Free Rasmus!!

Nothing from Rasmus for over a day; it’s all Gavin now. Soon it will be “sigh….” and they’ll put the figure skaters back on the ice. We want hockey, not sequins. We want Rasmus, we want Rasmus, we want Rasmus… Is Rasmus in lock-up? Should we start a petition for Gavin to free Rasmus? Free Rasmus now, free Rasmus now, free Rasmus now….

Rasmus, if Gavin won’t let you off the bench or is censoring you, you can always post here. We’ll be nice.


  1. TCO
    Posted Dec 22, 2005 at 10:47 AM | Permalink

    [Lambert] You are being insulting. I don’t care if 2 plus 2 equals 4, not 5. All I care is that you were insulting and therefore your opinion of math does not matter. [/Lambert]

  2. Posted Dec 22, 2005 at 10:52 AM | Permalink

    Childish, immature (Go Auditors!).

  3. John A
    Posted Dec 22, 2005 at 11:07 AM | Permalink

    Is it me or is Steve letting the Christmas eggnog go to his head?

  4. Jim O'Toole
    Posted Dec 22, 2005 at 12:01 PM | Permalink

    Just so long as the eggnog doesn’t result in further abominable pop culture references as I’ve watched unfold on this blog the last few months. No more Black Eyed Peas or Lil’ Kim references, please. You’ve (hopefully) exhausted Neil Young, so how about Rush? They’ve got plenty of songs about weather and science. You could make the theme song of the blog “Take Off (for the Great White North)”.
    It’s a beauty way to go.

  5. Dave Dardinger
    Posted Dec 22, 2005 at 12:51 PM | Permalink

    Frankly I WANT to see “Auditors on Ice.” I’m particularly interested in seeing how you (Steve) looks in a Tutu.

  6. ET SidViscous
    Posted Dec 22, 2005 at 12:51 PM | Permalink

    Hey 10 bucks is 10 Bucks eh.

  7. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Dec 22, 2005 at 12:52 PM | Permalink

    I don’t think that we’ve exhausted or even discussed Neil Young here, but I’ve got a nice story about him. A friend, or more an acquaintance, who we used to see, was in a high school band in Winnipeg. He’s now a doctor in Toronto. He was recalling high school graduation – if you remember the movie American Graffiti, it sounded like that night. Anyway, the members of the band were discussing what they should do. One guy wanted to keep the band together and go to LA and see if they could make it. Our friend took the safe route of becoming a doctor. Another member decided to go into geophysics because, if you can imagine, he thought “that’s where the real money is”. So the first guy went to LA on his own and hooked up with Crosby, Stills and Nash.

  8. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Dec 22, 2005 at 12:53 PM | Permalink

    #5: we’re hockey players here. Full equipment only.

  9. TCO
    Posted Dec 22, 2005 at 1:30 PM | Permalink

    you already told that story, Steve. 🙂

  10. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Dec 22, 2005 at 1:39 PM | Permalink

    sorry about that. I’m using up my stories. Some day I’ll have to post up a picture of me after swimming across the Ganges at Benares and the story of how that helped solve a business problem 15 years later.

  11. TCO
    Posted Dec 22, 2005 at 1:43 PM | Permalink

    You think you’re so salty, mister…:)

  12. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Dec 22, 2005 at 2:06 PM | Permalink


  13. Brad H
    Posted Dec 23, 2005 at 5:00 AM | Permalink

    Re: #3

    The “Eggnog Blog”, perhaps John A?

  14. John A
    Posted Dec 23, 2005 at 5:01 AM | Permalink

    Re #5

    Now THERE’S an image I didn’t want in my head…

  15. epica
    Posted Dec 23, 2005 at 5:45 AM | Permalink

    From a historic point of view the science-philosophical position defended here by most of the contributors of climaudit is interesting. Paraphrasing one could say that they defend concrete, somehow real, empirical sciences (in an emphatic sense of the word) against empty mathematics, over-theorized physics using models and theoretical approaches which are for them pure tricks to complicate things which are easily solvable. Alternatively they claim that nature is much to complicate/unexplored/unknown to be described by a handful of impostor like theoreticians. As often in life everything could already be found in history before. What I paraphrased here could be taken as a valid description of a strong movement in physics in the 1930s and 1940s of which most popular representatives were Lenard and Stark. Both Nobel prize winners (you might know the Stark effect) for their work in experimental physics they argued against a type of physics too theoretical and not empirically founded. You might compare some posts here with citations of Philipp Lenard.
    “Maybe using GCMs adds ritual to the process. They are fancy and expensive and take eons to run. They look impressive and widen the gulf between clerics and laity. I don’t see a big effort at de-mystification by Gavin and his crowd. They prefer papal bulls and councils of bishops. »
    Or John A : « There are too many opinions and not enough facts in climate science. » or
    « Yet again a climate modeller quotes a parameterization and states it to be empirical fact. »
    (funny enough the latter is about the claimed short residence time of water vapour which has in fact nothing to do with GCMs) or « Zero empirical evidence for your claim. What you’ve actually quoted is the parameterization given for water vapor in the climate models that don’t model the climate. It’s an average and its deliberately kept short in order to justify the extraordinary magnification of trace gases like carbon dioxide in climate modelling. » (the latter already reminds of the slightly paranoic thinking you might find now also in the following)

    Philipp Lenard (slightly shortened):

    “Es war dunkel geworden in der Physik, und zwar von oben herab. Auch an UniversitàƒÆ’à‚⣴en und Akademien war die Grundlage alles Naturwissens, die Beobachtung der Natur selbst, in Vergessenheit und ausser Geltung gebracht worden. Es sollte das Wissen von den Dingen der Aussenwelt in den EinfàƒÆ’à‚⣬len menschlicher KàƒÆ’à‚⵰fe seine Grundlage haben. Diese EinfàƒÆ’à‚⣬le, sofort « Theorien » genannt, sollten dann von Experimentatoren “bestàƒÆ’à‚⣴igt” werden. Letzteres erfolgte meist pflichtschuldigst und schnell durch màƒÆ’à‚ⵧlichst oberflàƒÆ’à‚⣣hliche Arbeit. Die « Freiheit der Forschung » bekam durch ZuràƒÆ’à‚⻣kdràƒÆ’à‚⣮gung freimàƒÆ’à‚⻴iger àƒÆ’”‚¬Å¾usserungen gegen solches Vorgehen einen besonderen Anstrich.
    Das hervorragendste Beispiel schàƒÆ’à‚⣤licher Beeinflussung der Naturforschung von Theoretiker Seite mit ihren aus guten, schon vorher dagewesenen Erkenntnissen und einigen willkàƒÆ’à‚⻲lichen Zutaten mathematisch zusammengestoppelten « Theorien », die nun schon allmàƒÆ’à‚⣨lich in StàƒÆ’à‚⻣ke zerfàƒÆ’à‚⣬lt, wie es das Schicksal naturfremder Erzeugnisse ist. “”

    Tentatively translated into

    “Dark ages started in physics, and that from the top to the bottom. Even at universities and academies the actual basis of all natural sciences, the observation, was forgotten. Now it is claimed that our knowledge of the real world is based on pure ideas of the human brain. These ideas, immediately called theories, have now to be « confirmed » by experimentators. The latter was realised in duty bound and rapidly by very superficial works. The « freedom of sciences » was trvialised by pushing back any frank expressions against such procedure. The most impressive example of damage done to natural sciences by theoreticians was done by mixing good existing empirical facts and some arbitrary bits and pieces of mathematical « theory». These bits and pieces are now slowly falling apart, as it is the faith of any intellectual products not agreeing with nature.”
    End of translation
    I found the correspondence quite remarkable. The controversy between Lenard/Stark and their contrarians was also done with quite some hatred (« we want rasmus ») and was partly started by personal injuries. For more detail see the thesis of Christian Schlatter (in French with citations in German) from the Ecole Polytechnique de Lausanne.

  16. Brad H
    Posted Dec 23, 2005 at 8:44 AM | Permalink

    May I intercept the celebrations for a moment and put a few “thoughts for the day” on the table?

    I’ve been reading this site for some time and, while I realise everyone’s becoming intoxicated with the spirit of the season, I’ve noticed a certain progression in the postings over recent months.

    When I first started reading Climate Audit, I sensed a definite hesitantcy – a man [SM] attempting to defend an “outrageous” position against a world-wide consensus.

    The topics posted and their main criticisms were conservative, focused and dealt with very specific irregularities in particular papers.

    In short, there was always a feeling of fighting for the truth to be heard, but in an evidentiary way, by pointing out the error/fallacy/inadequacy/etc. of a particular proposition. Whilst there was confidence that the Climate Audit view was correct, it was hedged by a realisation that this position was “heresy” to the mainstream.

    Things appeared to have changed somewhat, around the time of the Comment/Rejection/Re-instatement saga with M&M’s article in GRL, a few months ago. The tone seemed to alter to one of indignation (rightly so, IMHO), but one which some correspondents took to the point of almost “righteous” indignation.

    Just recently, it seems to me that the self-reinforcing nature of “similar opinions” is operating in both topics and comments. When most of what one hears is supportive of their position, they become ever more certain of it. The natural tendency is to believe that you are winning a war, if all you hear is positive reports from the front. In this vane, I’ve detected an ever more certain tone in both primary topics and reponses recently.

    This is something which I have not usually encountered here. However, to put my concern in perspective, there is often unedifying confidence over at Realclimate about their interpretation of events.

    I don’t read Climate Audit for cheerleading or point-scoring. I read it because it’s serious and scientific. I wouldn’t like to see it lose its basic rational tendencies, in favour of everyone pumping each other up for the skeptical cause, creating ever larger balloons of certainty about that position.

    Far better, IMO, to maintain a healthy sense of circumspection. After all, AGW-supporters still represent the majority of the media and funding. Skeptics are, for the moment, still only popular amongst themselves.

    I have heard some opine in other places that we are entering an “anti-scientific age”, where the word “science” is co-opted into either quasi or semi scientific studies/relationships/causalities. Many of these instances seem to occur when statistical methods are applied to emperical problems.

    IMO, statistics and historical records cannot be used to prove a truly scientific theory, because they are a “record”, not a “predictive tool”. The stockmarket has continued to prove this incontrovertibly over many centuries, despite the best efforts of famous stock-pickers.

    Statistical models, whether they be climate models or otherwise, can deal with the past and with a range of possibilities for the future, but they can never be truly predictive.

    And that is what we are fighting….I toss a fair coin and it comes up heads 10 times. Is my assumption that I’m tossing a “fair” the coin wrong? Or is there still a 50% possiblility that the next toss will be tails?

    The AGW’ers would have us believe, not only that the coin is biased, but that they know how and why that is the case, and they can predict not only the next toss, but the tosses for the next 100 years.

    Let’s point that out in a calm, clear, typical Climate Audit framework, rather than degenerating into Realclimate-style playing the Mann…err…man, rather than the ball.

    That (IMHO) is the real challenge for the new year.

    Merry Christmas, BTW.

  17. John A
    Posted Dec 23, 2005 at 9:56 AM | Permalink


    Steve (and I to a much lesser extent) has had an interesting year. At the beginning, it really was just Steve working on his handcrafted, tatty and dark website, with a complete stranger telling him that it was vital that he get a weblog so he could reach out to interested people with new material, especially the press when his latest paper was to be published. I was concerned that no-one would take him seriously when comparing the slick presentation of RealClimate and the not slick presentation of

    He bought the webhosting package, I installed the software, and we learned what does and doesn’t work when weblogging. Along the way I learned how WordPress works, what comment spam is, and lots of useless information. Steve learned how to blog, interact with people around the world, the power of instant communication, how to paragraph, why a picture is better than a thousand words, and extensively quoting citations rather than just referencing them leads to fewer arguments and better feedback.

    In February, there was just Steve, Ross and me who realised how important this year was going to be. Steve and Ross were castigated left, right and center by the self-appointed guardians of Mother Nature, for errors, distortions, possible conspiracies involving fossil-fuel industries or other rightwing groupings.

    Now at the end of 2005, Steve’s been on the front of the Wall Street Journal, he’s testified to Congress and met interested parties in climate science, physics, astrophysics, economics, geology and mathematics as well as politicians. Ross and Steve have weathered a massive storm of disinformation, and now Steve has a weblog which has regularly more than 100,000 visitors a month (it may be more but we had to turn off the statistics as they were filling the database rather quickly).

    It is without a doubt that this weblog has made headlines around the world, and rattled quite a few cages along the way.

    Steve could let this go to his head, but from my experience of him, he doesn’t take himself that seriously for that to happen. He’s level-headed, from my experience of him.

  18. Posted Dec 23, 2005 at 10:23 AM | Permalink

    and Kudos to you all for it! If I may make some remarks which thanks to blogs I may. Steve has hit on something profound – working on the web. It is now possible for anybody’s work to become an instant reality show, and all that entails. You can tap into huge numbers of people for reviewing your work, answer your critics, or any number of things. To those who like to examine assumptions of others work, and often get rejected by red-herrings or other ignorant arguments by reviewers, it is an opportunity to float ‘trial-balloons’ and possibly convert ‘shock and horror’ to ‘shock and awe’ in the scientific community before going to review. The penny dropped for me when Steve posted his powerpoint slides before AGU and asked for review. Imagine the education and outreach potential of opening up our workspaces in this way. Contrast this with the advocative approach of realclimate who set themselves up as the grand poohbahs experts of climate research. One step wrong and they get jumped all over! Easier to admit what you don’t know and let the minds of the internet work with you. Regards and good luck for 2006!

  19. TCO
    Posted Dec 23, 2005 at 10:39 AM | Permalink


    The tide is turning. More and more decent physicists and mathematicians are seeing the easy pickings that can be had by demolishing the smoke and mirrors of the Mannians. It will take a while for the popular press to follow (and note that the RCers hate to dig deep into details–preferring a pseudoserious (but really peurile) NPR-like manner of discussion. But the tide is turning.

    Oh…and don’t worry about Steve geting overconfident. I will take a blowtorch to his ass if he starts being unfair. Yeah…you will have the cheerleaders who want to blow things out too much (taking the the defeat of Mann as evidence of overall GW disproof). But they won’t get anywhere.

    WIth all that in mind: one thing that I think is interesting is the issue of was there or was there not a MWP? I really do think that Mann et all set out to “get rid of the MWP”. Can’t prove it. But beleive it enough that I’d bet money on it. However, there is an interesting duality with Steve. He thinks that Mannians should have “extrordinary evidence” to “reverse a paradigm” and shows the old IPCC with MWP shown versus the new one that lacked it. However, at the same time, he is very careful to say that he is not arguing for the MWP. And says that all he’s doing is showing that the data and methods are so crappy that we can’t tell what did occurr. These two things don’t quite mesh to mee. I mean what if we deconstructed that graph of the old IPCC that DID SHOW a MWP. I be wse could find that it’s not statistically backed up either. I wonder whether we did have a MWP or not?

    One good thing about Steve is that he is on the new IPCC. I wonder how that will work. Do they all have to agree? How could they? I like that he will be there since I know he will crunch some numbers at night versus shmoozing the whole time with grant providers. I hope he reads Dick Feynman’s history of how he participated in the Shuttle investigation.

  20. TCO
    Posted Dec 23, 2005 at 10:44 AM | Permalink

    On the damn Powerpoint slides. Yeah, it is charming that Steve is open to showing his work to others vice the need of the herr doktor professor types at the other site to try to puff themselves up as experts while mothering over nitwits like Lynn. However, DanO was right when he said that the presentation (as written days before the meeting) was unprofessional and scandalous and unfair to the audience. This coming from a man who wrote financial prospectuses? How did he ever sell a deal?

  21. Posted Dec 23, 2005 at 10:50 AM | Permalink

    Re #15. A strong parallel I see, at risk of being labeled as a social scientist, is a focus on the ‘text’. There is a widespread tendency in science to simply paraphrase the conclusions of an entire article and append the citation. This approach of taking the claims of the author at face value, parallels an approach to the recieved literature rejected by movements in literary criticism around and after that time. Now there is a detailed focus on specific ‘texts’ and often more on what the author didn’t say, or left out, or implied. So you have Freudian readings, Feminist readings and so on.

    Anyway, I can see parallels in Steve’s focus on the details of the workings of a specific ‘text’ – MBH98 – as a legitimate, more ‘modern’ and intellectually satisfying approach than focus on the real-world claims of MWP vs present day or whatever. The focus is shifted to the ‘smoke and mirrors’ by which a text conveys belief in a real world – what some have called the tyranny of the text – and the legitimacy of that means. It is totally OK never to offer an alternative reconstruction and in passing spotlight legitimacy issues such as peer-review, replication, archiving, honesty, etc. My 2c.

  22. John A
    Posted Dec 23, 2005 at 12:13 PM | Permalink

    One of the most significant moments on this blog was when Thomas Crowley claimed that Steve had been harassing him for his data, and Steve posted the entire correspondance right on the weblog for everyone to see. That for me, demonstrated the power of information over the powers of lop-sided journalism and internet innuendo.

    We never heard another peep out of anyone regarding Crowley’s accusations, did we?

  23. Peter Hearnden
    Posted Dec 23, 2005 at 12:21 PM | Permalink

    LOL, some first class triumphalism in these posts. Funny, you’d never think 2005 was nearly as/perhaps warmer than the huge El Nino year of 1998 – yet 2005 had no El Nino… You’d also think that the satellites aren’t now showing warming…Or that glaciers continue to vanish…or that the seas to warm…

    Keep the spinning going guys 🙂

    Oh and seasons greetings and good wishes from the UK :))

  24. McCall
    Posted Dec 23, 2005 at 12:57 PM | Permalink

    Or that Dr Solanki and others, have shown recent solar output to be at the its highest levels in over 8000 years, and especially early THIS NEW century. Or that other planets in the solar system are all also warming — oh, what a reach we fossil-fuel based earthlings have?

    Setting side the statistical failures of MBH, as well the proxy failures of MBH and so-called supporting studies, this question is less about the earth warming; it’s about the level of warming, the anthropogenic contribution to that warming, and the almost religious zealotry that has built up to protect the AGW movement.

    Still waiting for Bürger and Cubasch ’05 to be acknowledged and addressed on RealClimate and Stoat? Aren’t you, Mr Hearndon?

  25. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Dec 23, 2005 at 1:06 PM | Permalink

    Re #19: I don’t recognize the language that Mannians should have “extrordinary evidence” to “reverse a paradigm”. Did I say that? It doesn’t sound like how I would have put the point. (Maybe Ross said it.) De-constructing the old IPCC graph was fair game for the Mannians. The de-constructing criticism started in Hughes and Diaz [1994], which is still relied on, but is a lousy study. I should post up on it some day. If I didn’t make the claims in the first sentence (as I don’t think that I did), I think that the rest of my position is sufficiently nuanced to be consistent.

    As to my IPCC review experience, I really need to write it up. It is amusing beyond belief. I asked for data on a couple of unpublished studies; the secretariat refused to do this on the grounds that it was not their job to perform “secretarial” services and sent me to the authors. So I asked the authors. The authors refused and complained back to IPCC. IPCC took the position that my contacting the authors was a breach of confidentiality since I only knew about the papers as a result of IPCC; they said that my job was only to see that the characterization of the paper matched the paper, not to second-guess the article. They threatened to expel me as a reviewer if I contacted any other authors for data. The story is a little longer than this, but you get the idea.

  26. John A
    Posted Dec 23, 2005 at 1:16 PM | Permalink


    You should realised when they sent you that big rubber stamp with the “Welcome to the IPCC” package.

    Authors complaining that they’re being asked to show their working? It’s truly the end of science as we know it when such outrages happen.

  27. McCall
    Posted Dec 23, 2005 at 2:12 PM | Permalink

    More sidebar retrospective:
    “RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. We aim to provide a quick response * to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing * in mainstream commentary. The discussion here is restricted * to scientific topics and will not * get involved in any political or economic implications of the science.”

    A noble, but arguably hollow policy statement as one could argue 2005 was an “unprecedented” year for to break the spirit, if not the letter of the words.

    * my emphasis

  28. Michael Jankowski
    Posted Dec 23, 2005 at 2:50 PM | Permalink

    Funny, you’d never think 2005 was nearly as/perhaps warmer than the huge El Nino year of 1998 – yet 2005 had no El Nino…

    Winter has seemingly started-off with well-below normal temps – doesn’t greenhouse theory say wintertime should be where we should see the most significant anthropogenic warming?

    You’d also think that the satellites aren’t now showing warming

    Still less than surface warming, last I saw, in conflict with greenhouse theory models.

    Or that glaciers continue to vanish…

    Exactly what year was “normal” for glaciers? 1920? 1850? 900? Please tell me, so I’ll know what state they should be returning to.

    or that the seas to warm…

    How much of this is natural vs AGW driven?

  29. epica
    Posted Dec 23, 2005 at 4:05 PM | Permalink

    Yeah any single winter since 1870, masters of statistics.
    Less warming? before or after the little sign problem their had in the satellite data?
    Well I guess I’ll give you 900, and synchronously on the southern and northern hemisphere (most of those disappearing have more than 7000 years)

  30. epica
    Posted Dec 24, 2005 at 6:02 AM | Permalink

    I should add however that the contrarians of Lenard and Stark were Einstein/Heisenberg/Pauli and so on. The entire debate started when Einstein treated Lenard as an experimentalist not knowing what he is talking about when it comes to theory (i.e. special relativity). Lenard and Stark won the debate in the sence that from 1933 on they took over power in the german university system, called relativity and quantum mechanics “jewish physics”, threw out Pauli/Born from their professorships in Goettingen and stopped Heisenberg from getting the job of Sommerfeld in Muenchen. Both were sued after the war by the Allies. The original citation from Lenard above was changed by me in taking out everything what makes allusion to their racists convictions.

  31. John A
    Posted Dec 24, 2005 at 7:11 AM | Permalink

    The original citation from Lenard above was changed by me in taking out everything what makes allusion to their racists convictions.

    So the entire reference to Lenard and Stark was an elaborate smear on climate skeptics by comparing them to anti-Semites and Nazi collaborators.

    How charming and rational you are, and what a shining example you make of climate modellers.

  32. Doug L
    Posted Dec 24, 2005 at 7:59 AM | Permalink

    Re #19,25

    On the off chance that anyone doesn’t know, the late Carl Sagen, the astronomer, was famous for saying “Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Proof”

    (I never heard of the “skepticwiki” until I looked this up, I wonder what else is there)

    #31 Thanks for that, I wouldn’t have caught that otherwise.

  33. Doug L
    Posted Dec 24, 2005 at 8:05 AM | Permalink

    There are just Billions and Billions of Carl Sagen imitators out there!

    sorry, couldn’t resist.

  34. Doug L
    Posted Dec 24, 2005 at 8:15 AM | Permalink

    Oh God, what is the statistical probability of a man having three “a”s in his name and no other vowels? It’s Sagan, S a g a n. gotta learn to read what I type, gotta learn …..

  35. Doug L
    Posted Dec 24, 2005 at 8:49 AM | Permalink

    And What is the statistical probablity that I should come across such a name by pure happenstance so quickly?

    Garth Fagan, a local celebrety who founded the Garth Fagan Dance Company and Tony Award-winning choreographer of Broadway’s ‘The Lion King’
    which is playing here in Rochester, NY for six weeks from March 9 to April 16

    They play ads for this thing on the radio ten times a day.

    I’ll be quiet now 🙂

  36. John A
    Posted Dec 24, 2005 at 9:15 AM | Permalink

    Re #35

    Aren’t you supposed to wait until tomorrow before hitting the sauce?

  37. Doug L
    Posted Dec 24, 2005 at 12:26 PM | Permalink

    Sauce? what shauce? Ish a valid queshtun.

    If the commershul plays 10 times a day, that’s a poishon variable with a mean of 2 and two fifths scotches per hour and a variance of 25/144 hours. If I ashume multiple trials I can treat that as a shtandard normal variable. Where’s that table?

    Whoops, I shaid I’d be quiet :-).

  38. Steve Bloom
    Posted Dec 24, 2005 at 8:15 PM | Permalink

    Re #20 (TCO): “nitwits like Lynn”? It’s the presence of this type of comment from regulars on this blog that will keep it from expanding its influence beyond the already-converted. You don’t get a lot of women here, do you?

  39. Dave Dardinger
    Posted Dec 24, 2005 at 10:16 PM | Permalink

    Mr. Bloom.

    Lynn V. is a woman? Interesting. I hope you realize how pathetic your remarks are (in the original sense of the word), in the context of this thread.

    To Steve I.,

    While I fall into that category of right-wing conservatives; even Christian right-wing conservatives, I appreciate especially people like you and Bjorn Lomborg who contrary to political “class” interest are more interested in truth than in scoring points. I feel a special empathy for your situation since there’s nothing the left hates more that a traitor to the “cause”. The abuse, for instance, black Republicans have to face in the US by the hands of Democrats and much of the chattering class is sad to behold. An old correspondent used to sign off with a latin [or perhaps mock-latin] phrase something like “illegitimus non carborundum” [Don’t let the bastards wear you down.] I echo his feelings.

  40. Doug L
    Posted Dec 24, 2005 at 11:13 PM | Permalink

    Re # 38

    Good thinking, John A. needs to upgrade the software so ClimateAudit can double as a dating service. I wonder how many couples have hooked up thanks to the non-mysogenistic atmosphere over at ClimateFairyTale?! 🙂

%d bloggers like this: