, APS judges the science to be quite clear.”
What they say is that climate modeling is not perfect (yes, indeed), and that the extent of the damage caused by climate change is uncertain. Very reasoned statement, implying some damage is certain. But reasonable people want to do something about CO2 added by humans because the risk is great.
You also avoid this statement in the letter:
“There is no truth to Dr. Lewis’ assertion that APS policy statements are driven by financial gain.”
And though you point out errors by NOAA, for example, you fail to state that these errors did not change the conclusion of each of the independent investigations that there was indeed no manipulation of data. A lot of falderal then about nothing.
Your whole thesis is based on these emails and they have yet to prove anything, other than scientists too can be catty.
Still waiting for the one scientific organization that says climate change is a hoax, and humans are not a significant cause of any warming of the planet.
You should get your facts straight. They are not “environmental organizations” or just a bunch of “academics.” Lets review the history, as an example, of the National Academy of Science. Founded in the 1860’s by Abraham Lincoln so that future administrations can be advised by the scientific community of scientific issues that will impact the country.
What a great President- saw the value of science, and how scientists can help us avoid future problems and use science to our benefit.
Well. jwing, they are advising and we are ignoring. Mr. Lincoln would be astonished.
Like I said to Mr. Zimmerman, please prove your point about funding, and why Republican administrations who deny global warming did not cut off their funding when these science organizations supported the global warming thesis.
So tell me the proof you require. That certain CO2 molecules in the atmosphere have labels that say “from humans?” How ridiculous. Whether you like it our not, the clear consensus from the science community is that global warming is here, it is indeed causing climate change, man plays a significant role in it. Smoke inhalation from cigarettes was never “empirically proved” to cause lung cancer either. Do you smoke?
And your last sentence proves someone has a political agenda, alright, but its you.
Robert, lets also add the business community to those who take climate change and its costs very seriously. You may want to avoid science, but how about business. Check out this article from Business Week about Munich Re, the world’s largest re-insurer.
http://www.businessweek.com/managing/content/dec2010/ca2010121_766041.htm
They say:
“Increasingly, Munich Re is focusing on what it calls emerging risks: subtle, often seemingly innocuous trends that could carry the seeds of disaster…”
And then
“One of the new risks Munich Re is tracking is climate change. The company has the world’s most comprehensive database on natural disasters, with information going back centuries. It shows that the frequency of serious floods worldwide has more than tripled since 1980, while hurricanes and other severe windstorms have doubled. “Global warming is real, and it affects our business,” says Peter Hoppe, who heads the company’s climate-change research. Munich Re has become a leading advocate for renewable-energy development, even joining a venture that plans to generate solar power in the Sahara and ship it under the Mediterranean to Europe.”
The insurance business is entirely based on risk, and the mathematics that prove that risk. Its not politically motivated. If they get it wrong, there business is negatively impacted. You know that climate change should be taken seriously when its attendant costs are put into insurance company models.
We are currently coming out of the last ice age which has had many glacier periods. The last one was about 20,000 years ago. At that time from where I reside currently, South Dakota was under a sheet of glacier ice ONE MILE THICK!!! At that time there was no industrialization or SUV’s releasing CO2 and yet the earth warmed and melted the ice away. Why does no global warming alarmist ever explain how their CO2 level theory does not comport with any of the major cooling (ice ages) or warming from the geologic record. About 65 million years ago, South Dakota was a sub-tropical climate and the arctic region was almost temperate. It is also know that there have been times on the earth were there may have been NO polar ice caps. Again, why doesn’t the CO2 greenhouse gas theory agree with any of these know climate events on earth?
I’ll tell you why….they can’t and global warming alarmists avoid the know ice age events because their cooked up CO2 caused warming doesn’t act to effect the earth on such global catastophic events. The scientific method requires reproducibility. The fact that alarmists keep changing the name from global warming to climate change only highlights how weak and weaker their credibility has become. Climategate 1 and 2 have exposed these people as huxters and frauds in a failed attempt to dupe an all to unaware general populace into buying into an ecomomic and political ideaology closelly resembling statist marxism/socialism.
Jim…fossil fuels are good, they are 100% natural as they come directly from mother earth unadulterated, fossil fuels are therfore organic and if you think about it they are actually solar power captured from the sun by green plants and bacteria millions of years ago. Mother Earth carefully stored this solar power in a natural battery called coal, oil andnatural gas.
Cheers!
Well, glad you got off the funding questions, since you can’t prove it, as well as the environmental group label, as that was just false. And that science needs to have “empirical proof” before it warns us of impending catastrophe. Science always has relied on data to draw the best conclusions they can, and they have done so with global warming.
As far as science explaining how warming periods in the past relate to the one we are going through now, it does not matter. We just need to know that it is happening and try to understand to the best of our ability why it is happening. And science has done that, and continues to do it. And the consensus remains.
You just need to admit that you reject that consensus. You of course can do that. I think you do it at your own (and your grandkids) peril.
1000 Albert Einsteins all in consensus does not make truth. Consensus hundreds of years ago by the brightest thought that the earth was flat and so it was…..NOT!
Jim, I am open to anyone showing how this Co2 think actually works and to explain its long running impact on planet earth throughout the geologic record and historical global changes in climate. Using the scare tactic that we must be proactive and do something regardless of the empirical data is the oldest scam in history. Chrisopher Columbus used a similar ploy to fool the native inhabitants on the caribean island he and his crew were being held on in his later voyage. He know that a solar eclipse was due to occur and the date. He warned the natives that his God-like and scientific expertise would cause the sun to darken. It did and they were fearful. The only difference between Columbus and CO2 alarmist is that Christopher Columbus based his warning to the uneducated on true, tested scietific facts whereas global warming alarmist try to scare the average citizen based on a out ant out fraudulent lie. My children will be laughing at the silly people who followed the Pied Piper Algore down the nutty road using the psudo-religion/ideology of environMENTALism.
Munich Re has nothing to do with “Albert Einsteins.” They are business people, pure and simple, and they care about profits. And their mathematical models about weather related disasters say that their profits will be negatively impacted if they do not deal with the reality of climate change. That’s it. They choose not to ignore it because if they do, they will lose money. Capitalism at work.
And your example about Columbus can just as easily have roles switched, whereas the global warming skeptics (who once far outnumbered the believers) are in the Columbus role. Don’t forget that just 15 years ago or so very few scientists were concerned about global warming. That has changed. Why? Because more and more evidence tells them they had to change.
I do indeed hope your children will be laughing.
That is the problem Jim is by your own logic you can justify almost any course of action and claim its addressing the problem. Go to a court room sometime and watch scientific evidence be presented in almost all case both sides have experts which normally amounts to completely different options on the same set of evidence. If we can get this much disagreement on little things like hair fragments and DNA. Doesn’t it stand to reason that there should be disagreement on what the effects of global warming will be?
I’ve heard Bob talk quite a few times over the years and I think its is fair to say he doesn’t deny the Climate is Changing. The question are, How much. and are Humans Increasing the rate of change more than it would naturally be? The simple truth is the last 200 years have been remarkable stable and as humans we don’t have a long memory. We know there have been times when the earth as been warming and colder. Most people I run into worried about Global warming don’t understand this. My concern and Bob reflects this is that just as you can find a scientist to come to court and agree with your point of view. So to can government officials find scientist they agree with to justify otherwise unpopular actions.
All that said we need to study Climate we only have one earth and we sure as heck aren’t getting off it anytime soon. But if the science has been currupted we need to know that now before another generation of data is lost.
To Sayamara (no reply button there)-
But science is giving you answers to the questions you ask, to the best of its ability. So you agree climate is changing, but how much? Just today it was reported that 2011 was tied for the 10th warmest year on record, since 1850, and WMO says that 13 of the warmest years have all occurred in the past 15 years. And in the past year the US has seen 14 storms that cost over $1B each. The stability you speak of is not in the recent past.
And you seem to try to make the point that the difference of opinion in science is 50/50. Not even close. The clear majority, by far, say the earth is warming, man plays a significant role in that warming, and that we all should be concerned about it. In that imaginary courtroom you speak of, if you had one scientist with one particular view, but 10 who believed just the opposite, you seem to think the one should get equal weight. Not in my courtroom.
Could the one be right and the ten wrong? Of course. But I would not bet on it. Most often the ten will be correct.
All of you are just simply rolling the dice that most scientists are wrong, and you are gambling with not your future, but our kids and grandkids future. And they have no voice at the table yet. You better be right…I don’t think you are.
> APS notes that virtually all reputable scientists agree with the following observations:
>
> Carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere due to human activity;
> Carbon dioxide is an excellent infrared absorber, and therefore, its increasing presence in the atmosphere contributes to global warming;
> and the dwell time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is hundreds of years.
No actualy thats almost what they agree.
Carbon dioxide has been increasing in the atmosphere PARTLY due to human activity – though its not clear how much of the increase is from humans actions and how much is due to ocean warming since the little ice age ended about 200 years ago.
Carbon dioxide is an infrared absorber, but is considered a very small player amoung the much more effective infared absorbers in the atmosphere. Global temperture changes doNOT correlate to earlier increases in atmospheric CO2 changes, but CO2 changes correltae very well to previous global temperature changes. The oposite of what was thought previously. For example about 90% of all fossel fuels ever consumed by humans have been consumed since WW-II, but the highest recorded temp year was 1934 (which is agreed to even by Hansen who is the father of global warming as a topic.
The dwell time of carbon dioxide is not centuries. Watching the huge spikes from big volcanic eruptions shows the global CO2 levels drop down from those spikes in months to years, not centuries.
CO2 as a greenhouse gas is in fact smaller than water vapor in the atmosphere, but it is the number one greenhouse gas emitted into the atmosphere by man (approx. 55%). Is it the only contributor to global warming? Of course not. Does that mean we should ignore it? Again, of course not. And I am sure you know that one of the affects of global warming is in fact an increase in water vapor in the air.
And the debate over the exact dwell time of CO2 continues. You disagree with APS, which is fine. You would then be pleased to note, I suppose, that some of the CO2 is in fact taken out of the atmosphere (good!) by the oceans. The problem is that all that CO2 added to the oceans causes ocean acidification (bad!), which is leading to coral destruction and the decline in marine life.
And 1934 was not the warmest year on record. 2010 and 2005 were the warmest years on record. And the decade of 2001 to 2010 was the warmest on record.
Jim,
In this courtroom, you seem to rely on hearsay evidence. For instance, in your Nov 29 posting at 5:51, you write:
“[Munich Re’s] mathematical models about weather related disasters say that their profits will be negatively impacted if they do not deal with the reality of climate change.”
Can you discuss cspecifics of these models, for example what is the role of the sun in these models?
Philip-
Not hearsay at all, but good try. Thanks for your interest, and a simple google of Munich Re would have set you straight, but allow me to do it.
You see, Munich Re is an insurance firm, so they insure their clients against damage. They say this on their webpage:
“Risks are becoming more complex and new risks are constantly emerging. It is becoming increasingly important for companies to rely on a strong partner who will help them to find solutions that reduce their risks while securing their financial strength and innovative capacity over the long term. This is precisely what Risk Solutions offers you. ”
Check out this page for their thoughts on climate change:
http://www.munichre.com/en/group/focus/climate_change/research/data_facts_background/default.aspx
One of the things they have done is formed a partnership with the London School of Economics to address the issue of climate change, which you can read about here:
http://www.munichre.com/en/group/focus/climate_change/research/lse/default.aspx
They say:
“The cooperation agreement will focus on the following areas: quantifying the costs of a climate-related increase in natural catastrophes; dealing with the uncertainties of climate models; evaluating the potential and consequences of emissions trading systems and the appropriate design of such schemes; and estimating the economic impacts of climate change on the BRIC states (Brazil, Russia, India, China). ”
The words you may want to read, Philip, are “quantifying the costs of climate related catastrophes.” Thats modeling. Thats mathematics. They also say “If we act strongly now we can, at a cost of one or two per cent of GDP, reduce those risks to just a few per cent. That is very sensible insurance.” How do they know that? Modeling.
But here is the page you really would want to check out, as it explains some of their products related to climate change:
http://www.munichre.com/corporate-responsibility/en/strategy-challenges/challenges/climate-change/default.aspx
Here they say:
“In the financial and insurance sector, Munich Re is a pioneer in analysing the consequences of climate change….Such concentrated competence is a huge help in opening up new fields of business and developing innovative cover concepts for adapting to the effects of climate change….To smooth our transition to a low-CO2 society, Munich Re is developing insurance products aimed specifically at promoting climate protection.”
And they also say:
“The stage was set by an initial session on modelling climate variability and change under the perspective of the modelling uncertainties involved.”
http://www.munichre.com/en/group/focus/climate_change/research/putting_knowledge_into_practice/default.aspx
If all that is too much to read, just check out this video where Peter Hoeppe speaks of their work in this regard:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmQs9ItjvNs
Hope this all helps.
By the way, they are not the only insurance firm doing this. Check out this pdf on the modeling done by Insurance Australia Group
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/IAG-Climate_Change_Paper.pdf
By the way, Philip, you will have to find your own insurance firm that models the suns affects on climate change. I have not seen any.
But look at the history of Science at 60 years ago the clear major of geologist would have told you that tectonic plates are rubbish most of those scientist didn’t change there theory’s even after it was clear the old models were shown to be wrong. In time the old guard retired and died. If you look at where we are at right now there is a lot more money is proving that global warming is man made so there should be more scientists saying this. The history of Science is that even when I theory is wrong people hang on to it not because they know its right but because they are invested in it. Now as you say this doesn’t prove global warming is man made or not but the reality of human nature is people are stubborn and you could have clear evidence one way or another and I bet you most scientist who are invested in one side of argument or the other don’t change there minds.
As to gambling with the future, we are all answerable to our self in the end for our actions and our words. We clearly disagree but its ok if your convinced they you should be working hard to stop the future you fear. For my part I think theRepublicans a party I’m a member of should work harder to promote conservation and the reasonable use of resources. Even if Global warming doesn’t get us we still need to leave something behind for those that follow us. I think there is common ground to be found. The key is as always being reasonable and open to talking things out, and knowing that in the real world outside of models and graphs there are people and I still believe given a change people are at there hearts good and reasonable.
Philip-
My detailed response to you was taken down, along with links to the appropriate pages. Let me suggest you go to Munich Re’s website. On it there are 3 different pages that detail all their thoughts on climate change, their dual effort with the London School of Economics to create models that reflect that in their business, as well as their insurance products that they have created after such analysis and modeling. Its fairly detailed, and should answer your question.
By the way, Munich Re is one of the largest insurance firms in the world, employing over 55,000 people.
> = The problem is that all that CO2 added to the oceans causes ocean acidification (bad!), which is leading to coral destruction and the decline in marine life.
Ah, no. The quantities of CO2 in the atmospher isn’t enough to signifocantly alter the ocean salinity. Also, it gets consumed by plankton adn stuff.
> And 1934 was not the warmest year on record. 2010 and 2005 were the warmest years on record. =
Not according to NOAA and even Dr. Hansen, the father (and major priter) of the global warming theory.
Thanks for your reasoned and thoughtful response. I do not disagree with anything you say, but would ask you to clarify one point.
Agreements-
I saddens me that the party of conservation and value of natural resources, the Republicans (see Richard Nixon, Teddy Roosevelt, et. al.), is now so negligent in this area.
Also, we all, as you hope for, better be reasonable. There is no hope if we are not. Thanks for reminding me that I too should be reasonable…message heard.
Point for clarification-
Please tell me how you arrive at the conclusion that there is money behind the calls to combat climate change. That is a point made often on this website, and I keep waiting for proof of such a claim. How is it possible that reputable organizations such as the National Academy of Science, one of the groups we have depended on for 150 years to advise us, is bought off? I don’t believe it, Sayomara, but I remain open to be convinced.
One other point.
Just today I saw this article about the undue melting of the permafrost
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/story/2011-11-30/warming-permafrost-climate-change-global-warming/51512986/1
It seems to me, that you may be suggesting that everytime I read something like this, I am to assume that this group of permafrost scientists is also bought off.
Kelly
25% of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere gets absorbed by plants, 25% by the oceans. Those are the numbers. You can look it up.
Here is a great article about a study on CO2 being absorbed into oceans, and its potential effects. May not worry you, but it does me:
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=12904
It says:
“Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the average pH of ocean surface waters has decreased approximately 0.1 unit — from about 8.2 to 8.1 — making them more acidic. Models project an additional 0.2 to 0.3 drop by the end of the century. This rate of change exceeds any known to have occurred in hundreds of thousands of years, the report says. The ocean will become more acidic on average as surface waters continue to absorb atmospheric CO2, the committee said.”
By the way, at the end it provides a brief description of the groups responsible for the study.
Kelly
Wrong on NOAA and warmest years. They say 2010 and 2005. Check it out
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110112_globalstats.html
> 25% of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere gets absorbed by plants, 25% by the oceans. ==
And of course also by plants in the ocean
>== “Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the average pH of ocean surface waters has decreased approximately
> 0.1 unit — from about 8.2 to 8.1 — making them more acidic. Models project an additional 0.2 to 0.3 drop by the end of the century.
Obviously not caused by human emmisions – since they were overwelmingly after WW-II. MOst likely due to glacial melt at the end of the little ice age – presumably returning to its pre litle ice age norm?
Hey, Kelly, we’re on real time here! Hope you’re having a great day.
No, the industrial revolution also includes coal, burnt by man.
;) Finishing my last week on a job so its actually quiet.
Yes coal was burned, but in a trivial scale compared to post WW-II total fossel fuel scales of consumption. Major global industrialization, as well as a dramaticly increased size of the population.
Anyway given the major expansion of g;laciers during the little ice age, and their return to historic sizes now (a boom for medeval arciologists) you would expect a decline in salinity. Obviously the mass of thousands? of cubic miles of ice, would do more to ocean salinity then the comparativly small mass of CO2 emitted by man.
Hey, I’ve tried. Peace to you, and hope the next job is right around the corner.
Yup, next Monday. Contractors life.
As to global waming and CO2 – data and facts Jim.
;)
And as Sgt. Joe Friday said,
“All we know are the facts, ma’am.”
Uh oh, now I’m dating myself. If you don’t know Joe, look him up
Back up! Thanks, Robert.
A Jack Webb production.
;)
You’re the best. God bless you… look at that…believer and skeptic finding common ground. There is hope yet.
Thanks for the links (which were apparently restored). I would still ask for details on their models, which are not included on the links you provided. And, as optimistic as I am, I have to presume that forecasts of catastrophe will certainly cause Munich Re to increase premiums.
Hope they were helpful to you…unfortunately, not being an employee I would not be able to provide any further detail…although I do think that they clearly indicate the approach they take.
Have a good one.
I’m secretly trying to put you off your gard to attack later.
;)
As for common ground – look up the Polywell fusion reactors the Navy is funding. I think we’ld both support that.
;)
Yeah, well you still suck…. “;2)
Just kidding, Jim. You are polite, good-humoured, and relatively rational.
I did not take it wrong, Philip. I knew it was in jest, and I like to laugh as well. We all better be able to talk this through or we are in serious trouble. Drop the “relatively” and you described how I hope to have come across!