This is a follow-on to the earlier thread about Lubos Motl and the Czech communists, and how they’re acting like certain climate scientists. At first, I linked this as an extra to that thread, and then decided for several reasons to make this a thread of its own. The original WUWT thread with Dr. Curry’s piece is here, and in the previous thread, I quoted in full Dr. Motl’s comments.
Several hundred comments later in that thread, there was this gem, this tour de force, a smackdown for the ages. Even if you don’t follow this issue, and don’t know what half this stuff means, read through this anyway, because smackdowns don’t get much better. To save yourself some time, the smackdown part comes after “OK, now what’s wrong with this picture?”.
Willis Eschenbach (13:50:31) :
First, I have to say that I admire Judith Curry greatly. She is one of the very, very few mainstream climate scientists to enter into a public dialogue about these issues. I salute her for it.
Next, as is often my wont in trying to understand a long and complex discussion, I made my own digest of what Judith is saying. To do so, I condense each paragraph into one or a few sentences. Here is that digest:
1 I am trying an experiment by posting on various blogs
2 Losing the Public’s Trust
2.1 Climategate has broadened to become a crisis of trust in climate science in general.
2.2 Credibility is a combination of expertise and trust. Trust in the IPCC is faltering.
2.3 The scientists in the CRU emails blame their actions on “malicious interference”.
2.4 Institutions like the IPCC need to ask how they enabled this situation.
2.5 Core research values have been compromised by warring against the skeptics.
2.6 Climategate won’t go away until all this is resolved.
3 The Changing Nature of Skepticism about Global Warming
3.1 Skepticism has changed over time.
3.2 First it was a minor war between advocacy groups. Then, a “monolithic climate denial machine” was born. This was funded by the oil industry.
3.3 Because of the IPCC reports, funding for contrary views died up. It was replaced by climate auditors. The “climate change establishment” didn’t understand this and kept blaming the “denial machine”.
4 Climate Auditors and the Blogosphere.
4.1 Steve McIntyre’s auditing became popular and led to blogs like WUWT.
4.2 Auditors are independent, technically educated people mostly outside of academia. They mostly audit rather than write scientific papers.
4.3 The FOIA requests were motivated by people concerned about having the same people who created the dataset using the dataset in their models.
4.4 The mainstream climate researchers don’t like the auditors because Steve McIntyre is their arch-nemesis, so they tried to prevent auditors publishing in the journals. [gotta confess I couldn't follow the logic in this paragraph]
4.5 The auditors succeeded in bringing the climate establishment to its knees because people trusted the auditors.
5 Towards Rebuilding Trust
5.1 Ralph Cicerone’s says that two aspects need attention, the general practice of science and the personal behaviours of scientists. Investigations are being conducted.
5.2 Climate science has not adapted to being high profile. How scientists engage with the public is inadequately discussed. The result is reflexive support for IPCC and its related policies.
5.3 The public and policy makers don’t understand the truth as presented by the IPCC. More efficient strategies can be devised by recognizing that we are dealing with two groups: educated people, and the general public. To rebuild trust scientists need to discuss uncertainty. ["truth as presented by the IPCC? say what?]
5.4 The blogosphere can be a powerful tool for increasing credibility of climate research. The climate researchers at realclimate were the pioneers in this. More scientists should participate in these debates.
5.5 No one believes that the science is settled. Scientists and others say that the science is settled. This is detrimental to public trust.
5.6 I hope this experiment will demonstrate how the blogosphere can rebuild trust.
_____
Having made such a digest, my next step is to try to condense it into an “elevator speech”. This is a very short statement of the essential principles of an idea. My elevator speech of Judith’s post would be this.
Climategate has destroyed the public trust in climate science. Initially skepticism was funded by big oil. Then a climate auditing movement sprang up. They were able to bring the climate establishment to its knees because people trusted them. Public and policy makers don’t understand the truth as presented by the IPCC. To rebuild trust, climate scientists need to better communicate their ideas to the public, particularly regarding uncertainty. The blogosphere can be valuable in this regard.
>>>OK, now what’s wrong with this picture?<<<
The biggest problem is in one of the core ideas. This is the claim that the problem is that climate scientists have not understood how to present their ideas to the public. Judith, I respect you greatly, but you have grabbed the wrong end of the stick. The problem is not how climate scientists have publicly presented their scientific results.
The problem is that 71.3% of what passes as peer reviewed science is simply junk science, as false as the percentage cited in this statement. In other words, the lack of trust is not a problem of perception. It is a problem of lack of substance. Results are routinely exaggerated. “Scientific papers” are larded with “may” and “might” and “could possibly”. Advocacy is a common thread in scientific papers. Codes and data are routinely concealed. A concerted effort is made to marginalize and censor opposing views.
And most disturbing, for years you and the other climate scientists have not said a word about this disgraceful situation. When Michael Mann had to be hauled in front of a congressional committee to force him to follow the simplest of scientific requirements, transparency, you guys were all wailing about how this was a huge insult to him. An insult to Mann? Get real. Mann is an insult to climate science, and you, Judith, didn’t say one word in public about that. Not that I’m singling you out. No one else stood up for climate science either. It turned my stomach to see the craven cowering of mainstream climate scientists.
The solution to that is not, as you suggest, to give scientists a wider voice or educate them in how to present their garbage to a wider audience.
The solution is for you to stop trying to pass off garbage as science. The solution is for you establishment climate scientists to police your own back yard. When Climategate broke, there was widespread outrage … well, widespread everywhere except in the climate science establishment. Other than a few lone voices, the silence was deafening. And you wonder why we don’t trust you? Because a whole bunch of you are guilty of scientific malfeasance, and the rest of you are complicit in the guilt by your silence.
And you still don’t seem to get it. You approvingly quote Ralph Cicerone about the importance of transparency … Cicerone?? That’s a sick joke.
You don’t get it. You think people made the FOI requests because we were concerned that the people who made the datasets were the people using them in the models. As the person who made the first FOI request to CRU, I assure you that is not true. I made the request to CRU because I was disgusted with Phil Jone’s reply to Warwick Hughes request for data. Jones famously said:
Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?
When I heard that, I was astounded. I thought, “Well, he’s gonna get his hand slapped hard by real scientists for that kind of anti-scientific statements”. So I waited for some mainstream climate scientist to speak out against that kind of scientific malfeasance … and waited … and waited. In fact, I’m still waiting. I registered my protest against this bastardisation of science by filing an FOI. When is one of you mainstream climate scientist going to speak out against this kind of malfeasance? It’s not too late to condemn what Jones said, he’s still in the news and pretending to be a scientist, when is someone going to take a principled stand?
But nobody wants to do that. Instead, you want to explain how trust has been broken, and figure out more effective communication strategies to repair the trust. You want a more effective strategy? Here’s one. Ask every climate scientist to grow a pair of huevos and get outraged in public about the abysmal practices of far, far too many mainstream climate scientists. Because the public is assuredly outraged, and you are all assuredly silent … and that is extremely damaging to you.
A perfect example is you saying above:
Such debate is alive and well in the blogosphere, but few mainstream climate researchers participate in the blogospheric debate. The climate researchers at realclimate.org were the pioneers in this …
For you to say this without also expressing grave concern about realclimate’s ruthless censorship of every opposing view is more of the same conspiracy of silence. Debate is not “alive and well” at realclimate as you say, that’s a crock. Realclimate continues to have an undeserved reputation that it is a scientific blog because you and other mainstream climate scientists are unwilling to bust them for their egregious flouting of scientific norms. When you stay silent about censorship like that, Judith, people will not trust you, nor should they. You have shown by your actions that you are perfectly OK with censoring opposing scientific views.
The key to restoring trust has nothing to do with communication. Steve McIntyre doesn’t inspire trust because he is a good communicator. He inspires trust because he follows the age-old practices of science — transparency and openness and honest reporting of results.
And until mainstream climate science follows his lead, I’ll let you in on a secret — I don’t want trust in climate science to be restored. I don’t want you learning better ways to propagandize for shoddy science. I don’t want you to figure out how to better inspire trust by hiding your unethical practices in new and innovative ways. I don’t want scientists learning to use clever words and communication tricks to get people to think that the wound is healed until it is actually healed. I don’t want you to use the blogosphere to spread your pernicious unsupported unscientific alarmism.
You think this is a problem of image, that climate science has a bad image. It is nothing of the sort. It is a problem of scientific malfeasance and complicity by silence. The public, it turns out, has a much better bullsh*t detector than the mainstream climate scientists do … or at least we’re willing to say so in public, while y’all cower in your holes with your heads down and never, never, never say a bad word about some other scientist’s bogus claims and wrong actions.
You want trust? Do good science, and publicly insist that other climate scientists do good science as well. It’s that simple. Do good science, and publicly call out the Manns and the Joneses and the Thompsons and the rest of the charlatans that you are currently protecting.
Once that is done, the rest will fall in line. And until then, I’m overjoyed that people don’t trust you. I see the lack of trust in mainstream climate science as a huge triumph for real science. Fix it by doing good science and by cleaning up your own backyard. Anything else is a coverup.
Judith, again, my congratulations on being willing to post your ideas in public. You are rara avis, and I respect you greatly for it.
w.
PS – a “monolithic climate denial machine”?? Puhleease, Judith, you’re talking to us folks who were there on the ground fighting the battle. Save that farrago for people who weren’t there, those who don’t know how it went down.
Dayam, Willis. Let us all know how you really feel.
Pre-release update 1: It appears that this has become a thread @ WUWT, and there’s more tacked on the end:
This is another huge problem for mainstream climate scientists and mainstream media alike. You still think the problem is that we opposed your ideas and exposed your errors. You still see the climate scientists as the victims, even now in 2010 when the CRU emails have shown that’s nonsense. Every time one of your self-appointed spokes-fools says something like “Oh, boo hoo, the poor CRU folks were forced to circle their wagons by the eeevil climate auditors”, you just get laughed at harder and harder. The CRU emails showed they were circling the FOI wagons two years before the first FOI request, so why haven’t you noticed?
The first step out of this is to stop trying to blame Steve and Anthony and me and all the rest of us for your stupidity and your dishonesty and your scientific malfeasance. [Edited by public demand to clarify that the "your stupidity" etc. refers to mainstream climate scientists as a group and not to Judith individually.] You will never recover a scrap of trust until you admit that you are the source of your problems, all we did was point them out. You individually, and you as a group, created this mess. The first step to redemption is to take responsibility. You’ve been suckered by people like Stephen Schneider, who said:
To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.
That worked fine for a while, but as Lincoln pointed out, it caught up with you. You want trust? Disavow Schneider, and STOP WITH THE SCARY SCENARIOS. At this point, you have blamed everything from acne to world bankruptcy on eeevil global warming. And you have blamed everything from auditors to the claimed stupidity of the common man for your own failures. STOP IT! We don’t care about your pathetic justifications, all you are doing is becoming the butt of jokes around the planet. You seem to have forgotten the story of the Boy Who Cried Wolf. Read it. Think about it. Nobody cares about your hysteria any more. You are in a pit of your own making, and you are refusing to stop digging … take responsibility.
Because we don’t want scientists who are advocates. We’re not interested in scientists who don’t mention their doubts. We’re sick of your inane “simplified dramatic statements”. We laugh when you cry wolf with your scary scenarios. Call us crazy, but we want scientists who are honest, not scientists who balance honesty and effectiveness. You want trust? Get honest, kick out the scoundrels, and for goodness sakes, get a clue about humility.
Because the truth is, climate science is one of the newest sciences. The truth is, we know little about the climate, we’ve only been studying it intensely for a couple decades. The truth is, we can’t project the climate of the next decade, much less that of the next century. The truth is, we have no general theory of climate. The truth is, we don’t know if an average temperature rise of a couple degrees will be a net benefit or a net loss. The truth is, all of us are human, and our knowledge of the climate is in its infancy. And I don’t appreciate being lectured by infants. I don’t appreciate being told that I should be put in the dock in a Nuremberg style trial for disagreeing with infants. You want to restore trust? Come down off your pedestals, forsake your ivory towers, and admit your limitations.
And through all of this, be aware that you have a long, long, long climb back up to where we will trust you. As Lincoln warned, you have forfeited the confidence of your fellow citizens, and you will be damn lucky if you ever get it back.
I wish I could be that focused and pissed off for that long. In fact, we’d be a much better society if we can all be that focused and pissed off for that long.
Pre-release update 2: The hyperbole is getting hot and heavy. From Lucia’s Blackboard, we have a commenter with this brilliant gem:
Climate scientists losing public trust == Jodie Foster being gang raped after getting drunk and dancing provocatively.
Umm. Ok. As Lucia says:
Wow! raping = undermining public trust? Seriously?! Get a grip.
Maybe that was LVQ?
Tags: Climate Change
wow!
” what chu talkin bout willis!?”
Any of the “scientists” who fell for the AGW hoax are criminals. They need to be hounded out of science.
There is no excuse for their failure to see this scam for what it is. Gobbling up grant money and going along with this deceitful hoax to fit in. It is bullshit. They are all a disgrace.
Rock on, Willis!
@ chickadee:
Hi Chickadee!
Judith grabbed the proverbial sh***y end of the stick …
@ chickadee:
Wait just a minute. selrahC said the science is settled. LMAO, what a tool.
@ coldwarrior:
Hey CW. Snowicane hit you guys or did you dodge the bullet?
file this under bwahahahaha
UKIP would ban Al Gore film in schools
Pending the results of the commission, the party, that has no MPs at the moment, have promised to build new fossil-fuelled power stations to meet energy demands and scrap subsidies for wind farms. Global warming ‘propaganda’ like the Al Gore film Inconvenient Truth will be banned in schools and public authorities will not be allowed to spend money on climate change initiatives.
@ gulfloafer:
Hmmm…… tool. I’m thinking toilet snake. But then, that’s actually useful.
Indeed!
I’m reminded of a few good men, with increasingly shrill climate alarmists taking the role of Nicholson’s base commander.
“You want truth? You can’t handle the truth!”
Bluebird wrote:
You do have a point there.
ANALYSIS-Scientists examine causes for lull in warming
“gee, ya think?”
gulfloafer wrote:
dodged…6 to 8 by sunday.
@ coldwarrior:
Brutal
@ gulfloafer:
not really, we are used to it now.
nite all
I’ll bring some coffee in the morning
@ coldwarrior:
You know I was thinking the same thing. I remember 6-8 inches of snow would’ve been cause for alarm but after 3+ feet I guess it’s a blessing.
i’m sorry, i dont believe you anymore.
CLIMATE scientists yesterday stunned Britons suffering the coldest winter for 30 years by claiming last month was the hottest January the world has ever seen.
@ rain of lead:
Good night lead slinger.
gulfloafer wrote:
yep…’tis a dusting!
rain of lead wrote:
ethiopian yrgacheffee please
coldwarrior wrote:
I thought that was a link to Mad Magazine, a parody. That’s one way to destroy any credibility you may still have held as a news source.
@ coldwarrior:
Ha ha ha ha, That has to be a joke.
Is that the Onion?
@ gulfloafer:
@ Rodan:
its the express.
“The University of East Anglia submitted its evidence to Parliament’s science and technology committee yesterday, denying it had altered climate change statistics.”
the money quote
coldwarrior wrote:
I like the commenter who said “Here in the USA, we have the King of Climate Clowns Al Gore, or I should say we have him in the summertime when he can show his silly science fiction movie and not be laughed out of the theater. As soon as it turns cold, he disappears from public view. We blogged about this phenomenon”
@ coldwarrior:
That should be an Onion mock post
Rodan wrote:
You mean it should be past around and posted on every site in the free world to expose the true lunacy of these fools.
I’m hitting the hay. Maybe I’ll sleep for 20 years like Rip Van winkle and wake up in a sane world.
Well, the global warming is coming down good and hard here in NYC and it’s sticking! Apologies in advance to anybody whose been troubled by all the blizzards, but I’m LOVING it! We’ve been gypped on snowfall here – it skipped the magical white blanket stage and all went directly to the ugly, gray slush stage. I’m hoping for two feet! I’m all stocked up on food and liquor! I know I’m silly, but it’s strangely fun!
Bluebird wrote:
a good blizzard is a beautiful thing. i do enjoy them.
@ coldwarrior:
Oh, big storms of any kind are fantastic! I grew up in the Midwest and some of the ice storms were epic. Thunderstorms in the summer, too. My grandfather and I used to sit out in the garage and watch them roll in. Tornadoes are scary, though. But in a totally awesome way!
@ coldwarrior:
Global warming leads Blizzards and Cold winters!
/
Pikachu the Jazz Artist.
@ Bluebird:
yep, from my back deck i watch the storms roll in in the summer, i ususally have an hour light show before it gets too silly.
Rodan wrote:
heat means cold, up is down, black is wight…double plus good
I’m sorry I missed Sylvester_T_Cat. When I bothered to check the ‘ratings’ on my posts at you know where, he had ‘updinged’ many of them. I never saw him post, so it was very mysterious and I never got to thank him. I hope he sticks around. And thank you!, if you read this Sylvester!
From the first Curry thread on WUWT, a comment close to W.E’s, which I think is an acute analysis of the Curry mind-set. (Mark Three being a nic of mine!)
Mark Three (13:20:33) :
“Credibility is a combination of expertise and trust.”
There could not be a more perfect statement to reveal, inadvertently, the writer’s acceptance that politics is at the heart of climate science.
Scientists should not concern themselves with their credibility – or believability. Their work stands or falls on evidence and reasoning. Their expertise arise from experience at doing science correctly, which assumes correcting errors, which assumes permitting errors to be noticed by others. At no time does a scientist – or his work – become “credible” based merely on prior work. “Believe me on this one, friends, as I have been right before,” or, even worse, “Believe me on this one, as I have been paid to do this job for 20 years,” are appeals to credibility. The content of each piece of new work must be evaluated for its scientific soundness.
Expertise is the very aspect of science that must never be trusted, but is always on trial. It is not even a question of “trust, but verify” – but “always verify.”
Credibility – “trust me, I’m an expert” – is a term used by propagandists and politicians. Why else do the alarmists argue so determinedly to authority or impugn the expertise, motives and interests of skeptics ? So-and-so is not an expert climate scientist; the publication that presented his work is not a serious climate science publication:; he is associated with Big Baccy…
When scientists believe that they have not communicated their ideas well enough, they are speaking like politicians. Well enough for what? When alarmists talk about the truth of climate science, they are admitting that AGW is social and political science, born of environmentalism out of social advocacy. No surprise that they should be seeking magic slogans to persuade the public. No surprise that they see themselves as visionaries, data-collectors and verifiers as janitors, the public as the root cause of impending doomsday, and governments as the coercive force to stop the public from ending it all.
When science rests on credibility it is no longer science.
@ Overlook:
exactly
@ Overlook:
Whenever someone uses the phrase “trust me” or any of its’ derivatives with regard to anything, I’m immediately suspicious, I immediately check my wallet and I immediately start googling shit. I associate it with used car salesmen.
@ Overlook:
I saw that, and you’re dead on. I think they’re drunk on the privilege of the inner circle, and don’t want to let go. Once upon a time, they were investigators. Now they’re priests, bishops, and cardinals, and have no intention of going back to being mere investigators. Celebrity is intoxicating.
Curry, in particular, wants to have her cake and eat it, too. She doesn’t want anyone looking over her shoulder, but she wants to advise the powerful. And so her bargain is, trust me, and I’ll let you see a few things that I think you unwashed masses can be allowed to see.
No sale.
Hi Bluebird! Thanks very much for remembering me. I always enjoy your comments, there and here as well. The updings for me were my way of saying “good point!”. I only averaged maybe one post a week there, most always on a late night thread at that. But I used to read as many comment threads over there as I had time for. Sorta reminded me (before things changed) of a year I did in grad school, back in the day– even if the prof was dull and boring, break time during and after class was fun ’cause the other folks were smarter’n hell and fun to chat with
.
Her mind is not open. her eyes are blind. She is an idiot who will be forgotten as a charlatan and a fraud, if she is lucky. And likely soon. The she will move on to the next crack pot theory necessary to put her in charge of things. Because that is what this is about. Methane ‘crystals’ (hmmm. wonder how they got there in the first place, judy?), CO2 acidification of the ocean (hmmm. wonder why sealife actually seems to have a resistance to such minor alteration in oceanic chemistry?) or some other bizarre theory. All the while ignoring real environmental threats like sea life depletion by over fishing, deforestation, the intentional extinction of species, et al.
@ Sylvester T Cat:
Hi! I can’t believe it! It’s so nice to finally ‘meet’ you! I wondered about you for a year! ” Who IS this Sylvester_T_Cat ? I was a late night lurker too! When I saw your ‘updings’, I felt like I had a secret ally! I look forward to seeing seeing you around here. But I’m kinda a late night lurker here too, LOL, so I guess we’ll both have to speak up more!
coldwarrior wrote:
Calling Dr. Wolfie.
With friends like Ludvig Von QuackQuack, AGW doesn’t need enemies. What a remarkable tool. He’s a self-parody.
Hyperventilate much?
@ Opilio:
The science is settled.
The BVoAF is infested with Climate Troofers.
Submitted without comment: 259 Sharmuta Sun, Oct 4, 2009 9:42:19pm •
{Charles} I’m so sorry.
@ MrPaulRevere:
http://lgfbannedandblocked.blogspot.com/2010/01/lgf-banned-and-blocked-case-study.html
@ Opilio:
I skimmed through that thread and I can honestly say I have not seen a melt-down like that at LGF from someone of his stature.He’s always been a preposterous character but that crosses the line. He’s working for a room at the laughing academy.
@ 45 Opilio: LVQ is off the deep end. Getting into the crazy territory.
I think LVQ uses a Mayan Calendar.
Good morning, y’all.
School is canceled, and the musical is next week. I think I’ll just go sob quietly in a corner.
Good morning Blogmocracy!!
All day yesterday I was searching for a screen grab of Obama’s face as he listened to Paul Ryan. Well Steven Green got one and HERE IT IS.
I want to frame it! What made it even better was that I simply happened to look over at the TV, as I couldn’t bear to listen and was instead jammin’ out.
I hope everyone is well today! I’ll be in and out as I have an early appointment.
@ goddessoftheclassroom:
{goddess}
It’ll all work out! I’ll put you on “my” prayer list!
Good morning!
We didn’t seem to get much of the global warming this time around.
{Goddess} I hope this finds you well, and that you are enjoying life.
dorian! Hopes you are well too, and enjoying your turtle.
Doc, hope the wife and daughters aren’t driving you too crazy!
Good morning all.
Good morning all!
It seems the ivory tower of glow-bull warming is laying on its side in a gully, and all the believers are pretending it’s still standing tall. George Orwell told us there would be days like this.
Goddess, I hope the musical comes off well. My kids are performing in a jazz festival this weekend. I am amazed at the talent these young whippersnappers have accumulated.
@ Bumr50:
Priceless.
{Bumr50}
{Rightside}
Thanks so much.
{RIX}
{C-L}
My problem isn’t a lack of talent; it’s a lack of experience and theatre discipline. Ah, well; we can only do the best we can with what we’ve got.
@ goddessoftheclassroom:
It will pull together, huh?
@ goddessoftheclassroom:
God has a way of turning the proverbial lemons into lemonade if we have faith.
Hmmm, Ludwig doesn’t see very upbeat. It’s gonna be Mad Max.
@ RIX:
At least Mad Max had some semblance of civilisation still existing. Could be worse. He could be predicting Beyond Thunderdome.
He gets more & more strident, he’ll get to Thunderdome.
Has he mentioned that he’s a scientist?
{mjazz}
Indeed!
Good morning.
lol, sorry if someone already posted.We know where Goracle has been hanging out.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31021_3-10459872-260.html?tag=newsEditorsPicksArea.0
RIX wrote:
What a stupid freaking statement by Ludwig. The world of 1900 no longer existed in 1999, and no, the twentieth century was not a pleasant ride. I think it is fair to say that 2099 will be radically different from 2000 and during that period the climate will get hotter and colder as the decades progress, the way the climate always has done.
@ RIX:
We’re all scientists, it’s just that some are better than others.
Channeling Charles:
12 Charles
Thu, Feb 25, 2010 8:45:40pm replyquote
+73downupreport
re: #2 Willis Eschenbach
DENIER! I studied this subject long and hard and you’re just stupid. The science is settled. Why don’t you take this opportunity to start you own blog because you are not welcome here any more. BYE-BYE, DENIER!
By the way, Willis’ comment was pretty much brilliant.
*sigh*
If only we had the blogsphere (and the Internet as we know it now) back in the early 1990′s, then I would not have to go into Mexico to recharge the freon in my car’s AC unit. The anthropogenic ozone hole was another enviromental scam: I always found it a remarkable coincidence that Dupont’s patent on CFCs expired around the same time the ozone scare was popularized. Call me a cynic.
on this date in 1993 the first world trade center
bombing was carried out
Nice takedown alright. Curry’s mindset sounds very similar to the Dems’ thinking on Obamacare, that the public rejects it not because it’s junk but because they, the anointed, haven’t hit on exactly the right way to package and frame the junk. They both underestimate the public’s intelligence.
Willis rocks!!!!