Matthew England will talk about climate models this Sunday 23rd August in the Powerhouse Museum as part of the Ultimo Science Festival. The press release says:

Climate modeller challenges skeptics

With the Government’s emissions trading legislation now delayed, one of Australia’s leading climate scientists, UNSW Professor Matthew England has thrown down the gauntlet to climate skeptics to update their thinking.

“Those that deny basic climate science question climate modelling and fundamental climate physics. But each of their arguments is wrong, outdated, or irrelevant. Most of their claims have long been refuted by the scientific community, the national academies, and so on. Others need no refuting: they fly in the face of basic geophysical measurements, or they are so appallingly wrong they go against simple high-school physics,” England says.


The award-winning oceanographer, who is co-director of UNSW’s Climate Change Research Centre, will discuss the whys and wherefores of climate modelling and provide the most up-to-date climate predictions out to the year 2100 (since the IPCC report of 2007), at the Ultimo Science Festival on Sunday.

“This talk will show the step by step of how the models work, how they have evolved over the past 50 years, where they can be trusted, and what their uncertainties are. I will also address many of the skeptics’ claims and show why they are wrong,” England says.

But the latest research is not a pretty prediction, according to England.

“We need a fairly dramatic change in the way we power this planet, away from the old carbon-intensive technologies and into a new era of clean energy. We need to do this very quickly to give us any chance of staying below a net 2 degrees Celsius global average warming.

“Alarmingly, even at that level of warming we will lose most of the world’s coral reefs and around 20 to 30 per cent of species will face potential extinction. The Greenland ice sheet is likely to disintegrate completely if we warm in excess of 2.5 degrees C, that’s a seven-metre sealevel rise” he says.

England says we have already emitted half the greenhouse gases we can if we are to have a reasonable chance of staying below a net 2 degrees Celsius global average warming.

“Every year that there is inaction, this locks in a greater level of climate change. Climate change is now unavoidable, but we can determine, to some extent, what level of change we are prepared to commit to,” says England. “If we care about minimising the impact on heat extremes, bushfires, human health, our ecosystems and our capacity to produce food and have a secure freshwater supply, greenhouse gas emissions need to peak in the next decade and then decline rapidly.”

Comments

  1. #1 Alan
    August 20, 2009

    Good on him. Good on you, Tim, for publicising the event. Now give some evidence, even a little tid-bit, that your blog or any other has ever made any difference to people with political influence.

    I have no idea what it would take for Senator Fielding or the troglodytes of the National Party or the Republicans in the USA to get it, to understand what is happening. Some of them don’t even know that the earth orbits the sun, instead of vice-versa.

    I am a scientist by training, a breed famously inept at dealing with politicians. I just hope that there are enough people who both understand the juggernaut rumbling towards us and who have some political clout. I also doubt that there are.

    I live in a region that is going to be particularly hard hit by climate change. When I retire, which is soon, I am going to emigrate to a place that my research suggests will be much less severely affected. Wish me luck.

  2. #2 Paul UK
    August 20, 2009

    >Now give some evidence, even a little tid-bit, that your blog or any other has ever made any difference to people with political influence.

    Even when there is broad political acceptance (the UK is supposed to be a ‘leader’), the UK Treasury is largely sceptic and controls the money. You also have closet sceptics like Peter Mandelson that give out money for Brown jobs such as car manufacturers, Airbus etc. and withhold money from Green jobs in renewables.

  3. #3 Jeremy C
    August 20, 2009

    OK Tim,

    Good idea by Englands (I didn’t know there was an Ultimo science festival, is it based around the UTS campus?).

    However I would caution him to make sure he spikes the deniers guns at the presentation by emphasising that models are just part of the mix.

  4. #4 Klem
    August 20, 2009

    Your headline is misleading. He is not issuing a challenge to the skeptics; he’s just conducting a talk. Big deal. The AGW Believers never want to debate the skeptics anymore, because they ALWAYS lose. The skeptics on the other hand are still demanding debates but the Believers never accept.

    Oh by the way, the UN IPCC wrote in their 3rd report that climate is a non-linear chaotic system and long term predictions of climate are not possible. Not possible! So how is smarty-pants Matthew England going to show climate predictions to the year 2100, when even his employers at the UN IPCC say that it is not possible? Good luck with that Matthew buddy! LOL!

  5. #5 George Crews
    August 20, 2009

    Hi Tim,

    This is a great idea. My question would be “Why has climate model computer software not been put through a formal, independent verification and validation (IV&V) process?”

    In other risk-related software engineering fields, such as software for the nuclear industry, IV&V is accepted as the necessary way to generate “trust” and identify “uncertainties” for the public.

    IMHO, “challenging the skeptics” is not the way software engineers should do it.

  6. #6 ChrisC
    August 20, 2009

    Clem@4

    Please provide a citation from the Third Assessment Report (TAR) where the claim is made that predictions of future climates are not possible. If you could, please provide a chapter and page number.

    I only ask as I simply cannot find such a claim in the TAR, and that statement seems to be contradicted in more than a few different places in TAR itself. It’s a big report, and I may have missed it.

    Thanks

  7. #7 Mark
    August 20, 2009

    > My question would be “Why has climate model computer software not been put through a formal, independent verification and validation (IV&V) process?”

    Why hasn’t Windows?

    Or Word98?

    Linux?

    Quake 4?

    Why, george, does the source code have to be put through an IV&V process? The ALGORITHMS are put through a far more rigorous trial-by-combat test than any computer algorithm: in the peer reviewed papers.

    PS will YOU do the process? Under NDA (since you don’t want to abrogate copyright merely because you’d like the source code of software to be free: that would be PIRACY)?

  8. #8 Berbalang
    August 20, 2009

    Klem, there is an old saying, Don’t argue with an idiot; people watching may not be able to tell the difference.” Hence the AGW believers avoid debating deniers.

    A non-linear chaotic system does not automatically mean anything can happen.

    The term “Believers” implies some sort of faith without evidence, but we KNOW the Earth is warming and we KNOW why it is warming, because we have looked closely and honestly at all the evidence.

  9. #9 Jeff Harvey
    August 20, 2009

    “The AGW Believers never want to debate the skeptics anymore, because they ALWAYS lose”.

    Really Klem? And onb what tidbit of imbued wisdom do you base this ridiculous asserion? What is your expertise in climate science or in any scientific endeavor? Zilch?

    Here’s a wake up call for those simpletons out there who write piffy posts like the one Klem did here. Klem, please tell me how many of the sceptics are actually doing climate-based research and are publishing it in rigid journals? The answer is obvious: the sceptics do very little research, but instead snipe away at the sidelines trying to pick holes in research conducted by actually qualified scientists.

    The second point is that debating sceptics, most of whom are pseudo-scientists anyway at best, is fraught with difficulties. Why is that? Because the sceptics lie, distort and mangle the science, and appear to be 100% confident in their baseless arguments. Most good scientists, on the other hand, are much more cautious and appear reluctant to make assertions with as much confidence as the sceptics do. Moreover, if we scientists debate sceptics, we are giving them credibility, meaning we think they have something useful to say (which they don’t, in my view). But if we ignore them they shout that we are ‘running scared’.

    As Mark (I think) said earlier, the sceptics cannot and never will win a debate on climate science; all they have to do is sew enough doubt that nothing will be done to address the problem. They are muddying the waters so that the public and policymakers cannot see the bottom.

    I am sure that its possible that Klem is a troll, but I thought his puerile post needing addressing.

  10. #11 QrazyQat
    August 20, 2009

    Clem is quite a handsome dining room table.

  11. #12 George Crews
    August 20, 2009

    Hi Mark,

    To quote from your comment:

    Why, george, does the source code have to be put through an IV&V process? The ALGORITHMS are put through a far more rigorous trial-by-combat test than any computer algorithm: in the peer reviewed papers.

    The answer is that the algorithms may not have been coded correctly. Don’t confuse apples and oranges. There is a big gap between science and software engineering. Unfortunately, it is common that many scientists believe they know all there is to know about software engineering. It is also common that many software engineers believe they know all there is to know about software quality assurance.

    You also say:

    PS will YOU do the process? Under NDA (since you don’t want to abrogate copyright merely because you’d like the source code of software to be free: that would be PIRACY)?

    I could I guess — I have the necessary technical qualifications and naturally skeptical attitude required. I was not aware the climate algorithms or code was under NDA.

  12. #13 Eli Rabett
    August 20, 2009

    The Community Atmosphere Model and the GISS ACMs are available on the net. There may be others. But of course you knew this before you started harumphing.

    BTW IV&V pretty much labels you

  13. #14 Mark
    August 20, 2009

    > The answer is that the algorithms may not have been coded correctly.

    And this is HOW likely?

    There’s not the one model, you know. There are plenty of other models and if one has an algorithm coded incorrectly, it will stick out like a sore thumb (unless the effect has no effect on the system, in which case, being wrong will have no effect either).

    There WILL be code reviews.

    And the output is validated against other scientists working in the area. Something that Word 2003 hasn’t had to deal with…

    > I was not aware the climate algorithms or code was under NDA.

    I am not aware that NVIDIA code used in their drivers is under NDA either.

    But bloggers insist that this is the reason why they don’t GPL their drivers.

    And the algorithms are not under NDA. The code can be. Why do you conflate the two?

  14. #15 Gil
    August 20, 2009

    “. . . there is an old saying, Don’t argue with an idiot; people watching may not be able to tell the difference.”

    Actually, I thought the saying was “Don’t argue with an idiot, they’ll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”

  15. #16 Klem
    August 20, 2009

    Chris@6 “Please provide a citation…”

    the citation is here: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/pdf/WG1_TAR-FRONT.PDF
    page 78, section G2, 4th paragraph.

    Jeff @10 “please tell me how many of the sceptics are actually doing climate-based research and are publishing it in rigid journals?”

    Not sure how many Jeff, but I know of one skeptic by the name of Dr. Richard Lindzen who happens to be the number one climate scientist in the world. He likely taught half of the climate scientists working in the field today. Oh and he’s not being paid by Exxon sorry, so you needn’t pull out that old favorite.

    “sceptics lie, distort and mangle the science”. You mean it was the skeptics who produced the Hockey Stick graph? Hmm, not sure about that one Jeffy.

  16. #17 Craig Allen
    August 20, 2009

    George Crews,

    The model E CGM produced by the Goddard institute is also available for download. Better add that to your list of models that are freely available to be independently verified and validated.

  17. #18 Bernard J.
    August 20, 2009

    George Crews.

    Now that Eli has pointed you to some model links, and as you “have the necessary technical qualifications and naturally skeptical attitude required”, can you inform us when and where you will be posting the results of your “IV&V”?

    Klem.

    The fact that you believe Lindzen to be “the number one climate scientist in the world” indicates to all here the irretrievably erroneous misapprehensions under which you labour. You really don’t go out much, do you? Especially to a university library…

    By this one statement of yours, you are forever revealed for the ignorant troll that you are.

  18. #19 Bernard J.
    August 20, 2009

    George Crews.

    Lucky you. The links to openly available models just keeps increasing – h/t Craig Allen.

    I am sure that you will now realise that you can find even more yourself – which begs the question why you didn’t do this in the first place.

    It also begs the question why there isn’t already a mass of Denialist material being consistently referenced, that independently verifies and (in)validates the models…

    Doesn’t it make you wonder?

  19. #20 Freddy
    August 20, 2009

    Could someone direct me to the peer reviewed study that contains the empirical data that irrefutably connects CO2 as a climate driver?
    Also, how is it possible to ‘model’ a non-linear chaotic system?
    ….maybe there’s also a peer reviewed study that provides that explanation also.

  20. #21 dhogaza
    August 20, 2009

    Klem’s reference doesn’t say “long term predictions of climate are not possible. Not possible!”, of course

    What it actually says:

    The climate system is a coupled non-linear
    chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of
    future exact climate states is not possible. Rather the focus
    must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of
    the system’s future possible states by the generation of
    ensembles of model solutions.

    Klem, this is a very different statement than you claim.

    You can gain a little credibility here by admitting that your statement’s wrong, and explaining why (I’m not going to explain why for you, think of it as being an IQ test, if you fail, rest assured future posts by you will be ignored).

  21. #22 dhogaza
    August 20, 2009

    Also, how is it possible to ‘model’ a non-linear chaotic system?

    I sincerely hope you don’t fly in modern jet airliners, just to be consistent …

  22. #23 Harvey
    August 20, 2009

    How is the statement wrong if that is the first line, word for word?

    ‘therefore the long term predictions of climate ARE NOT POSSIBLE’

    …it’s qualified in the latter sentence by ‘scientific dice rolling’.

    Those are some ‘models’ you have there…..looks like they don’t do much of anything except create incessant blathering from green-ists.

  23. #24 P. Lewis
    August 20, 2009

    At least Klem, after he said:

    the UN IPCC wrote in their 3rd report that climate is a non-linear chaotic system and long term predictions of climate are not possible. Not possible!

    was good enough to provide the reference when asked. What the TAR, section G2, 4th paragraph actually says is [my emphasis added]:

    The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future exact climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions.

    Readers, make your own minds up. But this “original” (oh, if that were true!) comment by Klem is another oft-perpetuated beloved canard of denialists.

    Oh, and Freddy, here’s some modelling of nonlinear chaotic systems not to do with climate… one of many such modellings. Of course it’s possible!

  24. #25 dhogaza
    August 20, 2009

    Could someone direct me to the peer reviewed study that contains the empirical data that irrefutably connects CO2 as a climate driver?

    It’s a body of work, going back 150+ years. Do your own homework.

  25. #26 Mark
    August 20, 2009

    > I sincerely hope you don’t fly in modern jet airliners, just to be consistent …

    > Posted by: dhogaza

    It’s OK as long as nobody else is hurt…

  26. #27 Mark
    August 20, 2009

    > Could someone direct me to the peer reviewed study that contains the empirical data that irrefutably connects CO2 as a climate driver?

    Do you have any irrefutable proof that CO2 is not a climate driver?

  27. #28 Freddy
    August 20, 2009

    …thx i’ll have a look at that. Btw any links to the other? Just looking for the study that has some form of directly measured CO2 correlation to temps etc…..is it somewhere in the IPCC report?

  28. #29 Harvey
    August 20, 2009

    An airliner is a non-linear control system, not a non-linear chaotic system.

  29. #30 bi -- IJI
    August 20, 2009

    Shorter Freddy and Harvey:

    We ABSOLUTELY TOTALLY 100% REFUSE to even bother to hear Matthew England’s explanation out. This shows that we’re very open-minded people, just like Galileo.

  30. #31 Mark Schaffer
    August 20, 2009

    Hi Freddy,
    Where have you looked for this information?

  31. #32 George Crews
    August 20, 2009

    Hi Mark,

    The criteria, depth, and degree of rigour that assures the quality of commercial/OS software are (no pun intended) qualitatively different from that of high-consequence analysis software. So I do not see the logic of bringing up required QA processes (or lack of) for one to compare the other.

    You also comment that:

    There’s not the one model, you know. There are plenty of other models and if one has an algorithm coded incorrectly, it will stick out like a sore thumb (unless the effect has no effect on the system, in which case, being wrong will have no effect either).

    Not necessarily. The climate algorithms present interesting SQA difficulties when implemented. As most everybody here knows, an ensemble of program results are used. That’s because each model has its own strengths and weaknesses. (Modeling is all about artfully making the appropriate simplifications.) So in a sense, they are all “sore thumbs.” Of course, that does not necessarily disqualify the ensemble. But IMHO it explains at least some of the reluctance to formal IV&V.

    BTW, code reviews are good. IMHO, formally documenting the code reviews would be better. Complete traceability of the entire software development process — better still. There is a difference between doing good code development and demonstrating good code development (SQA).

  32. #33 Paul UK
    August 20, 2009

    Clem
    >The skeptics on the other hand are still demanding debates…

    So are creationists, intelligent design nut jobs, UFO believers, Alien abductionists…

  33. #34 Sortition
    August 20, 2009

    > ["]The Greenland ice sheet is likely to disintegrate completely if we warm in excess of 2.5 degrees C, that’s a seven-metre sea level rise” he says.

    > England says we have already emitted half the greenhouse gases we can if we are to have a reasonable chance of staying below a net 2 degrees Celsius global average warming.

    So how many years of business-as-usual are left before our fate is sealed?

  34. #35 t_p_hamilton
    August 20, 2009

    Harvey said:”An airliner is a non-linear control system, not a non-linear chaotic system.”

    Dude, the simulations of aerodynamics use the Navier-Stokes equations, which are nonlinear and chaotic.

  35. #36 bi -- IJI
    August 20, 2009

    > The criteria, depth, and degree of rigour that assures the quality of commercial/OS software are (no pun intended) qualitatively different from that of high-consequence analysis software.

    Explain.

  36. #37 bi -- IJI
    August 20, 2009

    Seriously, George Crews, what you were doing was just hand-waving.

    If there’s a bug in the Linux OS, it can corrupt or even destroy the data on your hard disk. If there’s a bug in a climate model, you just get the wrong results.

    And you think it’s OK that Linux hasn’t gone through “independent verification and validation”? Yet somehow climate models must go through “independent verification and validation”?

  37. #38 t_p_hamilton
    August 20, 2009

    George Crerws said:”There is a difference between doing good code development and demonstrating good code development (SQA).”

    Has it crossed your mind that MAYBE there is also a difference between scientific code development and developing code for widespread use?

  38. #39 bi -- IJI
    August 20, 2009

    And by the way, George Crews, where’s the climate model that accurately hindcasts climate trends under the assumption that CO2 has little or no warming effect on climate?

    Are you suggesting that there’s a huge worldwide conspiracy to make all the world’s climate model implementations err in the exact same way?

  39. #40 Klem
    August 20, 2009

    Look it comes down to this; Skeptics and Believers agree that the earth’s climate changes, they simply disagree on the cause. The Believers say it’s humans, the skeptics say it’s something else. The skeptics just ask for conclusive evidence that CO2 is the driver of the earth’s climate. We’re not asking for proof, just conclusive evidence (it’s not alot to ask really). Climate science has been trying for decades to show that CO2 is the driver of the earth’s climate, but they have never been able to deliver. They conclude that it’s CO2 because they can’t concieve of any other explanation. Sorry, but that’s not conclusive evidence.

    And remember folks, pictures of melting glaciers and weeping polar bears are evidence of climate change only, they are not evidence that CO2 is the cause.

    And have a nice day.

  40. #41 George Crews
    August 20, 2009

    Hi Bernard J. (@19)

    The current state-of-the-art of IV&V for high-consequence analysis software is that testing shall be the primary means of ensuring quality. But however necessary that may be, it is not sufficient. It is assumed the process that was followed during code development and maintenance is also critical.

    Thus, performing IV&V after-the-fact is somewhat problematical. As an example, I once had to lead a “remediation” effort to “restore confidence” in the results of using about 125 nuclear safety codes whose development/use “lacked complete defensibility”. I and about 15 other software engineers expended a tremendous amount of work and analysis restoring adequate confidence in the results. Much more than would have been required if applied during original development/use.

    Therefore, there can be no practical suggestion that I could somehow IV&V a climate model myself.

    Nor is it a practical suggestion that “a mass of Denialist material”, or lack thereof, be used to judge the “trust” and “uncertainties” that should be associated with the climate models.

    Nope, current state-of-the-art is process traceability combined with testing.

  41. #42 bi -- IJI
    August 20, 2009

    Shorter Klem:

    I’m not listening! I’m not listening! I’m not listening to Matthew England! I’m open-minded!

    Shorter George Crews:

    I wave my hands frantically and ignore all your questions. Climate models may be buggy! Climate models may be buggy! Climate models may be buggy! Climate models may be buggy! Climate models may be buggy! Climate models may be buggy! Climate models may be buggy! Climate models may be buggy!

  42. #43 Eli Rabett
    August 20, 2009

    George, stop trying to blow everyone off with the bafflegab. It don’t work. You’ve been called.

  43. #44 Eli Rabett
    August 20, 2009

    Sortition asks:

    So how many years of business-as-usual are left before our fate is sealed?

    About 25, before India turns into a charnel house and takes the rest of us with them

  44. #45 Bob Armstrong
    August 20, 2009

    The ubiquitous , eg , on the Wikipedia black body and Stefan-Boltzmann pages , and apparently a lot of texts , version of the fundamental equation for the temperature of the planet is :


      ( EarthAbsorptivity * SunSolidAngle * TempSun ^ 4 )
    = ( TempEarth ^ 4 )


    This violates Kirchhoff’s insight , 150 years ago this year , that
    a good absorber is a good emitter
    and has earth absorbing as a gray body but emitting as a black body . The correct equation is


    ( EarthAbsorptivity * SunSolidAngle * TempSun ^ 4 )
    = ( EarthEmissivity * TempEarth ^ 4 )

    Where , in the standard gray body computation , EarthAbsorptivity equals EarthEmissivity

    How can anybody claim to have a science , when they have the most fundamental physics wrong ?

  45. #46 Brian D
    August 20, 2009

    …Says the man whose site appears to claim that the greenhouse effect involves a change in albedo instead of a difference in opacity by wavelength. Your theoretical example assumes the Earth has no atmosphere.

    Try your experiment again, this time manipulating the right variable.

  46. #47 guthrie
    August 20, 2009

    Anyone know of any academics with access to 16 software engineers? Perhaps they’d be willing to pay for the work?

  47. #48 Joe
    August 20, 2009

    I personally just want to seem some evidence that increased concentrations of CO2 will drive the climate to change in a way differently than it is already always changing.

    I really do apologize to everyone here before hand, but I would prefer not to accept climate models as such empirical evidence. Is there any other corroborating source of real world evidence? I’m open minded and I just want to be convinced, as a layman.

  48. #49 dhogaza
    August 20, 2009

    I really do apologize to everyone here before hand, but I would prefer not to accept climate models as such empirical evidence. Is there any other corroborating source of real world evidence? I’m open minded and I just want to be convinced, as a layman.

    Why should we do your homework for you?

    And what do you think the alternative is, that thousands of climate scientists around the world are just making shit up?

    Good on you for apologizing in advance, because the apology is deserved.

  49. #50 Joe
    August 20, 2009

    Brian D: “Try your experiment again, this time manipulating the right variable.”

    You compared closed boxes with normal air vs. 100% CO2 and found a difference.
    This is like comparing Venus to Earth, which does nothing for telling us how the Earth’s atmosphere behaves, or will behave even if we doubled CO2 concentration.

    Try your experiment again, this time manipulating the right variable the right way!

  50. #51 Joe
    August 20, 2009

    @dhogaza

    That’s not really helpful, and your tone is unkind.

    I have no stake in this, I just want some info.

    Hope you have a good day :)

  51. #52 dhogaza
    August 20, 2009

    I have no stake in this, I just want some info.

    Everyone on this planet has a stake in this. You want info? Go find info. There are reliable sources for scientific information, you know.

    You could go to Real Climate and click on their “start here” link, if you’re really interested in climate science.

    The fact that you don’t accept models as being evidence exposes your mindset, however.

  52. #53 Eli Rabett
    August 20, 2009

    Dear Bob,

    Emissivity/absorption are functions of wavelength. In the IR past ~ 4 microns pretty much everything has an absorbtivity/emissivity of > .9. Below 4 microns it is less. Kirchoff’s law is safe. You have the fundamental physics wrong.

  53. #54 Brian D
    August 20, 2009

    Shorter Joe: dhogaza is shrill and therefore I am right.

    As for your attempt to rebuke me, I did not assemble that web page (which can clearly be discerned by comparing its writing style to mine). It was just the first simple page I could find where they were manipulating the right variable (the concentration of GHGs). Compare this to Bob’s experiment, where he manipulates albedo and claims it rebukes the greenhouse effect.

    If I wanted to properly experiment on the impact of doubling CO2 on a climate like the Earth’s, I’d need two things:
    1) A spare planet or two and
    2) A time machine.

    Alternatively, we could run the experiment on our own planet, and hope the outcome isn’t bad. Oops, that’s already what we’re doing.

    In the meantime, the best we’ve got are physics simulations. I believe Matthew England has something to say on those…

    Speaking of, Tim, any chance of that talk going online?

  54. #55 t_p_hamilton
    August 20, 2009

    Joe,

    Read the Discovery of Global Warming by Spencer Weart.

  55. #56 Eli Rabett
    August 20, 2009

    Joe:

    I personally just want to seem some evidence that increased concentrations of CO2 will drive the climate to change in a way differently than it is already always changing.

    Since increased concentrations of CO2 ARE driving the climate change, why do you think adding more will change the direction it is being driven?

  56. #57 Joe
    August 20, 2009

    @dhogaza

    Yeah well I’ve been through most of RealClimate and I just didn’t think who ever was running that site had much to say, it just seems like some armchair enthusiast’s blog or something. He make some claims that are really boneheaded, like just because CO2 doesn’t cause the temperature to start or end changing (in ice core records) doesn’t mean that “in between” CO2 isn’t causing the temperature to change. I don’t buy that claim, it seems silly.
    But whatever everyone says something they didn’t mean sometimes and I don’t hold that against any side in the debate at all, because it’s irrelevant.

    I DO look every now and again for good info and corroborative empirical evidence when I get interested in this issue from time to time, but I can’t find it. Stupid me.

    I don’t see how “The fact that you don’t accept models as being evidence exposes your mindset” is a problem. Isn’t there lots of ways computers can go wrong? I just use mine to do email and other things and it goes wrong all the time!

    Have a good day, god bless.

  57. #58 Joe
    August 20, 2009

    Eli: “Since increased concentrations of CO2 ARE driving the climate change, why do you think adding more will change the direction it is being driven?”

    Well how is it driving climate change then? How is the climate changing in a way that is different than it already always changes?

    t_p_hamilton:

    Thank you for the reference.

  58. #59 Brian D
    August 20, 2009

    Joe: Referring to published climate scientists – whose records you can look up in any peer-reviewed literature database – as “armchair enthusiasts” based on your own (amateur) interpretation of what “sounds silly” only shows that you lack the skills needed to evaluate competence in this field.

    But that’s to be expected, as it’s an aspect of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

  59. #60 dhogaza
    August 20, 2009

    Yeah well I’ve been through most of RealClimate and I just didn’t think who ever was running that site had much to say, it just seems like some armchair enthusiast’s blog or something

    Yeah, so you are a troll. My initial intuition was correct, and the disrespect I showed you was deserved.

  60. #61 Joe
    August 20, 2009

    Brian D:

    Holy! I missed that! A lot of those articles at RealClimate are by Gavin Schmidt, he’s a “big honcho” isn’t he?

    Well gee, I think it is kinda funny that even I, an amateur, found his scientific reasoning amateurish! I know competence when I see it, and I’m just not convinced about it in this case.

    Was your link to that video and its accompanying description (“Unskilled and unaware of It: how difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments.”) a veiled insult? That keeps happening here, it kinda hurts. I don’t see what I said to open myself to that. I just said I thought some of the reasoning on RealClimate wasn’t “buyable”.

    God bless.

  61. #62 Joe
    August 20, 2009

    dhogaza:
    ” the disrespect I showed you was deserved.”

    You are really making it difficult to want to be on your side. That’s a really mean and disrespectful thing to say! Just…please be more kind to someone who wants to learn…I’m sorry.

    God bless you.

  62. #63 frankis
    August 20, 2009

    I need to see the IV&V proof Klem, George, Harvey, Bob, Joe et al that you are different people not just the one clown waving different sockpuppets around. It’s a challenge, boys: one of you prove that you’re independent from the others in this nonlinear, chaotic, mouth-off you’re enjoying and you might stand a (slight) chance of being taken seriously by somebody. Although not by me sorry – that’d take a demonstration that you actually understood something of the science you were blathering on about and had a little humility. None of that’s going to happen, is it?

  63. #64 Brian D
    August 20, 2009

    Joe:

    First, if a doctor tells you that, say, eating tasty fried food daily will probably give you heart problems, do you disregard his medical advice because it sounds silly? Or do you accept it, understanding that of the two of you, he probably knows more than you do in this field?

    Climatology is a complex field. This, regrettably, means it’s very easy to spread misinformation about it, since the proper understanding may be too technical to fit into a sound bite. (For instance, the argument that CO2 lags temperature in the ice cores – based on a true observation – doesn’t actually say what it seems like it’s saying, and amounts to a straw man argument. However, demonstrating this takes quite a bit more background knowledge than simply parroting the claim, and thus takes time to explain, so some people don’t bother looking into it!)

    Second, the video was NOT an insult. Everyone is unskilled in different areas. I, for instance, am very unskilled in areas as diverse as ichthyology, forestry, agriculture, botany, medicine (anything more advanced than first aid), law, cooking, and plumbing. The Dunning-Kruger effect relates not to a person’s skill level but rather an interesting cognitive effect relating to their skill levels.

    If you think it’s an insult, you obviously didn’t watch it (or read the original paper it’s based on; I chose the video here because it’s a fine introduction at a good pace). Please do, and after you return, re-evaluate your comment #57 in light of knowing who RealClimate’s run by and your own level of understanding. You’ll see why I linked it.

    Note well the conclusion of the video, which will demonstrate a “cure” of sorts.

  64. #65 caerbannog
    August 20, 2009

    Joe, If you really want to learn, then try working through the homework assignments and exam questions here: http://charleslab.ucsd.edu/ESYS10.htm

    The link contains material that is taught in a course at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. You will learn a great deal if you buckle down and make a serious effort to work through the homework problems and exam questions posted there.

  65. #66 Joe
    August 20, 2009

    frankis:

    I’m FULL of humility and I came here to ask questions and have had nothing but being put down and told I’m an idiot. THAT’s how my humility was treated! That IS NOT PLEASANT! I don’t know who the other people are. I don’t know how to prove I’m me. It’s not like giving out personal info on the internet is smart! Gee what is it with this place?

    And I AM capable of understanding science too. But no one here seems able or willing to share it. I did get one book reference and I am reading reviews of it now, so I guess at least I got that. The rest of the people here…

    God bless you all.

  66. #67 George Crews
    August 20, 2009

    Hi Eli (@43)

    You comment that:

    George, stop trying to blow everyone off with the bafflegab. It don’t work. You’ve been called.

    Actually, it is easy to defend that my “bafflegab” is entirely run-of-the-mill software quality assurance (SQA) gab. See this reference in the Wikipedia as a start, perhaps looking up its reference to the IEEE’s Software Engineering Body of Knowledge, Ch. 11, Sec. 2.1. I could give more references, or you could even visit my blog.

    And I too would like to note the pervasive ad hominem here. The climate affects everybody and so every concerned person is at their best. Why do some people seem unconcerned?

  67. #68 t_p_hamilton
    August 20, 2009

    Scientific programming is not “run-of-the-mill software”, so why should “run-of-the-mill software quality assurance (SQA) gab be necessarily the way to judge it?

    The software is not the end product of the process, as would be the case of a word processor.

    The highest priority is that the science be correct. The QA there is peer review. Next priority is to get it done quickly. Second to publish is the same as not publishing.

    I suggest that people who think otherwise ask themselves why if SQA used by Microsoft is so great, why isn’t a group coming along and blowing the “amatuers” out of the water?

  68. #69 Fran Barlow
    August 20, 2009

    Klem above …

    Look it comes down to this; Skeptics and Believers agree that the earth’s climate changes, they simply disagree on the cause. The Believers say it’s humans, the skeptics say it’s something else.

    Putting aside the deliberate misuse of the words “believer” and “skeptic” to refer respectively to those who accept the results of robust scientific inquiry on the current climate anomaly” and “those who reject the results of robust scientific inquiry on the current climate anomaly” (let’s call the latter naysayers)

    The naysayers don’t say it’s caused by something else. Rather, they say variously

    a) It’s not happening at all/UHI effects make data impossible to interpret
    b) It’s happening but it’s just because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age (for reasions they doen’t elaborate on because that would involved modelling and data on now and then neither of which would suit them)
    c) It is happening but it’s due to changes in TSI, GCM, cloud patterns
    d) It’s happening due in trivial part to CO2e
    e) Sure it’s happening, but we ought to do nothing because Al Gore is a rich pratt and this is just a tax grab/a game to get computer modellers jobs/ an attempt to restore socialism/destroy western society/return to the early holocene/ worship Gaia etc …

    In short, the naysayers are like Mr Horse from Ren and Stimpy. They don’t like it and any excuse will do.

  69. #70 Boris
    August 20, 2009

    Joe,

    Spencer Weart’s book, as mentioned by t_p_hamilton, is a great, readable resource with hundreds of citations if you have further questions. It’s available for free at the American Institute of Physics website. Here’s a link.

    Also, if you are interested in empirical evidence, here’s an overview with links to some of the more important papers. Happy reading!

    Peace.

  70. #71 Girma
    August 20, 2009

    You said, “We need to do this very quickly to give us any chance of staying below a net 2 degrees Celsius global average warming.”

    Where do you get this 2 degrees? According to the data from the Australian Bureau of Metrology, the mean global temperature anomaly for 2008 was only 0.33 deg C.

    Mean Global Temperature Data

    Also CO2 + H2O + Sun Light => Plant Food => Animal Food. As a result, CO2 is the foundation of life, and to say CO2 is a pollutant is extremely irrational.

  71. #72 Grendel
    August 20, 2009

    Joe, since you end you posts with ‘God Bless’ I imagine you have a working familiarity with the bible – can I recommend you re-read Luke 16:19-31.

    I am an athiest and a skeptic – but not a ‘climate skeptic’ – we are driving climate change and to keep claiming that so many scientists are wrong (or liars) seems rather like the rich man in hell asking Abraham why he wasn’t warned.

    I’m not suggesting you have made such claims but you are clearly heading in that direction – it is the inevitable claim that remains once you decide you don’t like the ‘science’.

  72. #73 Janet Akerman
    August 20, 2009

    Brian D write:
    >”Joe: Referring to published climate scientists – whose records you can look up in any peer-reviewed literature database – as “armchair enthusiasts” based on your own (amateur) interpretation of what “sounds silly” only shows that you lack the skills needed to evaluate competence in this field.
    But that’s to be expected, as it’s an aspect of the [Dunning-Kruger effect](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyOHJa5Vj5Y).”

    Joe responds:

    >”Well gee, I think it is kinda funny that even I, an amateur, found his scientific reasoning amateurish! I know competence when I see it, and I’m just not convinced about it in this case.”

    Joe, watch the video, and you’ll have a better chance of seeing why you ought not judge others in areas were you are not competent

  73. #74 Steve
    August 20, 2009

    Joe,

    I feel your pain. When I began looking into the AGW
    issue, my first stop was Real Climate. I, too, was green on the subject and asked some basic questions. My treatment was the same as yours: “We’re not going to do your homework for you”, “That question has been dealt with so it’s no longer relevent”, and “You’re an idiot if you can’t see we’re right”. So I had to do my own research. Today, I am thankful for that treatment because it forced me to read everything I could find, both pro and con. It took a while but eventually I found that the theory of catastrophic AGW lacks credibility. The long term history of CO2 and temperature simply do not support it.

    I would also counsel not to engage AGW supporters who are dug in. It will quickly degrade into ad hominem attacks and arguements to authority. It’s not worth your time.

    I wish you the best of luck in your trek for understanding the AGW issue.

  74. #75 George Crews
    August 20, 2009

    Hi t-p-hamilton (@68)

    You comment that:

    Scientific programming is not “run-of-the-mill software”, so why should “run-of-the-mill software quality assurance (SQA) gab be necessarily the way to judge it?

    That’s a very good point and I agree with you. But where do I try and start in order to explain my concern? Of course, with standard SQA terminology and concepts.

    Recall that I have been describing high-consequence SQA processes (which the climate models have become). Software that can affect human life and health. Not Microsoft Word SQA. (They often let users find the last few bugs. Not a great idea if a bug could kill someone.)

    And recall my distinction between doing science and performing software development. These are two very different tasks. High quality science is not the issue here. Have I ever said that is was?

    The highest priority for high-consequence software is software reliability. The more life and wealth at risk, the more important it is that the software’s results be reliable and dependable. This reliability and dependability is assured by proving the quality of the software. The proof that the correct science has be encoded correctly.

    How is this done? Well, there is a whole body of knowledge of IV&V already established for high-consequence software. My whole point is that by extending this knowledge to the climate models, quality will be assured. No appeal to authority, etc. required. And this would be a GoodThing.

  75. #76 Joe
    August 20, 2009

    Janet Akerman:
    “Joe, watch the video, and you’ll have a better chance of seeing why you ought not judge others in areas were you are not competent”

    The vast majority of the history of competent people have been wrong. A tiny, tiny minority have been right. I’m right about that. Claiming competence means nothing. Being told I’m not smart enough to understand something when the questions get too uncomfortable is a sad last bastion of defence.

    I could just be TOLD what the evidence is, simply, instead of being sent on a turkey chase to websites where the comments are totally damning to the arguments the websites try to make. (aka Boris’ links)

  76. #77 Joe
    August 20, 2009

    Steve:

    Thanks for the kind note. I think I am done here, I’m really not getting much out of it. I agree that the sort of treatment you get for asking questions on pro AGW sites pushes you away from them. Sceptical sites will at least answer your questions instead of telling you to get lost. There are zealots on either side, though.

    So long!!

  77. #78 MarkG
    August 20, 2009

    > It took a while but eventually I found that the theory of catastrophic AGW lacks credibility. The long term history of CO2 and temperature simply do not support it

    Steve: Physics is not wrong because some mean people hurt your feelings.

    My feelings are also hurt when someone tells me that fundamental physics is wrong because the world’s scientists are engaged in a conspiracy to trick the worlds governments into spending vast sums of money (sometimes into the hundreds!) on this problem.

  78. #79 Gaz
    August 20, 2009

    Steve:

    It took a while but eventually I found that the theory of catastrophic AGW lacks credibility. The long term history of CO2 and temperature simply do not support it.

    What is it about the long term history of CO2 and temperature do you think does not support the contention that signifcant AGW is occurring? Why does the theory lack credibility?

    By the way, you are not the only one to have been put off by the attitude of the people running the RealClimate site, however my observation is that they have a very low tolerance of people asking questions which take as their starting point the assumption that the vast majority of climate scentists are deceitful, incompetent idiots.

    If you ask a question in an insulting, accusing tone, and that question clearly shows you haven’t even bothered to educate yourself with some basic, easily accessible reading, then they’ll bite your head off, and it will serve you right.

    Sure, you’ll feel hurt, but that’s got nothing to do with whether the science is right or wrong.

  79. #80 Tim Lambert
    August 20, 2009

    If you are wondering where the new trolls came from, Marc Morano linked to this post.

  80. #81 P. Lewis
    August 20, 2009

    Super video link Brian D. (and Eli’s Red Skelton clip’s a real hoot).

    And for a humorous take on D&K, except if you think you are a competent programmer, try this.

  81. #82 dhogaza
    August 20, 2009

    Tim (81) – thanks, explains everything.

    Joe: “I think I am done here”

    Good riddance.

  82. #83 Alan
    August 20, 2009

    Can anyone produce an example of a blog post has that has resulted in anyone changing to or from a denialist?

  83. #84 DavidK
    August 20, 2009

    Morano’s marauders. You must be regarded highly to unleash all those m&m’s.

  84. #85 Joe-Steve-Billy-Klem-Ray-Bob-Tim-Hall-concerned-citizen
    August 20, 2009

    Hi,

    I’d really like to know more about AGW. I don’t have an opinion on this yet, I’m just after good information that will allow me to make up my mind on the basis of the evidence.

    It seems hard to find a good clear explanation of the AGW Theory. I did look at this ‘RealClimate’ site, but it appears to be run by someone who has a vested interest. I think we need to hear from people who are not in it for the money. Also, the arguments did not make sense to me. Clearly, if the arguments are sound they will be logical, and if they are logical, they will make sense. This didn’t. Much appears to rest on computer models. I’m not sure we should trust computer models too much – they do crash. My computer crashed last week and I lost a lot of important stuff. What if the climate models crash or have currupt data? I’d also like to know more abou the code. This seems very important. If we don’t know the code how can we trust the models. We can’t just take the word of computers. Does anyone know of any research into the code? Surely there are some peer-reviewed journals that have proved the code is OK. If not, there was a realy good book on code, I can’t remember it’s name, but I think the author was Dan Brown – surely we could get him to review the code, he seems to know a lot about code. We need to listen to the best scientists, Richard Lindzen is the bestest scientist in the whole world and he’s not sure about a doomsday scenario. We need to hear more voices like his where we have expertise that is not part of a exercise in group think like the ICC. If the ICC would publish it’s code and tell people in a way that made sense, I think that would be good. That they can’t do this says a lot. Ordinary people can tell when something is convincing, and this isn’t, instead we get appeals to authority – they are scientists and therefore we should beleive. I just want to understand and if there is evidence, I would be OK with that. I was talking to this guy at the pub the other day and he said it was the sun – that makes sense. I haven’t seen any thing proving that it isn’t the sun. And, has anyone seen CO2? We are meant to believe in this thing and yet no one has ever seen it – isn’t that like religion? But i’m willing to be convinced, if someone would just explain it in a way that is competent. Anyone can see incompetence and recognize it and so far that is all I’ve seen. If AGW is real and can be rationally explained, surely someone would have done that and I would be convinced already, which I’m quite prepared to be. But I’m not, so you know that means.

  85. #86 Michael
    August 20, 2009

    Can anyone produce an example of a blog post has that has resulted in anyone changing to or from a denialist?” – Alan

    Changing opinion requires the prerequisites of good faith and an open mind, both which are lacking in the denialists.

  86. #87 Berbalang
    August 20, 2009

    Is there a link to a FAQ that people like Joe can be refered to?

  87. #88 Janet Akerman
    August 20, 2009

    Joe writes:
    >”*The vast majority of the history of competent people have been wrong. A tiny, tiny minority have been right. I’m right about that. *”

    Joe, what’s the breakdown of historical conflicts between people competent in a subject whe in dispute with people incompetent in that subject?

    For your argument to be relevant to this case, you would need evidence that history shows that in conflict on a subject competent people (those who have studies and understand the evidence) are more often wrong on that subject when they argue wjti people without competent on that subject.

    Hence you are wrong to claim: “*Claiming competence means nothing. *”

    Joe writes:
    >”*Being told I’m not smart enough to understand something when the questions get too uncomfortable is a sad last bastion of defence.*”

    Joe, there is a difference between competence and being smart enough. You need not resort to strawman arguments (the last bastion of incompetence?). Contrary to seeing any question that was “too comfortable”, my reply was in response to this statement of yours:

    >”*Well gee, I think it is kinda funny that even I, an amateur, found his scientific reasoning amateurish! I know competence when I see it, and I’m just not convinced about it in this case.*”

    Your statement in response to being offered a useful link was evidence that you are likely a concern troll. The probability of this being correct is increased with the knowledge that there is an influx of insincere trolling from Marc Morano site.

    Incidentally your original question was:

    >”*I personally just want to seem some evidence that increased concentrations of CO2 will drive the climate to change in a way differently than it is already always changing.*”

    This evidence was provided at real climate (which you were given) and the Spencer Weart. But if you were sincere I’d suggest you read the AR4 (chock a block full of such evidence) but I doubt you are.

  88. #89 Janet Akerman
    August 20, 2009

    Steve writes:

    >”*it forced me to read everything I could find, both pro and con. It took a while but eventually I found that the theory of catastrophic AGW lacks credibility. The long term history of CO2 and temperature simply do not support it.*”

    Wow you found this did you Steve? Yet you keep the evidence to yourself. At least those competent in the field document their findings and offer it for peer review.

    I think your claims in this paragraph lacks credibility, in the face of overwhelming evidnce (summarised in AR4).

  89. #90 Eat The Rich
    August 20, 2009

    Hi Tim
    Thanks for the tip-off. The Morano trolls are revelling in their day release. No doubt, as always, they will scuttle back to their sheltered stink tanks once the light of reason starts burning their brains.

  90. #91 Donald Oats
    August 20, 2009

    Climate scientists involved in software development of computer models do perform a range of verification and validation checks; the degree no doubt varies as to the relative priorities. Software version control tools and version control management are applied. Indeed, the groups that I am aware of all have software engineers, with appropriate software development expertise and qualifications, manage the software development part of the modelling process. Obviously both scientists and software engineers must work together very closely, and where appropriate, some software development roles may be filled by climate scientists with particular skills. Scientific software development differs substantially from embedded-systems software development, and both differ substantially from business application development.

    When it comes to the issue of whether the software solves the correct problem, this is a matter of traceability between each release of the software and the algorithms – as expressed in scientific articles, which have been reviewed by the scientific community – which are in fact a specification of the problem to be solved. The questions relating to whether one set of algorithms is better than another is almost entirely within the scientific realm; for example: the manner in which atmospheric radiation may be modelled is very much a scientific question, and selection of a particular approach (assumed to have survived peer review and post publication criticisms) is to specify that part of the overarching problem.

    I have no doubt at all that the software development practices of any climate modelling group may be further tightened up; the question though, is what further gain is there in doing this, given the costs incurred? The reduction in defects versus extra cost is a decision for the group (and their masters) to make. Climate models are routinely tested against other models, and against known data.

    In any case, the common meme of “computer models are code and code always has errors, therefore we can’t trust the models” is a fallacy of a point taken to its logical (but ridiculous) conclusion. Errors are not all created equal; some cannot in any way affect the results of interest, but might affect the layout – such an error is a far cry from one which affects the simulation results themselves. The people who parrot the meme are using it as an excuse and nothing more, IMHO

  91. #92 Mark Byrne
    August 20, 2009

    [This post ](http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/08/17/not-computer-models/)by Tamino gives another heavy does of evidence without computer models.

    Though computer models provide strong evidence as well.

    Regarding ‘concern trolls’, [here is](http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/20/152515/151/294/571262) an intereting confession of a concern troll, though at troll that was more subtle and careful than “Joe”.

  92. #93 elspi
    August 20, 2009

    “Is there a link to a FAQ that people like Joe can be referred to?”

    Joe is an obvious troll. He comes here with “questions” which are just denialist taking points slightly warmed over.

    The fact that CO_2 is invisible in the visible spectrum but not in the infrared should be sufficient, but no, he needs proof that the water is wet.

    The obvious place to send Joe is one where his computer will be taken over by malware. This would likely hurt innocent bystanders so I cannot recommend it.

  93. #94 Troll
    August 20, 2009

    All of your rage and name calling will do you little good if the politics of AGW loses out. And based on recent polling in the US support for AGW is sliding downhill fast. I’d bet that cap & trade legislation will not by passed by Congress this year. Certainly not by Copenhagen. Even the Chinese and Indians have flipped the bird at you—saying to the West go ahead but if you want “us” to play provide the technology and 1 or 2 percent of your GDP. As voters find out what is in the details of any such deal I doubt US voters would support it at all. Poor Ban Ki-moon may miss his 4 month deadline to save the planet.

  94. #95 Girma
    August 20, 2009

    Man Made Global Warming is a position that calls a gas called CO2 a pollutant, but actually it is plant food and is naturally released every second in volcanoes along the edges of tectonic plates of the continents as well as in forest fires started by lightning strike.

    It is position that started with “Global Warming” but changed the term to “Climate Change” when the trend is for cooling.

    It is a position that states the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere as 380 ppm, never as 0.038%.

    It is a position that plots the mean global temperature graph with the integer parts chopped off and called anomalies in order to magnify the temperature variation to give the incorrect perception of larger temperature variation (like looking at a profile of a surface through a magnifying glass).

    It is a position that believes in global warming because the global temperature increased by 0.8 deg C in hundred years. However, if you start from 130 years ago, from 1878, the increase is only 0.33 deg C.

    AGW is just belief without evidence.

  95. #96 counter-troll
    August 20, 2009

    troll@95

    Your apparent belief that your commentary could make the slightest difference to anyone here possessed of functioning neurones and the desire to protect the biosphere on which all life depends underscores how irredeemably unhinged you right wing culture warriors are.

    I do feel sorry for you, but you should do yourself a favour and work out your angst someplace where professional clinicians can help you.

  96. #97 Chris O'Neill
    August 20, 2009

    Even the Chinese and Indians have flipped the bird at you

    “You” in this case meaning western governments who expect the Chinese and Indians to make emission reductions even though their emissions per person are vastly lower than western countries. The Chinese and Indians are merely pointing out selfish hypocrisy.

  97. #98 Troll
    August 20, 2009

    @97 You may not like it but we do vote. If your theory can’t convince enough voters you may be stuck with calling those same voters nasty little names. You’ll be left with saving the biosphere in your imagination. ;-)

  98. #99 elspi
    August 20, 2009

    “Poor Ban Ki-moon may miss his 4 month deadline to save the planet.”

    Which should be a reason for the people on said planet to celebrate because?????????????

    We have just doomed human civilization. Lets go to Disneyland???????????

    CO_2 absorbs light in the infrared but not in the visible.
    Therefore it heats that planet.
    Which part of that don’t you understand.

  99. #100 Janet
    August 20, 2009

    Girma,

    [Here is](http://www.ipcc.ch/) a summary of a lot of evidence that you belive does not exists.

    Thanks for sharing your faith based beliefs though, very entertaining.

    God bless ;)

1 2 3 23