BPSDB One of the supposedly most damning quotes from the CRU Hack “scandal” is:
“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”
Phil Jones
which the Deniers are citing as “proof positive” or data alteration , falsification, etc.
I suggested that, as with all of the other quotes, as they stood it didn’t actually say anything one way or another. Having worked in the sciences I said that to me it sounded like someone discussing a clever technique from the journal Nature for dealing with statistical noise or something of that sort.
Since then we learn that:
Mann said the “trick” Jones referred to was placing a chart of proxy temperature records, which ended in 1980, next to a line showing the temperature record collected by instruments from that time onward. “It’s hardly anything you would call a trick,” Mann said, adding that both charts were differentiated and clearly marked.
Hackers steal electronic data from top climate research center
and that (emphasis added)
The “decline” refers to the “divergence problem”. This is where tree ring proxies diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. The divergence problem is discussed as early as 1998, suggesting a change in the sensitivity of tree growth to temperature in recent decades (Briffa 1998). It is also examined more recently in Wilmking 2008 which explores techniques in eliminating the divergence problem. So when you look at Phil Jone’s email in the context of the science discussed, it is not the schemings of a climate conspiracy but technical discussions of data handling techniques available in the peer reviewed literature.
UPDATE Nov 24th: see also “Hacked emails, tree-ring proxies and blogospheric confusion”
UPDATE Dec 4: Potholer54 documents in his video how “trick” is a term regularly used in this sense even in the peer reviewed literature itself.
exactly as I speculated. Why did I think that? because that’s exactly how it sounds when scientists have that particular discussion. That, and there was no decline to hide from 1981 to 2000, so it made absolutely no sense the way the Deniers were trying to spin it.
Here is the CRU data compared to 3 independent data sets
Notice how:
- they are not different from one another?
- there is no temperature decline from 1981 onwards to hide?
Every profession evolves it’s own way of speaking as well as a specialised vocabulary. A soldier listening to soldiers speaking will understand much more about what is being said and meant than someone else, even if that other person knows all of the vocabulary. Ditto pizza cooks, day care workers, court clerks or brick layers.
Which is why scientists are spectacularly unimpressed with the emails being evidence of anything much at all. It”s not that they are “circling the wagons” and “protecting their own” (as I have seen some suggest). They just “understand the language.” Not simply the words, but the structure and patterns that make up the “scientific dialect.” Even Denier Patrick Michaels said the emails were “just the way scientists talk” (although he has apparently now gotten “on msg” with the rest of the Denier choir).
And for context on how scientists talk and what they talk about, this essay is absolutely brilliant, an absolute MUST READ:
Manipulation of evidence:
I wrote to you on Tuesday that the last leafe of the papers you sent me should be altered because it refers to a manuscript in my private custody & not yet upon record.
Newton to Keill, May 15 1674
Newtongate: the final nail in the coffin of Renaissance and Enlightenment ‘thinking’
Which is not to say that there isn’t some grounds for humiliation and embarrassment in the emails. Nate Silver does a nice discussion of Jones talking about “sexing up” a slide for presentation, but as Silver summarizes:
“I don’t know how you get from some scientist having sexed up a graph in East Anglia ten years ago to The Final Nail In The Coffin of Anthropogenic Global Warming. Anyone who comes to that connection has more screws loose than the Space Shuttle Challenger.”
I Read Through 160,000,000 Bytes of Hacked Files And All I Got Was This Lousy E-Mail
And as previously noted, Silver is not the only one to come to that conclusion:
Now that more and more people outside of the Denier camp have had a chance to actually read the emails there is feeling of being hugely underwhelmed.
“This stuff might drive some web traffic, but so does David Icke.”
“There is no smoking gun, but just a lot of smoke without fire.“
Which is not to say that this will not have political ramifications. It has certainly galvanized the Denialosphere and the Earthsuckers. It’s the same kind of vacuous garbage that the Deniers have been pushing for years, and they have found a market for it.
On the plus side, from what I have seen in the more public domain a lot of people are so jaded by the Denier lies that they are rejecting this one as well. As such I think it is important for the rest of us to be open and honest about what is in the emails (ie not much) and give the lack of content a high profile. We mustn’t appear to be trying to suppress them, but rather encouraging people to look for themselves (here’s that link again).
” … a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.“ Macbeth, from Act 5, Scene 5
That being said, it’s just another Denier storm like Monckton’s APS article (ie lots of noise, no substance) and needs to be handled as such.
“When you read through the many global warming skeptic arguments, a pattern emerges. Each skeptic argument misleads by focusing on one small piece of the puzzle while ignoring the broader picture. To focus on a few suggestive emails while ignoring the wealth of empirical evidence for manmade global warming is yet another repeat of this tactic.”
“Over the 20th century, ocean temperatures in the North Atlantic main development region warmed during peak hurricane season, with the most pronounced warming occurring over the last four decades.” Earth GaugeWe give our consent every moment that we do not resist.
Comment Policy
Comments that are not relevant to the post that they appear under or the evolving discussion will simply be deleted, as will links to Denier spam known to be scientific gibberish
- The “Mostly” Open Thread” is for general climate discussion that is not relevant to a particular post. Spam and abuse rules still apply;
- The “Challenging the Core Science” Comment Thread is for comments that purport to challenge the core science of anthropogenic climate change.
Greenfyre's 
That’s also the impression I get. The inactivits either have to bring out their concern troll sockpuppets, or retreat to their familiar old talking points. There’s no real outrage, just manufactured outrage, and they know it.
— bi
—-
“hide the decline” literally says to hide it using ACTUAL REAL data – hmm, what?
That’s right, ice core and tree ring data from the other two research projects showed a larger decline than actual NOAA/GISS/etc. data, so the real, actual data had to be added in order to correct the INCORRECT decline shown by some of the other studies.
From 1960 on, ice core, tree ring, and actual NOAA temperature samplings were plotted to create a line graph. “Normalizing” the data plots from all three studies gives a mean average which can validate ice core and tree ring sampling data before NOAA records exist.
That was the entirety of what was being said in those e-mails and it is unfortunate the hackers were smart enough to steal e-mails but not smart enough to interpret the science being discussed.
The point is the tree ring data isn’t a good proxy and therefore their algorithms for judging correlation work when the fudge things by truncating the data.
They chopped the decline therefore resulting in an upward slope at then end. Guess what, that causes a spurious correlation with rising measurements. You absolutely cannot then go and use tree rings to predict temperatures thousands of years in the past. It doesn’t even for for the past forty years.
In other words it’s garbage science. Tree rings don’t follow temperatures. That’s what they were hiding.
Code provided along with the emails are confirming the attempted “hide the decline”
I liked this little gem.
(For intYear = 1400 to 2009;
floatGlobalMeanTemerature = floatGlobalMeanTemperature + WHATEVER_THE_HELL_YOU_WANT_IT_TO_BE;
intYear++)
I don’t know where you dug this up from, but it isn’t valid code. Either you made it up or your source did.
Which was it?
Actually, it might be pseudo-code, intended to convey meaning to another programmer without the strict rules of a real language. If so, it will produce a linearly increasing set of data points where the slope is WHATEVER_THE_HELL_YOU_WANT_IT_TO_BE per year. Anyone seen any temperature graphs that look like this for the period in question, anywhere? I haven’t seen any temperature graph of physical measurements or proxies anywhere that remotely looks like the temperature increases smoothly over the last 600 years. It would be a meaningless line; just as a linear regression of non-linear data would be. Which might explain why the author indicates that the slope for this line doesn’t really matter. The line might have some purpose, but one could only speculate; how this is to be used is not provided in context.
Once I found that performance was better if I shifted graphical objects way over past the right of the screen (and back) rather than making them invisible (as far as the graphics engine was concerned). The constant I declared for the this position made it easy to think of putting the objects way out in LIMBAUGH.
It looks to me, a coder, that this is yet another example of specialists talking to each other in their own jargon.
Good answer, Chris. 🙂
But I think even as pseudo-code it fails – at least it fails to do what the deniers claim, and probably fails to do what the author (whover he or she was) intended. 🙂
Look at it again:
Let’s simplify it a bit, by replacing:
This then produces
The suggestion is that this adds WH to MT 610 times, but the way the instruction is formatted means that it only happens once.
Non-coders might also be forgiven for thinking that at the end of the loop Y = 2009 – but in fact it is 2010.
The Y++ is redundant in a for .. to loop, since Y gets incremented automatically (unless you really want to jump two years at a time) – but in this example it isn’t even in the loop.
A better construct would be:
If you think I’m wrong please say so – but in any language I’ve worked with the brackets (braces?) in the original snippet are clearly in the wrong place and the
Y++ statement should not be there.
Hiding? You’d then wonder why all these aspects are discussed in the scientific literature, including in textbooks on dendrochronology.
Please, Brian Macker, be the first ‘skeptic’ that can explain this blatant discrepancy of hiding something that is extensively discussed in the literature.
Or maybe he could be the latest ‘skeptic’ to admit that he doesn’t know what the fuck he’s talking about?
That would be refreshing.
Yep. Look how hidden well it was hidden:
Those sneaky bastards!
I just wanted to say from the perspective of a fellow scientist (molecular biology) who was on the sidelines for a long time I have been, as a hobby, trying to learn about all the science behind the debate.
I’ve always thought that the basic physics made no sense concerning CO2 induced warming but I didn’t think basic physics was climate science and tried to understand the complexities. The question it lead me to was – Why can’t I find enough information to satisfy my scientific enquiry? [1]
After a few days of reading I found whatsupwiththat and the reasonable requests made for FOI. They were rejected through elitest self serving means and it displays that legal issues were a problem for CRU trying to stifle anyone trying to obtain the methods used.
I understand you want to downplay any corruption of any individual because you believe in the cause more than a lone criminal action. However, you have also placed your cause above science and the scientific methods whereby the process of science is limited to within their own community. From my own experience and everything I have viewed I am unconvinced that the scientific method was followed in what I believe to be its natural interpretation.
As people who are quite an insulting community of people I will now adjust my position to being a sceptic and I don’t mind your libel. I’m just telling you how I think you appear to other moderate scientists who know about scientific process (with no climatology degree). I’ve read about 1/100th of the emails now I suppose and although its taking a lot of time I consider like a detective novel, its quite interesting when you finally find something relevant. I have somehow managed to find more than you did at issue with the emails.
I can see the deliberate and orchestrated collusion between (one person in particular) and others who are more like pawns. The cross purposes achieve an action but they are complicit in the act of diverting normal scientific procedure into a streamlined result driven process.
That’s just my opinion I am not a climatologist and have no care to change anyones opinion, I just wanted to know myself what was going on.
—-
[1] I suppose I opened myself up to your incredulity by saying I don’t mind your libel. [1] Turned out I do, it was unsatisfactory. Please save your pathetic rhetoric of my opening reply with how something I said was unsatisfactory.
Maybe I was insulting, I probably shouldn’t have said pawns – a bit derogatory, my apologies. It was meant to be more like people who are climatologists or other affiliated scientists were inducted or expelled from a network of scientists into institutions with agendas – this is a psychological phenomenon. These scientists who are not consciously in a conspiracy or liars or anything as heinous as this did however feel validated by their moral superiority to undermine the normal process in bits and pieces. It was established via a stepwise process of collaboration with other authority which could establish their own similar needs such as journal reviewers..
It seems you expected a string of emails explaining indepth analysis of a conspiracy and how elaborate interweaving of connections is required to explain the derelict of duty scientists must observe to be complicit in a singly motivated theme (such as always resolving CO2 as being the only explanation for such high amounts of warming). You deliberately dumb down counter argument to knock it down which is no discussion at all.
No, I am a scientist. I am no longer responding.
Hope that was clearer.
Thankyou,
Marvin.
—-
George Monbiot explains it all.
“I hope that was clearer”
Here is clearer. ‘Marvin the Martian’ on physics and other science forums is concerned that climate scientists are “trying to scam us out of trillions of dollars” and are trying to “fake a crisis to move trillions of dollars OUT of the US and into Red China.”
Related concerns for Marvin are that “the IPCC funds them. [1] The IPCC does not fund research that contradicts their conclusion of AGW. The IPCC fought against the Danish government funding
Svensmark” and “the UN General assembly controls the IPCC, is controlled by the 3rd world states that will profit from this fraud.” Blah blah “left wing religion” Blah and “there is no evidence and no physics to show that humans cause more than a trivial amount of warming… a ton of evidence to show that there have been many natural cooling and warming trends in the past. The current warming trend, which began with the end of the last ice age, couldn’t possibly have been human caused.” Blah and more Svensmark.
You see the trouble. 😦
—-
Marvin said:
Well Marvin, my view is that insulting dishonest people is far lesser a sin than the dishonesty shown by all the scientifically illiterate deniers
I personally do not think that it is insulting to call a liar a liar, but then I am a scientist who is just fed up with all the anti-science, anti-scientist venom issuing from denier HQ.
Marvin,
I suggest you read a basic undergraduate textbook written for non scientists:
Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast by David Archer.
The basic physics behind the greenhouse effect (enhanced or not) were nailed down by Fourier and Tyndall 150 friggin’ years ago. Of course they were probably part of the conspiracy too. Right?
Been too busy with my own research to give a flying rat’s ass about this, but here’s my 4 cents:
1) All that crap and the best CA, WUWT (or in James Annan’s words, Wattatwat) and the usual denial media op-eds and bloggers can come up with is to take two quotes out of context to “conclusively” show that AGW is a hoax? O RLY?
2) Does the hack mean that there is a seismic shift in public opinion? Highly unlikely. If it really was anything more than a goddamn mountain out of a molehill, this would have been front-page news on CNN, BBC, AP, CBS, ABC, NBC etc. It hasn’t and it won’t. In fact, ABC’s Evening News person of the week on Friday was a photographer documenting rainforest decline from climate change.
If anything, the more relevant news I’ve seen so far focused on the criminal aspect of the hack rather than the contents of the email.
3) Kudos to Gavin for calmly responding to the trolls on RC. Contrast that to the snarky eff-off tone from McI or Watts as shown their blogs in past instances.
4) Just speculating, but I would not be at all surprised (a) if the ru55ian haxors were payrolled by big oil or (b) a retributive strike by some haxors on servers of a major denialist blog or oil company occurs over the weeks before COP-15.
—-
Here is what I posted over at realclimate.org (along with Gavin’s reply. It pretty much tells you all you need to know about global-warming “skeptics”.
####################################
Under Hansen, the NASA/GISS data and source code have been freely available on-line for years. And all of the sceptics’ scrutiny of said data has uncovered only one or two minor “glitches” that have had minimal impact.
Just a quick question (or two) to Gavin, if you feel the need to spend even more of your weekend downtime answering questions here.
Given that all of your climate-modeling source-code has been available for public scrutiny for quite a long time, and given that anyone can download and test it out, how many times have climate-model critics have actually submitted patches to improve your modeling code, fix bugs, etc? Have you gotten *any* constructive suggestions from the skeptic camp?
[Response: Not a single one. – gavin]
—-
Tech insight from Slashdot – basically saying how dumb it was to hack a site and then release a selective subset of the data. In other words, why not release everthing?
http://politics.slashdot.org/story/09/11/20/1747257/Climatic-Research-Unit-Hacked-Files-Leaked?art_pos=6
—-
OffTopic…
Tonight I start my 24 hour fast in solidarity with the Climate Justice folks and just want to say how humbled and disgusted I am with myself that I feel even a twinge of nervousness about faithfully not eating for a day, considering how many people are involuntarily eating less for longer.
Thanks Greenfyre for organizing this action.
I realized tonight it’s not so much going foodless, or following water-only, no glass of wine in the evening but I totally forgot, no cup of coffee in the morning!
Coooooofffeeeeee!
Sorry, a bit of attempt at humor. But what I am really thinking about is, those folks who have committed to a long fast and how they are faring.
—-
[…] as per typical, has multiple discussions worth the read. About “Mike’s Nature Trick …” Every profession evolves it’s own way of speaking as well as a specialised vocabulary. A soldier […]
Re: “Now that more and more people outside of the Denier camp have had a chance to actually read the emails there is feeling of being hugely underwhelmed.”
Do you really think two quotes from the Grauniad constitute satisfactory proof of this statement?
Saying they are “outside the Denier camp” would be roughly equivalent to saying “David Duke is outside the NAACP camp.”
—-
“…Mike’s Nature trick…”
I remember the word “trick” from long ago college level math, chemistry and physics 101s, and engineering courses. Part of the education was the theory. The other part was learning (1) the type of resulting problems, and (2) how to solve them.
When the technique was seemingly distant from the theory, it was a “clever technique”, i.e., a “trick”.
From one’s repertoire of solved problems (incl Schaum’s), exam preparation was partiality the memorizing of such “tricks”.
From which I conclude–after generalizing my own experience–that any website that extends “tricks” to “fraud” is either:
(1) no science beyond high school, or
(2) as dishonest as generally described.
And now I read, from above:
Mann said the “trick” Jones referred to was placing a chart of proxy temperature records, which ended in 1980, next to a line showing the temperature record collected by instruments from that time onward…both charts were differentiated and clearly marked.
(Washington Post, Nov 21, 2009)
Words fail…
[…] have said it’s just a way to make the data look pretty, or that “trick” is just the natural jargon. Needless to say, the truth is a bit more […]
Stop with the denial.
The emails appear to be real. [1] At RealClimate, Gavin Schmidt has stated that the emails he’s seen haven’t been altered, and none of that authors of the emails have said that the emails are fake, in part or whole.
The contents of the emails show a deeply unprofessional attitude.
It’s long been clear to me that something is wrong with the science coming out of the IPCC.
The denial has been in the AGW camp, I’m afraid to say. The IPCC predictions have been disproved by multiple satellite measurements of the Earth’s radiation budget. The findings on the role of cosmic rays in influencing cloud formation, having survived initial challenges, are also a powerful and unanswered challenge to the AGW hypothesis of a powerful CO2 feedback.
This is my evaluation, which encompasses a significant review of the scientific literature.
—-
The denial has been in the AGW camp, I’m afraid to say.
You should listen to your fear. It’s apparently smarter than you.
Citations follow, as requested.
On Earth’s radiation budget, from satellite observations:
Pierce D. W., T. P. Barnett, E. J. Fetzer, P. J. Gleckler (2006), Three-dimensional tropospheric water vapor in coupled climate models compared with observations from the AIRS satellite system, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L21701, doi:10.1029/2006GL027060.
John, V.O. and Soden, B. J., Temperature and humidity biases in global climate models and their impact on climate feedbacks, Geophys.Res. Lett., 34, L18704, doi:10.1029/2007GL030429
Gettleman, Collins, Fetzer, Eldering, Irion (2006), Climatology of Upper-Tropospheric Relative Humidity from the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder and Implications for Climate, J. Climate, 19, 6104-6121. DOI: 10.1175/JCLI3956.1
Wielicki, B.A., Wong, T., Allan, R.P., Slingo, A., Kiehl, J.T., Soden, B.J., Gordon, C.T., Miller, A.J., Yang, S.-K., Randall, D.A., Robertson, F., Susskind, J. and Jacobowitz, H. 2002. Evidence for large decadal variability in the tropical mean radiative energy budget. Science 295: 841-844.
Chen, J., Carlson, B.E. and Del Genio, A.D. 2002. Evidence for strengthening of the tropical general circulation in the 1990s. Science 295: 838-841.
For a recent review of the papers finding evidence for the cosmic ray influence on climate, please refer to “Cosmoclimatology: a new theory emerges” (Svensmark 2007)
Click to access Svensmark.pdf
A useful summary of why this is a red herring can be found here.
jaimymoore, that’s an oversimplification. According to Nir Shaviv, there was a decreasing trend from 50’s-70’s and an increasing trend from the 70’s-90’s (together, giving the ‘no trend’ for that period). Recently, NASA announced record levels of GCR, connected to the present strong solar minimum (currently a century-class minimum).
The most significant trend to consider, though, is the long-term one, and its effects on the Earth’energy equlibrium.
The Sun’s magnetic field is known to have increased greatly during the first half of the 20th century. Even though there’s been no trend if one considers the last 50 years, the actual level is still unprecedently high. This higher level means that Earth will still be heating until it reaches (towards) an equilibrium temperature.
There were significant global temperature decreases during the last powerful solar minimae (Dalton and Maunder). The estimates of changes in TSI can’t account for all the temperature change, so a feedback or additional mechanism seems likely, and there’s good evidence that such a mechanism exists in solar-modulated GCR flux affecting cloud formation.
oneuniverse, you seem to be mixing up sloar irradiance and GCR’s.
If you believe that the “sun’s the thing”, why is this year so hot when using your examples it should be as cool as during the Maunder and Dalton mimima?
Methinks there is a flaw in your argument. Could that flaw have anything to do with increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere?
Ian, I don’t think I’m confusing TSI and GCRs. Greater solar magentic field strength means fewer GCRs make it to Earth, leading to fewer low-level clouds, and so more received sunshine.
The current solar minimum is, while century class, only a few years old – it would have to stay at a minimum for at least five years to be able to approach the Maunder or Dalton periods.
Solar activity, in magnetic strength and radiant output, has been increasing since about 1700, the end of the Maunder Minimum. There was a significant dip in the early 18th cenury (Dalton Minimum), but the increase continued until about mid-20th century, where it has remained at its Modern Maximum (although it has of course continued the 11-yearish cycle, which itself has it’s own variations in strength and period, short cycles exhibiting more intense magnetic activity).
The two large solar minimums correspond to cold periods in the global temperature record, and the modern solar maximum of the 20th centurty is also noted for its warmth.
The following recent paper is significant:
“Cosmic ray decreases affect atmospheric aerosols and clouds” (Svensmark, Bondo, Svensmark 2009, GRL)
Abstract: “Close passages of coronal mass ejections from the sun are signaled at the Earth’s surface by Forbush decreases in cosmic ray counts. We find that low clouds contain less liquid water following Forbush decreases, and for the most influential events the liquid water in the oceanic atmosphere can diminish by as much as 7%. Cloud water content as gauged by the Special Sensor Microwave/Imager (SSM/I) reaches a minimum ≈7 days after the Forbush minimum in cosmic rays, and so does the fraction of low clouds seen by the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) and in the International Satellite Cloud Climate Project (ISCCP). Parallel observations by the aerosol robotic network AERONET reveal falls in the relative abundance of fine aerosol particles which, in normal circumstances, could have evolved into cloud condensation nuclei. Thus a link between the sun, cosmic rays, aerosols, and liquid-water clouds appears to exist on a global scale.”
Also, solar activity has been at its highest since 8,000 years ago, from 14C in tree-rings:
Solanki, S.K., I.G. Usoskin, B. Kromer, M. Schüssler and J. Beer. 2004. An unusually active Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years. Nature, Vol. 431, No. 7012, pp.1084-1087, 28 October 2004.
Data for above paper viewable at:
http://gcmd.nasa.gov/records/GCMD_NOAA_NCDC_PALEO_2005-015.html
Usoskin et al. (2005) say that the sun activity is not correlated with temperature since the mid-1970s:
“during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source.”
Click to access c153.pdf
In the emails I read a conspiracy to evade Freedom of Information requests, conspiracy to suppress dissenting scientific studies, conspiracy to manipulate scientific journals, conspiracy to falsify data.
Hey, where did KirkOlson go?
He’s buggered off.
[…] Greenfyre made a similar point here. […]
[…] Greenfyre made a similar point here. […]
The divergence was a real problem for them that they avoided by ignoring it. When they are trying to validate their tree ring proxies against real temperatures it is ludicrous to trunicate and substitute real temps.
You have to be a complete mathematical idiot to think that using Mike’s “nature trick” is a valid “trick”.
Are you a moron too?
The whole reason the need to “hide the decline” is because if you include it then the supposed temperature proxies, tree ring data, don’t correlate to measured temperatures. No correlation means that the data is not a valid proxy. So the whole point of the “trick” is to manufacture a spurious correlation, aka false correlation.
Michael Mann is incompetent, or dishonest for using such a method.
In addition, the whole idea of trying to correlate physical proxies from Siberia with global temperatures is also idiotic. There is no possible physical mechanism by which a tree (or trees) in Siberia could measure global average temperatures. So even without the truncation to produce a spurious correlation we know that any correlation against global temperature is spurious in the first place.
This ludicrous belief that trees sense global average temperatures is called teleconnect. What’s worse for climatalogists is that they belittle the Medieval Warming Period as being a local phenomena, and therefore not representative of global temps. Talk about having contradictory beliefs.
Tell you what. Since so many climatologists claim to agree with IPCC based on their peer review, and that is based in large part on this nonsense then I have a challenge.
I challenge climatologists to produce an instrument that had it been placed in a single locale anywhere on earth will correlate to global average temperature but not to local conditions. Your instrument can use whatever input it wants, rainfall, sunshine, mercury expansion, air pressure, whatever.
You couldn’t design that if you wanted and certainly there is no selective pressure on trees to measure global temperatures, so evolution isn’t going to design one either.
Brian Macker, you don’t really understand much about tree rings, do you?
In fact the divergence problem is only associated with a very small number of trees from one particular place. These are the rings reported by Briffa.
Since his original papers there has been a recent paper published which explains why these particular trees were abnormal in their temperature response. As originally thought, there were other factors involved at that particular location.
“Recent unprecedented tree-ring growth in bristlecone
pine at the highest elevations and possible causes”.
Matthew W. Salzer, Malcolm K. Hughes, Andrew G. Bunn, and Kurt F. Kipfmueller
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/11/13/0903029106.full.pdf+html
Ack! I’m circling the wagons and pointing the guns inward on this one. I really, really hate reading comments from people who are putatively on “my side” showing just as much ignorance as those from the septic side when they point to the science.
This paper has nothing to do with the divergence problem as mentioned in Briffa, et. al. 1998. I recently posted a comment here explaining what this paper was about and what the findings were.
The divergence problem which Briffa observed in his MXD data has since been observed at a variety of high latitude sites in both MXD and ring width series. This effect is by no means observed at all sites. At some interior Alaskan sites D’Arrigo has attributed it to precipitation becoming the new limiting factor, but this is not true for all sites which exhibit this behavior.
If you want to point to the science, get it right.
—-
IPCC 4AR, ch. 6 pp 472 – 473.
The D’Arrigo paper I was thinking of is:
D’Arrigo, R.D., et al., 2004: Thresholds for warming-induced growth
decline at elevational tree line in the Yukon Territory, Canada. Global
Biogeochem. Cycles, 18(3), GB3021, doi:10.1029/2004GB002249.
The graph itself was only based on a very small number of trees. That’s why they had to hide it. Many of their claims are based on statistically insignificant number of trees.
I also understand that you can replace one set of data with another at your pleasure in a graph, or during attempts at correlation. When correlating two sets of data if you replace part of one set with the data from the other set then of course they will correlate better. Replace the entire data set with the other data set and they will always correlate 100% regardless of what either data set contains. It’s stupid to do this.
I understand enough about tree rings to realize that trees are not thermometers and even if they were could measure temperatures at other than the location where they were at.
The fact that tree ring data was not correlating to temperatures now is a blinding clue that trees don’t record temperatures and are effected by factors which you cannot control for. Without actual temperature readings one can never know when ones proxy is diverging from actual temperatures.
Besides the entire practice is ridiculous. Let’s search the entire planet till we find a group of trees that have tree ring growth that roughly correlates to global temperatures. Of course, trees next to each other will tend to respond to local rain, soil, light and other conditions. So they will closely correlate. Now despite the fact that 99.99% of the worlds trees in most location don’t correlate to global temps it is possible to search for a spurious correlation by just visiting enough sites.
You’ve essentially run an algorithm designed to find spurious correlations. Even that doesn’t work so well because some trees will be different. So what do they do? They throw those trees out, or worse throw out certain years only. Talk about a system designed to find preconceived results.
That’s why one of the climatologists in the CRU email was talking about what garbage tree ring data is. Because it is idiotic to think it works out.
[…] Greenfyre made a similar point here. […]
Really, you do not see what is wrong with this trick?
They have a temperature history based on tree rings.
From 1960 it diverges from real temperatures history measured with weather stations.
Immediate conclusion…this tree rings based temperature history is wrong. There is a problem with it. Tree rings growth is influenced by something else, unaccounted for. Same divergence may be all over the temperature history!
This history can’t be used as is, scientifically. It has to be corrected, divergence reason has to be found, or if they want to use it on a chart, it should not be anymore a single curve, but a large band accounting for uncertainty.
And what did they do? To hide the divergence and disguise this wrong history as a valid temperature reconstruction, they mix it with weather station temperature to hide the divergence. Is this a scientific approach knowing this chart is used as a base for politics to decide our future? Really you don’t see the point? Are we talking about cooking or science here?
—-
Look, the issue is simple. The tree ring data clearly proved not to show the warming the scamming frauds wanted after 1960 so the frauds substituted “proxy” data to “prove” the conclusion they started with. There’s no longer any possibility that any rational person with any science background can take these criminals seriously. They are frauds, they have bilked several nation’s taxpayers out of millions of dollars and they belong in prison. There is still no evidence that CO2 has had (in last billion years) or will have any detectable effect on global temperatures. I’ve read about 30% of the elmails so far and I am not surprised that scammers like Mann do wat scammers do, or even that frauds peddling the scam for the UN ignore the data and prop up hoaxes and frauds for money and politics, but I am shocked at how blatant and incompetent these so called “scientists” are. They insult science by calling themselves that while ignoring the scientific method and instead practicing the methods of faith healers and astrologers.
—-
WR James,
Your libel is on record.
It’s a shame that no one will consider it worth suing you.
Your ignorance and stupidity are also on record, but I don’t think you could be sued for that.
“maybe it would be best if we let gave the benefit of the doubt to the scientists.”
Being so intimately acquainted with my own ignorance, I’m willing to do this in just about every field of human endeavour. I’m simply not an expert on climate science.
On the other hand, I would like to know how you can dismiss the gravity of “Just why tree rings no longer provide useful proxy data for temperatures is not known.”
Basically, until we identify the mechanism of the divergence, we must treat data sets generated by dendrochronology in a highly suspicious manner.
I assume, however, that the whole bit of climate science doesn’t rest on the back of dendrochronology, but perhaps as a method it is itself flawed?
I intend to go get Paleoclimate and have a look at it over winter break, having sufficient background to effectively remedy my previously mentioned ignorance 🙂
As a humanities major I am in love with the fruits of the ” scientific method . ” Systemic rational scrutiny has contributed mightily to our prosperity and well being.
I am no scientist. But I do know good fiction when I see it. “Creation Science” and Freudian psychology are great fiction. Until the climate change debate becomes more empirical, rational and open, the “Global Warming Hypothesis” has all the makings of great fiction.
Some proponents of Greenhouse gas regulations act as if they believe that we don’t have time to nail down the science. They may be correct. That would make them good storytellers, not good scientists. [1]
—-
That’s ‘systematic’ rational scrutiny.
In the interests of rationality and the spirit of the humanities, I question why someone would feel it is best to overlook the overwhelming evidence of climate change cited by the world’s climate scientists; how someone could be blind to the observable observable impacts; and why someone would have no compassion for millions of people who live in regions with no resources for mitigation or assistance to victims.
I question the ‘fruits’ of that education. 😦
Martha, we share the same compassion for your “millions … with no resources.”
As we both know, the unintended consequences of “helping” these millions falls into the unpredictable field of the imprecise social sciences.
Among other possible adverse consequences; we risk ruining the greatest wealth producing society in the history of mankind for what reads like great fiction ; your unproved “Man Caused Global Warming Hypothesis ? ”
—-
The email referred to the cover graph on the WMO report, where they most certainly did not clearly indicate what was instrumental and what was proxy.
On 12/ 8 Greenfrye sez: “… Provide substantive evidence for credible doubt about climate change… ”
O.K. , Fair ’nuff.
The IPCC relied on CRU raw data which was thrown out and can not be reproduced.
There is your ” substantive evidence for credible doubt.”
My tenth grade teacher of the scientific method taught us:
” if results can not be reproduced, it isin’t science.”
If your opponents had lost their raw data I am certain that
you would be doubtful of the science.
—-
Greenfrye: “… If you have any valid points based on peer reviewed science, fine…”
Two valid points based peer review literature ;
1. Christy, J.R., and R.W. Spencer. J. Geophys. Res. 1999
“… temperature observations since 1979 are in dispute. On the one hand, surface observations with conventional thermometers show a rise of about 0.1°C per decade, less than half that predicted by most GCMs. On the other hand, satellite data, as well as independent data from balloon-borne radiosondes, show no warming trend between 1979 and 1997 in the lower troposphere, and could even indicate a slight cooling … ”
2. Cess, R.D., G.L. Potter, et. al., Cloud Feedback in Atmospheric General Circulation Models. J. Geophys. Res. 101, 12,791-12,794, 1996.
“…the large discrepancy between model results and observations of temperature trends (whether from satellites or from the surface) demands an explanation. The twenty or so models developed around the world by expert groups differ among themselves by large factors. Their “climate sensitivities” (defined as the temperature increase for a doubling of GHG forcing) vary from as low as 1°C to as high as 5°C; the IPCC gives a conventional range of 1.5°C to 4.5°C. …”
—–
The current science vs. Roy Spencer in 1999 (well, in any year)?
Is this a joke?
It would be funny if I was in a better mood.
Unfortunately, we are in a have/have-not, to be/not to be situation at Copenhagen.
Contrary to your previous point, I would suggest that we do not share similar views and we do not know the same things. I am content to end the conversation.
I do not have the education or resources to judge the merits of conflicting claims regarding the issue of global warming. Therefore, it comes down to whom I should trust. One aspect of “Climategate” that bothers me is that defenders of the theory all seem to focus on the nuances of the word “trick” found within the seemingly most damning of the hijacked emails. To me, this seems like a straw man argument. Okay, the word was intended in the context of the common expression: “That’s a neat trick!” I have no problem with that. To me, the operative word is “hide” [the decline]. I would like to see a further explanation as to why these scientists felt the need to hide the relevant phenomenon or anything else for that matter.
Resorting to trying to rationalize the word “trick,” something that needs no such defense, rather than focusing on the word “hide,” makes me most skeptical. The biting YouTube parody of Dr. Mann (approaching a half million hits already) focuses on “hide,” not “trick.” Therefore, please present your defense upon those lines and not upon a position that isn’t in need of defense. Otherwise, I must asssume you cannot. So once more, why use the word hide, please?
—-
Don,
You have a point. Just about everything else is easily explained (e.g. a “trick” to divide a number by 5 is to double it then divide by 10) but “hide” is just weird/i>.
That should be the last word anyone should use, IMO.
Correct
Compensate
Substitute
are all obvious better options (I’m sure there are others).
The point of the post is context.
Context is everything.
The ‘trick’ was to put recent warming into context. Not a trick at all.
The related ‘hide’ the decline comment was made twenty years ago in the context of reconstruction related to the divergence problem – familiar and widely discussed in the published literature.
It means ‘we are not using this data and are saying so and further research is needed.’
It has nothing to do with current records.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v391/n6668/abs/391678a0.html
It’s worth repeating: it has nothing to do with current records. The planet continues to warm.
True, he did not conduct his work life as if someone was listening in on him at all times for twenty years; and would examine every single word in every sentence in an express effort to make up something to discredit him or the work.
I suggest anyone who feels they have to conduct themselves in this manner has oppressive employment conditions. 😦
Oops, I mean the comment was made ten years ago. It’s early in the morning. 😉
Same point.
Greenfyre sez: ” ….the record of corrections, and the originals are still available from the sources for anyone who wants to ask for it…”
Looks like the lost raw data is being recalculated and we should have a transparent answer in three years
” From The Times
December 5, 2009
Met Office to re-examine 160 years of climate data
Ben Webster, Environment Editor
The Met Office plans to re-examine 160 years of temperature data after admitting that public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered by leaked e-mails.
The new analysis of the data will take three years, meaning that the Met Office will not be able to state with absolute confidence the extent of the warming trend until the end of 2012.
The Met Office database is one of three main sources of temperature data analysis on which the UN’s main climate change science body relies for its assessment that global warming is a serious danger to the world. This assessment is the basis for next week’s climate change talks in Copenhagen aimed at cutting CO2 emissions.
…
The Met Office works closely with the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU), which is being investigated after e-mails written by its director, Phil Jones, appeared to show an attempt to manipulate temperature data and block alternative scientific views.
The Met Office’s published data showing a warming trend draws heavily on CRU analysis. CRU supplied all the land temperature data to the Met Office, which added this to its own analysis of sea temperature data.
Since the stolen e-mails were published, the chief executive of the Met Office has written to national meteorological offices in 188 countries asking their permission to release the raw data that they collected from their weather stations.
The Met Office is confident that its analysis will eventually be shown to be correct. However, it says it wants to create a new and fully open method of analysing temperature data.
….
The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change admitted yesterday that it needed to consider the full implications of the e-mails and whether they cast doubt on any of the evidence for man-made global warming.
—-
Yep.
Wanna bet that the difference between new and old analyses will be less than the line thickness in the graph?
—-
‘ …cat sez: ” …wanna bet …”
Based on the 2004 + 5.5 deg. C projection of 2010 global temperature increase , it appears that “all bets are off. ”
Click to access pdf00014.pdf
Humanatarian, you should put on your glasses or take your head out of the sand before reading papers that are obviously well beyond your understanding.
The author is talking about an increase in temperature in 2100 not 2010.
Q: What is the difference between Humanatarian and CRU ?
A: Humanatarian makes honest mistakes.
[…] Originally Posted by Independent Man As a matter of fact I accept that the word 'trick' is just an unfortunate slang word; my much greater concern is when they talk about 'hiding the decline' – that cannot be explained away! Yes it can as shown by this nice little blog I just found: “Mike’s Nature trick … to hide the decline.” Greenfyre’s […]
Thanks for sharing this article. I highly recommend reading the Resignation Letter of Chris Landsea from IPCC written in 2005. This letter shows the fraud committed by the IPCC. http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/LandseaResignationLetterFromIPCC.htm
There has been fraud regarding funds on Climate Change research:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100019956/climategate-the-lawyers-move-in-those-scientists-are-toast/
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-european-carbon-credit-trading-system-plagued-by-fraud/
More links regarding ClimateGate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLKCyk_DhVI (How much carbon reduction is needed to reduce the temperature to the UN target? Answer: A minimum of 80 years without electricity and without fuel)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu_ok37HDuE (ClimateGate Who’s Who)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUtzMBfDrpI (Armed Response to ‘Climategate’ question). This is how the UN censors questions about Global Warming.
Follow the money….
“The carbon market in the US is expected to be trillions of dollars by 2015, and the technology we are offering is as little as 10% to half of that number”. Earning only 10% of a trillion represents an income of 100 billions a year, which is twice the total wealth of Bill Gates. Guess who is behind this corporation, to become a trillionaire? You have to watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuifVNofEtk
—-
Alarmist climate models are flawed.
CRU data indicates a decrease in average temp for the past eight years, while CO2 levels have risen.
None of the models predicted this.
Liar. Climate models are not flawed.
Or rather, they are flawed, but in ways you clearly do not comprehend.
WE AGREE.
All models are flawed. Some are useful.
I like the comment by Humanatarian (sic):
And (since climategate) we all know that all CRU scientists are frauds, so therefore clearly the temperature must have been rising.
Are you Tweedledum or Tweedledee?
S2 SEZ “…all CRU scientists are frauds,”
Humanitarian sez: ” …surely not ALL ! “
Okay, I’ve tried to do as quick a study as is possible for an intelligent layman with no education in the particular science relevant here. I would please like to ask if I am stating correctly the cases of both those who argue that global warming is a (dangerous) fact and that its cause is excessive carbon emissions by humans and those skeptical thereof or who outright deny it.
The year 1998 was, for reasons not understood; perhaps just a fluke, an exceptionally warm year in recorded history. [1] Because no year subsequent to that has reached that year in warmth, the skeptics are attempting to argue that temperatures have actually declined since then (while carbon emissions have not), while the believers claim this is fallacious as the overall trend has still been warmer than previous years, excepting 1998. Therefore, there is no decline to “hide” as the skeptics have argued that the believers have been guilty of attempting to do. Therefore, the skeptics are being deliberately disingenuous (or else they’re just stupid). Does this correctly summarize the argument of the believers? [2]
From the other side of the argument, the skeptics are claiming that in order for the believers to demonstrate that temperatures in more contemporary times, since the onset of the industrial revolution and large emissions of carbons, are anomalously warm (and thus quite likely caused by “greenhouse” emissions gases) they first have to position them against temperatures going back a thousand or more years into the past when there were no worldwide temperature records. In order to this, scientists observed tree rings, mostly from two closely related species of pines, which supposedly serve as reasonably accurate approximations (“proxies”) of what temperatures were in the past.
Using this tree ring evidence, they demonstrated that temperatures going back a long way before the industrial revolution were relatively stable (the “shaft” of the “hockey stick” chart) and significantly cooler than the temperatures since the industrial revolution (the “blade”), which presents evidence that the current warming trend is indeed an anomaly, just as the theory predicts.
The problem, however, is that when the very same tree ring evidence was consulted for modern times, it did not coincide with the warmer temperatures actually recorded (now that they can be), but rather indicated temperatures cooler than what they were known to have been as a fact. Therefore, actual recorded temperatures were substituted for the tree ring evidence
Now, the believers say that this was perfectly legitimate since we have the actual recorded temperatures in more contemporary times. The skeptics, however, counter that if the tree rings have been demonstrated to be unreliable as proxies for temperatures in contemporary times, then why should they be judged to be reliable for times a thousand years or more ago? If (and obviously, only if) I am stating the skeptics’ case accurately in this instance, then what is the answer from the believers to their question, please? [3]
Thanks much.
—-
Using the Copenhagen outcome as a referendum on AGW , the Alarmers overplayed their ” science” hand.
Lets ” save the planet” because it’s the right thing to do. Not because of some social engineering scheme based on the ” science ” that Copenhagen wouldn’t buy.
—-
Deleted as irrelevant to the original post.
S2
Dear S2,
Thank you for that thorough but lucid explanation. Also, thank you for directing me to that marvelous site! It’s the best one (for laymen) I’ve yet explored. It comprehensively addresses all the common arguments by skeptics without being condescending. It’s a very valuable resource.
Yes, I do have a few questions more, but I don’t know what page on your website that you are referring to that is apparently the correct one for such questions. In regard to my first point, I have no remaining problems with the “decline” that the skeptics allege to exist and that the consensus is allegedly attempting to hide.
(I’ll now use the word that the aforementioned site uses for the orthodox viewpoint [1]. When I wrote my last post, I wasn’t happy with “believers” either as it might imply I was attempting to (disingenuously) assign religious-like (as opposed to scientific) motivations to the consensus viewpoint. However, I couldn’t at the time think of a one word (for brevity’s sake) description to use besides that.)
My only remaining questions are all in regard to the second point. That is, can scientists accurately reconstruct long past temperatures so that they can be compared to present ones? Therefore, could you please direct me via URL to the thread where I should ask such questions? [2]
Thanks again.
—-
Deleted as irrelevant to the original post.
S2
[…] […]
Deleted as spam.
S2
[…] […]
Deleted as spam.
S2
If the raw data is all available online then provide links to it. And if it is then why are there documented records of alarmists talking about how not to release it.
Good Question ! I can’t have your baby but can I kiss you on the lips ?
Michael
“Good Question !”
It’s not a question (see previous).
“I can’t have your baby but can I kiss you on the lips ?”
The ingrained sexism in this comment does not assist you to make an intelligent point.
1) You struggle to understand basic climate science, if your link is any indication.
2) The question of the FOIA framework, requests and responses has been discussed by others in related posts and comments, at length.
3) If you want to show that climate scientists are hiding and fudging data to pretend there is a warming trend, that this is a widespread conspiracy, and that the driver of this current warming trend that does not exist is not C02 from human activity, you will need some evidence.
(Hint: Even if the email theft revealed bad science – never mind that the emails do not reveal this – you would have to assume that a few scientists equals all scientists, and that somehow the CRU research is constitutive of climate science. They don’t. It isn’t. )
4) Almost all the raw data used in CRU reconstructions, assuming you are trained to interpret it, is available through GHCN. There are some other sources too.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/
Feel free to set up several thousand stations of your own.
Or you could work on gaining insight into why you are so desperate to find something that will deflect the facts and allow you to maintain your false beliefs.
Deleted as nonsense.
S2
Deleted as nonsense.
S2
It’s a TRICK!
I’ve been a fan of Marc Roberts for a while, but h/t to Lynn Vincentnathan at Real Climate (Comment 20) for bringing this one to my attention. 🙂
This expalins what they tried to hide.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/26/mcintyre-data-from-the-hide-the-decline/
Not a trick of the trade but a trick of deception.
Further proof:
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/
A Total Bluff
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/fraudulent-hockey-sticks-and-hidden-data/
Fraudulent hockey sticks and hidden data
http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/10/ipcc-and-the-trick/
IPCC and the Trick
Lies, damn lies and hide the decline.
The distortion of Steve McIntyre:
http://deepclimate.org/2009/12/11/mcintyre-provides-fodder-for-skeptics/
And people are surprised he isn’t taken more seriously…
[…] “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” (Thanks Greenfyre) […]
[…] Greenfyre: “Mike’s Nature trick … to hide the decline.” […]
[…] Greenfyre: “Mike’s Nature trick … to hide the decline.” […]
[…] “Mike’s Nature trick … to hide the decline.” […]
Brazen science fraud on the part of both Phil Jones and Michael Mann. The trick is exactly what it appears to be in the Phil Jones email.
” The quality of much of the data underlying the surface temperature measurements is almost unbelievably bad.
It’s worth taking a look at the following website: http://www.surfacestations.org/
They have gone round and actually looked at the surface stations in the US used to compile this data. Many of these stations are heavily compromised. For example, many have had buildings constructed around them since they were first put in place. This raises the temperature in the local area.
You have to wonder, why has no attempt been made to improve the quality of the data being collected from these stations? And if its this bad in the US, whats it like at surface stations elsewhere in the world?
Remember these people are asking us to change our whole way of life based partly on this data. And yet they haven’t even bothered to check that the data is of good quality.
So what else goes on that we don’t know about? “
@ G Bird
Still at it mate? All the best in pursuing your anti-science agenda.
@ humanaterian
See Wiki for nice round up on just how flawed the surface stations project is:
“On July 6, 2009 the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration issued a preliminary report that charted data from 70 stations that SurfaceStations.org identified as ‘good’ or ‘best’ against the rest of the dataset surveyed at that time, and concluded, “clearly there is no indication from this analysis that poor station exposure has imparted a bias in the U.S. temperature trends.”[13] Watts issued a rebuttal in which he asserted that the preliminary analysis excluded new data on quality of surface stations, and criticized the use of homogenized data from the stations, which in his view accounts for the creation of two nearly identical graphs.[14][15] Since then NOAA has released a detailed peer reviewed study confirming both reliability of the surface stations reviewed. The results show that poor stations produce a slight cooling bias, in stark contrast to Watts claim, but also that after corrections both poor and highly rated stations align very well…”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts_%28blogger%29#SurfaceStations.org
In summary, surfacestations.org is wrong.
Can anyone give me a reason why it was mandatory to use Mikes nature trick to hide the decline?
If it wasn’t absolutely necessary then why do it?
Is this going to be in standard textbooks from here on in?
You see what is going on here don’t you? The true believers are just jibber-jabbering about it until they become densentized to this act of brazen science fraud. You are all doubling down on it. You ought to be distancing yourselves from it as an obvious bust.
Gamebird, will you STOP using reason and science on this site. We are TRUE BELIEVERS out to save the World and have no need for your spurious Truths.
Take a Hike.
Your comment is much appreciated. Who would have thought I could find a righteous man in such an unlikely place.
And bravo to the boss for letting my comments through.
Yes, kudos to the boss for letting the light of reason
into the site.
I don’t know if it is the realization that the movement is over zealous costing it credibility, or all the setbacks have knocked some starch out of them.
Anyway, not being censored is a welcome relief.
get out the witewash for the science review.
http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/IACNamesIPCCReviewCommittee.html
Very great website, this truly responded some of my questions. Thank you!. If you have a chance check out my website. It’s a work in progress, but I suppose that someday it will have nearly as good of content as yours.