The Great State Climate Debate
February 1st, 2007
We were there, in person, and this is our account. George Taylor won. He won hands down. And he was mobbed by well-wishers afterwards. It was all very droll and copasetic, and the warmth in the room was global.
Last Tuesday we attended the media-hyped main event, ”Two State Climatologists Discuss Climate Change” featuring George Taylor (OSU) and Phil Mote (UW), respective state climatologists. The Great Discussion (it was a debate) was sponsored by the Oregon Chapter of the American Meteorological Society, and hosted by the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry (OMSI).
OMSI specialists video-taped the whole thing and they promised to put the digitized version on their web site (see here). (Is it up yet? Yes! See here.)
Before we give our blow-by-blow account, we must report that the gentlemen involved were true gentlemen throughout, the crowd was polite and gracious, and despite the controversial issues discussed (debated), an air of humor and good feelings pervaded the evening. Both climatologists acquitted themselves admirably, and both were very sharp and knowledgeable.
Dr. Mote led off with a cascade of graphs and charts demonstrating a 37 percent rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide since 1750, and a 150 percent increase in methane concentrations. This increase in greenhouse gases has led, according to Dr. Mote, to a 0.4 to 0.8 degrees C increase in global temperatures over the last 100 years. He also maintained that humanity burning fossil fuels has caused this rise in global temperature.
By the way, tomorrow the new Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will issue an updated iteration (the 4th) of their global warming assessment (see here). Phil Mote is one of the main authors/reviewers, so the attendees got to see a preview of some of the climate modeling that will no doubt be highlighted in the new assessment.
Dr. Mote presented some lines of evidence that support the hypothesis that the climate has warmed recently. These included glacial retreat, Antarctic ice shelf breakup (the Larson B Ice Shelf in 2002, see here), earlier snow melt, and reduced summer river flows, among others. (So many Power Point slides were flashed so quickly that this reporter failed to capture every argument, and we recommend you watch the OMSI video to get all the details.)
He also noted that a warming climate means more rain, that volcanic eruptions cool the climate via aerosols, that urbanization has had no effect on climate, and that some outcomes of global warming are beneficial.
George Taylor was second, and he began by showing an old newspaper cartoon featuring himself as “The State Nut”. The dead tree press has had it in for Taylor for a long time, because he doesn’t permit political biases to color his scientific judgments. The ugly slanders induced by Milstein of the Ogre-onian from such notables as Taylor’s dean and Guv Toad, were totally swept away in Taylor’s self-effacing good humor.
George Taylor is so charmingly laidback and kindhearted that everyone who knows him well just loves him. And he is super-smart and knows his subject backwards and forwards. At one point in the evening the two debaters high-fived each other, and at another had their arms on each others’ shoulders in mutual admiration. Part of the reason George won the debate is that he is such a winning guy naturally.
The other is that his scientific arguments were stronger. Taylor agreed with Mote that a small global temperature increase has occurred in the last 100 years. Taylor disagreed that human activities were the primary drivers behind it.
His principal argument last Tuesday was that solar irradiation is much more strongly correlated with global temperature than any of the other hypothesized climate forcers, including greenhouse gases. His secondary argument was that the factors used in climate modeling are invariably measured with error and are thus statistically unreliable.
Solar irradiation is the amount of energy the sun beams down on our planet. It is not constant, but varies over cycles of 100,000 years, 23,000 years, 19,000 years, 60 years, 20 years, 11 years, 1 year, and every day depending on where you are, that scientists know of, and quite probably more that they don’t.
Much of the global warming since 1850 may be a rebound effect from the Little Ice Age. That is, the global climate is returning to “normal”. George Taylor did not say that, exactly. What he said was that the climate is cyclic. The pattern in the data is oscillation, not a linear trend up or down.
The Little Ice Age from 1450 to 1850 coincided with the Maunder Minimum (see here), a period of time when sunspots were less frequent. Sunspots are eruptions of concentrated solar energy on the sun’s surface, and they cause increased solar irradiation of the Earth. When there are few sunspots, solar irradiation decreases, as during the Little Ice Age. Lately sunspots have been frequent and solar irradiation greater than “normal”. The Larson B ice shelf breakup coincided with a solar flux spike.
NASA and the Russians have satellites in close solar orbits yielding new data about the currents within the sun. Those currents convey extra energy to the surface, forming sunspots. Interestingly, as Mr. Taylor pointed out, both NASA and the Russians are predicting that we are entering another period of diminished sunspots. The solar conveyor belt seems to be conveying less energy to the sun’s surface these days, and that condition is expected to worsen over the next 15 years, before it (hopefully) returns to “normal”.
If that’s true, then we may have peaked in our current climatic mini-optimum and are headed for colder temperatures globally. The two debaters bet a dinner in 2025 on the outcome, and shook on it, and we witnessed the handshake along with 400 other people, so the bet is officially on.
There are some early signs that Taylor may get a free meal from Mote. The global sea level rise of 8 inches over the last 100 years (2 mm/year) is leveling off. A 20 percent loss of upper ocean heat content since 2003 has been detected, meaning that the oceans have been cooling off for the last three years. The cyclic trend in USA mean annual temperatures has risen only 0.25 degrees F over the last 100 years, but there were periodic maximums from 1935 to 1945 and again from 1995 to 2005 (roughly). Again, the data seems to be cyclic and over the next few decades the global temperature trend will probably be downwards, not upwards.
Solar irradiation correlates to annual mean USA temperatures with an R-squared of 0.64, meaning that the dips and spikes in the sun’s energy account for two-thirds of the variation found in the data. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations, on the other hand, do not correlate at all with USA mean annual temps over any lengthy historical range.
One mechanism behind solar irradiation and climate may be the effect of cosmic ray bursts on cloud formation. The atmosphere is a great big cloud chamber and when a cosmic ray zips through, it leaves a contrail of water vapor, similar to the effects of cosmic rays in laboratory cloud chambers. In other words, sunspots help clouds to form on Earth. Clouds trap and reflect heat upwards and downwards, and may increase or decrease overall global temperatures depending on the type of cloud, its elevation, and its latitude.
Cloud formation, cloud shapes, and cloud movement are all subject to the laws of chaos and have not been (cannot be?) modeled well. Which brings up Taylor’s secondary point: a lot of important factors are missing from climate models, and the factors that are included have often been measured with error.
Taylor got a big laugh when he showed a photo of the Forest Grove, OR, US government weather station. The station (a box of instruments on an outdoor stand) has been placed between an air conditioning unit and a paved parking lot. In summer when the air conditioner is pumping out heat and the pavement is cooking and shimmering, the station is recording inflated temperatures. The data is biased to higher than actual numbers.
When the detected temperature change over the last 100 years is a fraction of a degree, biased measurements call into question the accuracy of the entire analysis. Old measurements used different techniques, different devices, and had different quality control. Even modern instruments, like satellites, have peculiarities that make their measurements suspect, especially comparatively.
Climate models are based on systems of equations. Each equation has inherent error, and the combinations aggregate the errors. The errors do not dissipate or balance out; they accumulate and magnify. Numerous treatises in statistical theory prove this. As a result, climate models are both inaccurate and imprecise (accuracy and precision are two related but different things to a scientist).
At the Great Discussion (Debate), after the main presentations, the two climatologists rebutted each other. Dr. Mote repeated his main points and showed again his main graphs, which will no doubt be part of the new IPCC global warming assessment. Mr. Taylor gently, and with charm and wit, disemboweled those arguments, in effect taking the new IPCC report and blowing it completely out of the water.
One of Taylor’s main lines of reasoning was that long-term time series data are always periodic and never linear. If you take a small segment with carefully selected endpoints, you can force a straight line through the data points. But this is improper statistically and scientifically. A scientist’s rule of thumb: never throw away data, i.e. information, to make the model work. Another related issue is that forcing inferences across broad scales in both time and space is illogical and unscientific.
Another of Taylor’s points was that the answers to climate change questions lie in history. Current conditions must be placed in historical contexts. More research needs to be done on paleo-climates and paleo-ecology.
We would rephrase this as Warmer Is Better. Whenever it’s been warmer than now on Planet Earth, Life Itself has been more abundant. Whenever it’s been colder, Life Itself has diminished. Forests, for instance, thrive from the tropics to the tundra, but no farther north than that. Tundra, which currently makes up one-fourth of North America, is a kind of desert with minimal biological productivity.
The pro-Life position, at any rate, is that Warmer Is Better.
Both climatologists in The Great Discuss-i-bate avoided these kinds of questions, and rejected them during the Q and A session. The topic was the veracity and validity of global warming, not the effects. However, both gentlemen agreed the polar bear drowning scare was laughable. Al “Big Al” Gore was the butt of a joke or two, but mostly because the audience, not the climatologists, violated the rules. Taylor pointed out that polar warming should theoretically shift the jet stream north and decrease storm intensities (i.e. less hurricanes, typhoons, and gully-washers). Mote disputed this, but neither spent much time on it.
Taylor did make the point that conserving fossil fuels was probably a good idea, regardless of global warming. He rides a bike to work. Mote had to admit that, as part of his IPCC duties, he has been jetting all over the globe and burning fossil fuels like crazy (i.e. like Big Al).
Both men expressed a strong admiration and liking for the other. They share many values, which far outweigh their scientific differences.
Our conclusion? The Great Global Warming Debate is far from over. Scientific consensus does not exist. Strong arguments against global warming (as predicted by greenhouse gas climate change models) are held by many serious, dedicated, expert, and independent-minded scientists.
One side of the political spectrum is attempting to squelch the Great Debate. One side (and we all know which one that is) resorts to despicable acts of censorship, character assassination, newspaper smear campaigns, and harsh sanctions against the brave few who dare to speak up with criticisms and contrary views. It is so obvious that this is what is going on, and so repulsive.
The Ogre-onian reported the event afterwards in a tiny story buried in the back of the paper. The chastened reporter did not mention the governor, or the dean of COAS, or any other suckfish slanderer. He referred to Mr. Taylor as the Oregon State Climatologist and Director of the Oregon Climate Service. We were happy to see that.
[Personal note to Guv Toad: I did not vote for you. You are not my governor. You are my unpleasant burden.]
Global warming is not a scientific surety. It may not be happening at all. If it is, it may have nothing to do with human activities. The debate is not over. It is just beginning.
February 1st, 2007 at 9:31 pm
Interesting post. Suppose Taylor is right, as seems quite likely, but politicians prevail over science and common sense, as also seems quite likely, and force at least a superficially visible if not a catastrophically (suicidally?) extreme change in human behavior. When Taylor’s and Mote’s bet is due in 2025, will not Mote claim that the chilly weather we are then experiencing is the healthy result of all that enlightened social engineering our heroic betters forced upon us?
February 2nd, 2007 at 4:19 pm
Mike is there a transcript of this that you know of?
February 2nd, 2007 at 4:51 pm
Pril and all:
Yes. The video tape and pdf files from both debaters are up now on the OMSI website. Click here:
http://www.omsi.edu/visit/
and look for:
then click the ones you want. They’re just a click away.
February 3rd, 2007 at 12:36 am
The Seattle papers think Taylor wasn’t nice to Mote. Please clarify.
One of the things we all need to remember: Tim Wirth, US Senator, D-CO, retired (thank God) now working for Ted ‘Hanoi’ Turner mouthed the utterance, ”Even if the science is wrong, it’s still the right thing to do.”
Who needs facts? Certainly not the nannystaters looking for justification.
February 3rd, 2007 at 5:37 am
Send me an email and I will send a presentation on the natural causes of global warming theory.
artesian1[at]sympatico[dot]ca
February 3rd, 2007 at 11:14 am
Donald,
Please tell the Seattle papers that Taylor was absolutely polite and warm towards Mote, and vice versa. They are good friends. Heck, at one point in the evening I thought they were going to kiss!
I was glad they didn’t.
Some shred of animosity might have been nice, but there wasn’t any that evening. (And you can view the tapes at OMSI to confirm that).
February 3rd, 2007 at 10:08 pm
Wayne Kraft’s comment is one that we should all pay close attention to. If the media continues to drown out science for feel-good proclamations disguised as science, what the hell difference does it make? I have ridden the popular media myths to damnation most of my working life here in Oreygawn.
There are allegedly no salmon allegedly because of the dams–thus making salmon the exception in the world of commercial fishing, where overfishing has decimated most species. Commercial fishing for salmon here continues apace, while the dams are damned.
Or the spotted owl, the convenient surrogate for no public logging, a just punishment for the timber barons. Of course, the beneficiaries WERE the timber barons. Weyerhaeuser is a court proclaimed monopoly since the owl shut down mills dependent on public timber, and Big W is now in the process of closing the mills they bought from Willamette Industries. Control the biggest non-public block of timber, and shut down the mills that use that timber because they compete against their Canadian lumber production.
Pseudo-science has made Weyco billions, and made public timber a thing of the past–and oh by the way, Oregon hasn’t been able to finance public education since the shutdown, we got a rural meth epidemic, and Barred Owls are killing and breeding with Spotted owls who never lacked habitat, just protection from other owls.
A million or more marbled murrelets live and breed in a broad arc around the north Pacific from California to Japan. But on the margins of their habitat, they are a threatened species. Duh!!! Every plant and animal is always threatened on the margins of their habitat. They are either a pioneer or on their way to oblivion, because nature works that way.
Small science was used to gain a political goal, and small science will be used that way in the name of global warming. Governments finance research, and I am of the mind that a whole lot of this global warming issue is a great venue for capturing a whole lot of cash from Uncle Sugar for global warming research. Sort of like FEMA trailer houses. You can never have enough.
I am a skeptic. The Mote-Taylor debates are telling in that U of W just finished a two billion dollar endowment effort, which they were successful at. OSU can only wish they had that going for them. Taylor is probably an impediment to gaining Uncle Sugar cash in an algore worshiping Congress. Mote is probably right now renting a Penske truck to haul the loot that will surely come to U of W. His lot in academia is to walk the streets looking for Johns with dough. Taylor has too much class to participate. He will continue to be a scientist, and retire with a smile on his face. If he isn’t run out of Corvallis by that part of the OSU faculty who are true mis-believers.
February 4th, 2007 at 10:10 am
The truth will come out in the end. Sticking to first principles is more important. Anyway correlation is not causation. CO2 has no experimental support.
I’m looking for someone who has worked with isotopes. I think the isotopic support used in the report is flawed because ice is an open system. Isotope evidence is used [inaccurately] as a proxy for temperature. Theoretically, the heavy isotopes O18 are selectively preserved in buried ice while the O16 dissipates more rapidly, but the record in deeper ice yields a false low and the near surface ice a false high because the O16 hasn’t left the system yet. If you know someone who has worked in this area, I’d like to communicate.
February 4th, 2007 at 10:35 am
Aren’t politics grand?
A point that might be raised here is how much carbon was cycled pre-Columbian…eh? Which anthros made the most smoke, then or now?
Politically speaking, carbon sequestration is the new Food Stamps/Welfare System for the non-working rich. Still, we must wonder what sort of impact cellulose-based sequestration can possibly have. Will it require burning wood in systems that include carbon exhaust scrubbers and underground injection? And what about all those other non-burnt forest products? What happens over centuries to piles of paper in landfills or stud walls? Can creosote and other wood preservatives save Planet Earth by preventing the gaseous specter of decay? Should we be freezing our lawn clippings so they don’t rot?
Oh, well, like Tim Wirth said, “Even if the science is wrong, it’s still the right thing to do.”
Huh?
February 4th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Oregon Meteorological Society member and former TV weatherman Chuck Weise writes:
Mike,
It was a pleasure to get on KXL yesterday and go after this OSPIRG fraud. What really got my attention was his claim that the climate models reverse time integrate accurately and thus predict past climate accurately. This is incorrect and one of my complaints that I have repeatedly used on Lars’ show in the past.
These nuts skip phase three of the scientific method of validation of hypothesis. There is no validated scientific proof in climate modeling.
I have the IPCC spectral absorption coefficients used in the models, and if you run them in the presence of the most reasonable concentrations of water vapor, the results of increased absorption are grossly exaggerated. The 2.6 - 6 Watts/square meter in the models is an improper calculation. Some of these kooks have used absorption owing to CO2 alone rather than with water vapor, ignoring spectral band overlap that cuts total absorption by 2/3 in the real world.
The climate models (coupled earth, ocean atmospheric models) are NOT working. The models don’t properly handle GHG increased forcing, and ultimately (and wrongly) convert most of the forcing to sensible heat gain at the surface. The modelers are hypothesizing positive feedbacks that they allege amplify warming, but such mechanisms are imaginary.
Thanks for your positive comments. I will continue to lash out at these frauds whenever I can, but it is an uphill battle with the millions of dollars being spent to hype and smear the truth, including the messengers!
Chuck
PS This forwarded letter I sent to Lars yesterday is a summary of my position on the latest developments:
Hello Lars,
The strong language used in this report [IPCC the 4th] is precisely what I predicted would happen. On the flip side of the coin, you know that I am skeptical of this entire hypothesis. The basic physics and real world effects from doubling CO2 in the atmosphere just don’t jive with what climate computer models predict. In fact, I believe the currently popular models are gross exaggerations of actual outcomes, making climate change a non-issue with respect to the “human component”.
IPCC scientists are a stubborn group of individuals that refuse to accept this fact. Climate modeling is nothing more than a hypothesis that does not go beyond Step 2 of 3 using the scientific method. (Step 1 is discovery of a phenomenon, Step 2 is a hypothesis created to explain it, and Step 3 is proving the hypothesis with validating experiment). In the case of global warming, Step 3 would be demonstrating that the climate models are REAL working models of the earth, ocean, and atmospheric systems, and that running the models forward or backwards in time produces the same result for LARGE time periods, and that their predictions are consistent with the Earth’s past climate record, (which they are not).
Because this report pushes the envelope and attempts to jump to the third leg of the scientific method without validation, this makes the issue political and a religion to the claimants. I am left at this point to believe that because ALL of the funding for the IPCC and academic types that support it is from government and liberal funding grants, that their true purpose is not to learn or discover, but to create public policy and foist a new set of “carbon taxes” and regulation on the public.
The relationships of codependency are obvious and disgusting. Liberal politicians are now salivating over the creation of new taxation, and the academic types are assured continued rich funding and long term employment. They both win at the expense of the general public and the economy. This is corruption of science at its greatest.
Chuck
February 5th, 2007 at 1:08 am
Mike:
I think it is particularly important to pay attention to Chuck Weise’s point that long-term climate predictive models, including all of the models being used to promote Global Warming, must be capable of predicting the past in order to be trusted to make projections forward in time. This is what Chuck terms “validation” of the climate models with which he is familiar. If all of the current models are unable to predict the past, as Chuck claims, then they are all useless, costly, and probably counterproductive.
If a recognizable model of a human can be made from five or six popsicle sticks, then a number of the current hagiarchy apparently think they can use those figures, apply vast strings of numbers and giant computers to crunch them, and then tell you where the human race will be in 30 years. That is what climate modeling is.
About 15 years ago I delivered an analysis of computerized climate models as reflected by documented historical forest conditions in the western US. Other scientists from Russia, China, Canada, and the US also delivered papers at the conference, and the results were published by EPA in 1993. The forest predictive models that were being used at that time to reflect climate change had the same flaws noted by Chuck Weise for current climate models:
a) they couldn’t accurately (or even close) predict the past;
b) they were incredibly simplistic, given the nature and complexity of the systems they purport to predict;
c) there were vast “gaps” in scale between the types of data gathered, the timeframes considered, and the long-term, global-scale predictions this stuff was claiming to produce. The problem was exacerbated by attempts to use multiple models to “span” these gaps.
That was before Al Gore got on the problem, though, and Ted Kulongoski in Oregon. My scientific research is in the area of western US catastrophic wildfires; my professional expertise is in reforestation and reforestation planning; and I have had some experience with computerized predictive models, including writing peer-reviewed publications on the topic. Here’s my best advice, based on those perspectives, if we want to reduce carbon emissions as quickly as possible in Oregon, and want to make good money doing it:
1) Stop unnecessary forest wildfires — a massive source of carbon in the sky — and protect our remaining (and highly threatened) old-growth at the same time by a comprehensive and sustained effort to remove competing brush and ladder fuels.
2) Log as many snags as possible as quickly as possible and turn them into solid wood products and electricity. The power is an off-set, but solid wood products will last longer than rotting snags–especially when they reburn. At this time there is a superabundance and unprecedented great number of dead trees in western Oregon. Their principal “function” (Conservation Biology-speak) seems to be to burst into incredibly hot and destructive flames from time to time, thereby further accelerating the carbon in the air problem, killing ever more wildlife, and destroying ever greater amounts of wildlife habitat and cultural resources. And threatening rural residents and communities, etc.
3) Plant a lot of healthy young trees to replace the dead trees, and begin regular maintenance with prescribed fire to protect the old-growth. The people doing this work would be ideally equipped and trained and located to manage occasional wildfires, further reducing long-term operating costs.
Trust me. If this prescription is followed, the Kulongoski crew will be boggled by the amount of carbon credits they can give to each other, and even to other states (California) and countries (Canada)! Plus, we’ll have great increases in stable, well-paid, skilled, full-time employment and good schools in our rural Oregon communities again; safe, beautiful, and attracitve forestlands; more wildlife, wildflowers, and wild berries; and a lot more carbon in our electricity, wood products, forests, and soil, and not in the air. Honest.
Bob Zybach
February 11th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
Hooray! I wish more publicity would occur concerning the arguments and facts about the real climate changes which have occurred throughout geologic time. Gore has it wrong in my opinion.
July 24th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
‘Ogre-onian’ comments and such do not help you make your case. Nor is it half as clever as people who write such things seem to think. See any comments to CBS, etc., news stories, which are filled with slurs and vitriol, written by people who very obviously have no clue, about much of anything, and equally ‘clever’ plays on words.
Also, the Q-n-A isn’t available. That may be where Taylor won it, but the evidence isn’t available. In the available video, I’d give it to Mote, by a narrow margin. I’ve downloaded the PDFs, which might change my opinion.
But could you leave off the slurs? Some Web site, somewhere, has to realize that ‘argument’ doesn’t imply ‘Jerry Springer’. Perhaps this should be the place. Something to consider, anyway.
Rude = lose. It’s odd that you complemented these guys on their comportment, as if you valued that, then got your slur on. Where I come from, we have a word for that–hypocrisy.
Just freaking *stop* would you? It’s not cute. It’s not clever. It’s pedestrian, counterproductive, and ultimately boring.
July 24th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Dear anonindy,
The post you comment on was written a year and a half ago. Since then SOS Forests has migrated to another website [here]. This one is moribund. But I leave it up as a work of art.
I am so sorry that this post did not freaking please you. I am also sorry that you come to the discussion a year and a half late. A lot has happened in that time.
The Goober of Oregon was quoted in the Ogre-onian as saying that “George Taylor is not MY state climatologist.” Then he cut the funding for the Oregon Climate Service and George’s salary and forced him out. George lost his job. Was that cute? Was that clever on the part of the Goober?
Phil Mote fired the WA Assistant State Climatologist who differed with Phil on Anthropogenic Global Warming. Was that cute and clever?
It is cute and clever when people get fired for expressing their scientific convictions within scientific circles because political bosses and power brokers have a political agenda that is decidedly non-scientific?
Since I wrote this post, 30,000 scientists signed a letter claiming that the globe is not warming and that CO2 has nothing to do with it. The “consensus” about AGW never existed and now has been thoroughly discredited. Each of those signatories took a chance on their future employment because the same political bosses and power brokers remain, and they think nothing of firing people for failing to toe the party line.
There has been no global warming in 10 years. This past winter has been the coldest globally since the early 1900’s. The combination of a decline in solar irradiation and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation have overwhelmed any marginal effect from a trace gas (carbon dioxide). Even the IPCC have recanted their global warming predictions. Everything Taylor said has come to pass. Everything Mote said has failed to happen. We need not judge on debating style at this late date; we can judge on the basis of reality. Global Warming is a bankrupt theory and proven to be false on the basis of real world evidence.
You and the Goober need to get with reality and chuck your phony theories into the dustbin of history. The rest of us already have. Starving the world’s poor and inflicting punishing “carbon taxes” do nothing to the climate but they do serious harm to your fellow man. Please stop inflicting pain on others, anonindy. We all boor of it and of you and your ilk.
And I can’t help but notice, anonindy, that you wish to censor me and others, as well as starve and tax us to death in the name of your phony hoax. Free speech does not please you. And I notice that your phony name and phony email address makes you a secret censor. You wish to limit open and free speech but without revealing your identity. You carp and criticize from your secret spiderhole.
So you support censorship, limited speech, firing people you do not agree with, mass starvation, horrendous tax schemes, the crippling of the economy, and obeisance to political bosses and power brokers despite the overwhelming evidence that the party line and junk science are as phony as you are.
Here’s a thought, anonindy: get your own blog. Then you can spew whatever you please on your own site. Because frankly, anonindy, your brand of fascist groveling, snide censorship, and base stupidity displeases me. I feel no compulsion to give the likes of you a forum on any of my sites.
I did not create this work of art for twits like you. If you don’t like it, fork off chump.
Your Pal, Mike