tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post8218282690009060825..comments2023-06-09T05:51:20.174-07:00Comments on Climate Consensarian: Red Team Blue TeamBrandon R. Gateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17031044715994785956noreply@blogger.comBlogger71125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-4076086005254670062016-04-17T14:44:59.387-07:002016-04-17T14:44:59.387-07:00I offer a nuance. My experience at WUWT suggests ...I offer a nuance. My experience at WUWT suggests that scrubs like me have little issue getting through, at least prior to, oh, February of this year when all my comments started going to the moderation bin by default. Most of them came out, some were snipped, some simply never appeared. I think it may be a site-wide policy now for everyone that comments aren't posted immediately, but I'm not sure.<br /><br />Anyway, main point is that consensus voices from persons with stature have the most trouble. Anthony invariably claims it's because of "repeated site violations". I'm not seeing it, if it were true I should have been banned a year ago along with 99% of everyone else who comments there. And I do mean everyone, including his guest authors and himself.<br /><br />I think your observation that moderation is uneven is on the mark. I was only sent to the corner twice, and only one of those times did my interlocutor get the same sanction. Probably five times I got a warning from mod, and at least three additional from Anthony, all of which looked the other way at the other guy's own behavior.<br /><br />Every time, my response included, "sure, your site, your rules". First time I even apologized for offending. After that, I complied under protest.<br /><br />I don't have as much a feel for SkS moderation. I've seen it happen. Reasons were clearly explained. And I've seen AGW consensus voices clipped.<br /><br />I do see plenty of contrarian posts which have gotten through. Same for every other consensus blog out there which allows comments and with which I'm familiar.<br /><br />Overall, I think this is pretty much a zero-sum argument. Blog owners moderate at their own discretion, which is exactly how I think it should be.Brandon R. Gateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031044715994785956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-58944456729159146352016-04-17T14:21:28.708-07:002016-04-17T14:21:28.708-07:00Absolutely. And every time I've made that arg...Absolutely. And every time I've made that argument on hostile territory I get ... but gatekeeping, sometimes with a reference to private e-mails stolen from E. Anglia CRU.<br /><br />Ok, fine, this article is my sketch of a counter-proposal. I don't know, think of it as affirmative action for contrarian hypotheses. Maybe that's why the contrarians at Watts' joint weren't exactly receptive when I floated the idea there just after Christy's testimony?<br /><br />I snark of course. I'd like to think the resistance on that side is that deep down, many realize their position is a steaming pile of horseradish.Brandon R. Gateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031044715994785956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-56569467408411726272016-04-17T13:07:40.401-07:002016-04-17T13:07:40.401-07:00"I don't keep track but I think Watts is ...<i>"I don't keep track but I think Watts is extremely lenient with commenters."</i><br /><br />It's actually worse than that. Watts is uneven in his moderation of comments. If you're saying something against legitimate climate science you can say pretty much anything you like, short of a death threat. On the other side, it's near impossible to offer a critical comment of a contrarian without getting snipped or banned.<br /><br />I do moderation at SkS and we are very clear about the rules and will snip for tone regardless of which side it comes from.<br /><br />That said, I think Watts' methods serve his purposes. It keeps his regulars riled up and keeps his detractors frustrated, which in turn delights his regulars. All of that plays into the economics of managing a blog that pays the rent through google ads.<br /><br />I'll note that SkS runs no ads and has no funding whatsoever. It is run purely because we all care about this potentially critical issue. We actually did once receive an offer of funding and the authors group unanimously rejected the idea. A long discussion wasn't even required. The offer came up and everyone said no.RobHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05953061681658403047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-36340086964190818592016-04-17T12:55:30.235-07:002016-04-17T12:55:30.235-07:00My question would be: Hey, researchers have been ...My question would be: Hey, researchers have been working on this pretty intensely for the past 40+ years. Why now? Why haven't you managed to come up with a compelling alternative theory in that period of time?<br /><br />You don't need 10% of the budget to publish a paper proposing an alternative theory. You can easily do that under the current funding structure... as long as it's "real science."RobHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05953061681658403047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-15989936739442756252016-04-15T14:36:20.619-07:002016-04-15T14:36:20.619-07:00The study was essentially done in 2014, summarized...The study was essentially done in 2014, summarized in <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/05/15/pseudoskeptics-exposed-in-the-salbystorm" rel="nofollow">this post</a>. Read that to see what this about, the interesting question is the extent to which anyone changed their minds later.<br /><br />There were a bunch of questions marks that are now resolved by the ruling in the Salby-MQ court case, and with other things, it will probably be this summer before this comes out. <br /><br />I held off publishing it until Salby's badly-misused grad student had finished her PhD (under a different advisor). The evidence is pretty strong she had nothing to do with Salby's CO2 craziness, but that he added her retrospectively like a "human shield." Since Jo Nova and others had tried to contact her, stirring things up again before she finished was something I wanted to avoid. <br /><br />One of the ambiguities resolved by the court ruling was Salby's claim:<br />"15. Upon arriving at Paris airport for my return to Australia, I was advised that my return ticket (among the resources Macquarie agreed to provide) had been cancelled. The latest chapter in a pattern, this action left me stranded in Europe, with no arrangements for lodging or return travel. The ticket that had been cancelled was non-refundable.<br /><br />16. The action ensured my absence during Macquarie’s misconduct proceedings."<br /><br />This incited many commenters to abuse of MQ, including letters to legislators, demands for defunding, etc, amidst completely crazed conpsiracy theories, like:<br />"I love a good conspiracy theory. I’ll take it a step further and propose that Macquarie may have lured Salby to Australia for the express purpose of isolating him, and silencing him if he went off the farm. Let us not forget the Team and the lengths they can go to to protect their ideology."<br /><br />Now, Salby's Item 16 seemed dubious to me on first read. For years, I flew 100K+ mile/year, around the world, sometimes with jiggles in flights, having to deal with delays and such. item 16 seemed quite dubious. Didn't Salby have his own credit card? Would anybody sensible schedule a flight to arrive just before a critical hearing? Paris-to-Sydney flights are reasonably frequent, and they take about a day. If you'd missed a flight, and were about to miss a crucial meeting, wouldn't you get in contact ASAP to reschdule? <br /><br />Of course, the court ruling showed that most of Salby's claims were false, but I think the judge missed one detail.<br /><b>Item 16 was an outright lie:</b><br /><br />2013.04.24 (Sydney) misconduct meeting<br />2013.04.25 (Oslo, mid-day) Salby lecture, he'd *already* missed the meeting by 24+ hours<br />2013.05.02 Salby gets back to Australia, having stuck in Europe for almost a week<br /><br /><b>We don't know when he actually got to Paris, but it was irrelevant: he'd already missed the hearing by at least 2 days.</b><br /><br /><br />JohnMasheyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08174651130367553996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-45330399360786187262016-04-15T01:11:41.310-07:002016-04-15T01:11:41.310-07:00Thanks BBD.Thanks BBD.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-72049093151200746812016-04-15T01:06:45.933-07:002016-04-15T01:06:45.933-07:00Mark
It speaks well for you that you are prepared...Mark<br /><br />It speaks well for you that you are prepared to admit error. Never an easy thing, especially in pseudo-public like this. <br /><br />It will be interesting to see - in the light of your revised views - whether Chic B is going to maintain his position that you should not be apologetic for what you wrote. BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-91392420268664851272016-04-15T00:34:47.919-07:002016-04-15T00:34:47.919-07:00Well, two things.
1. Being belligerent and combati...Well, two things.<br />1. Being belligerent and combative without regards to the facts is crappy. That's what I was doing. I regret it.<br />2. Being wrong always sucks. AFAICT, Salby doesn't have anything. Now, this <i>was</i> a few years back, and I frankly don't remember the details, just my conclusions. I'm not strongly motivated to go review right now, but I might at some point.<br />That's where I was coming from at any rate.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-57202632107279942832016-04-15T00:25:22.526-07:002016-04-15T00:25:22.526-07:00Chic B
First of all, I don't see why he [Mar...Chic B<br /><br /><i> First of all, I don't see why he [Mark] is so apologetic about his Salby remarks which to me seem entirely on point. The controversy over Salby's research is an entirely different matter from the circumstances and appropriateness of his dismissal.</i><br /><br />Sorry but I don't understand this. Salby was as wrong as you can be about CO2. Salby's dismissal was absolutely justified. What is Mark supposed to be defending?BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-47413954480391671842016-04-14T23:03:51.435-07:002016-04-14T23:03:51.435-07:00Chic,
So it's your blog, you can rant all you...Chic,<br /><br /><i>So it's your blog, you can rant all you want.</i><br /><br />True, but I don't personally see that as something which absolves me from being unresponsive to criticism.<br /><br /><i>Probably should have made my criticism be private message. Too late, sorry.</i><br /><br />Nothing for you to feel sorry about. I would have had the same reaction if you'd sent it in private. Public or private, it's fine for you or anyone to not like what I write and raise an objection. I'll be much more willing to discuss it when I'm not constrained to one and only one possible response.<br /><br />On that note ...<br /><br /><i>Again, who are trying to impress?</i><br /><br />Nobody. I felt like I'd been in Dr. Perlwitz's shoes at WUWT before, albeit not nearly as intensely, and it pissed me off. Still does.<br /><br /><i>... that was exactly what got to Watts.</i><br /><br />Sure. He's said in the past that he gets hate mail full of violence and death threats. I don't disbelieve him.<br /><br /><i>He was allowing whatever-his-name-is to rant plenty until he made a death threat.</i><br /><br />Dr. Perlwitz made a *promise* to defend himself with lethal force *if* threatened with physical violence:<br /><br />------------------<br /><br />Allencic July 9, 2013 at 8:39 am<br />I suppose I’m not the only one who finds this way too similar to Germany in the 30’s blackballing (or worse) those scientists who believed in “Jewish Physics” who didn’t toe the Nazi party line. God help us from these fools who claim to be climate scientists. When this finally blows up and the public realizes how badly they’ve been had you might want to invest in pitchforks and torches and tar and feathers.<br /><br />------------------<br /><br /><i>As for me, I prefer to hangout where the goal is a gentlemanly (or lady-like?) discussion, preferably about science not personalities.</i><br /><br />For cripe's sake, Chic, so do I.<br /><br />Does Allencic's comment above look like a gentlemanly one about science? Or does it look like scapegoating a personality by comparing him to a Nazi, and hoping he gets lynched when the rest of the country wakes up to the ruse? Can you really blame Dr. Perlwitz for reacting that strongly to such an insulting and threatening provocation? How could I NOT get a tad bent out of shape reading that?<br /><br />If I ever allow an article <a href="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/23/people-starting-to-ask-about-motive-for-massive-ipcc-deception/" rel="nofollow">like this</a> to be published here (or write one myself), I would hope that you'd walk away from here and never come back if I didn't retract it after you asked me to.Brandon R. Gateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031044715994785956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-91453312672054681202016-04-14T21:32:21.182-07:002016-04-14T21:32:21.182-07:00I can't abide the frequent undertone of physic...<i>I can't abide the frequent undertone of physical intimidation and violence.</i><br /><br />Brandon, that was exactly what got to Watts. He was allowing whatever-his-name-is to rant plenty until he made a death threat. I don't keep track but I think Watts is extremely lenient with commenters. Maybe you aren't happy with how you were treated. OK, don't go there. Again, who are trying to impress?<br /><br />So it's your blog, you can rant all you want. As for me, I prefer to hangout where the goal is a gentlemanly (or lady-like?) discussion, preferably about science not personalities. Probably should have made my criticism be private message. Too late, sorry.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-47894732190716733162016-04-14T18:33:13.152-07:002016-04-14T18:33:13.152-07:00That's good to know.
Sounds reasonable enou...That's good to know. <br /><br />Sounds reasonable enough to me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-18692156155162131762016-04-14T18:30:09.991-07:002016-04-14T18:30:09.991-07:00Mark,
Why shouldn't he vent here, in his own ...Mark,<br /><br /><i>Why shouldn't he vent here, in his own place?</i><br /><br />That certainly is one right I *do* claim. That's not what this is about.<br /><br /><i>I don't think the matter is worth fussing about, just my take.</i><br /><br />When (not if) I say something someone else doesn't like, I not only am open to hearing about it, I *want* to hear about it. I know my temper well enough to know I often don't control it as well as I'd like.<br /><br />Chic's done that before. I say something insulting, he says, "insults are childish". It's an arguable point. We talk it out. That's not what he did here. He said, walk it back or I'm gone. That feels to me worse than having my actions called childish, it feels like being treated as a child.<br /><br />There's little need for that with me, and on principle, I'm not inclined to establish that kind of precedent here. We're adults who often say shitty things because this can be an emotional topic. Let's behave like and treat each other like adults.Brandon R. Gateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031044715994785956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-17954032107599887172016-04-14T18:18:25.368-07:002016-04-14T18:18:25.368-07:00Chic,
What I'd prefer in the future is that w...Chic,<br /><br />What I'd prefer in the future is that when I say something you dislike, simply say that you don't like it, and why. No need to sugar-coat it, and no need to offer me anything other than your honest thoughts. You may find that I'll respond, "You know Chic, that was a really harsh thing I said about Anthony's person, I should not have done that."<br /><br />We'll never know on this one.<br /><br />You're right that I don't know either Anthony or Jan personally. But I do know WUWT. The jibes, taunting and insults I can handle ... I do get what I give. I can't abide the frequent undertone of physical intimidation and violence.Brandon R. Gateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031044715994785956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-62017764699733322382016-04-14T18:18:06.676-07:002016-04-14T18:18:06.676-07:00Interesting.
From my perspective, Brandon's re...Interesting.<br />From <i>my</i> perspective, Brandon's reactions may be pertinent. We were talking about getting swept up in ... something anyway, don't know exactly how to categorize... unreasonable and hostile positions, lets say. The odd thing is, while Brandon and I probably disagree on AGW and a few political points, we appear to be remarkably similar. <br />I don't know. I'm not suggesting that it'd be productive to get pissed off and rant in general, but I am suggesting that by not completely quashing the irritation he felt and expressing it maybe it helps me see from his perspective some. <br />Not to mention, people vent. This is Brandon's place. Why shouldn't he vent here, in his own place?<br />I don't think the matter is worth fussing about, just my take.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-38204892891598893682016-04-14T17:02:53.966-07:002016-04-14T17:02:53.966-07:00It's a simple offer, not like I'm holding ...It's a simple offer, not like I'm holding you hostage. I've got nothing to lose by holding up my end of the bargain. Maybe you don't either, so no harm then.<br /><br />The offense was against Anthony Watts who you publicly slandered. Since he is a public figure, you won't have to worry about being sued. If I were you, I would be ashamed that I let my emotions get away from me on my own blog where I have plenty of time to weigh the consequences of a reaction. That exchange that got you pissed off was between two other people you don't even know. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-7977931479715758842016-04-14T16:09:12.141-07:002016-04-14T16:09:12.141-07:00Chic,
You should ban yourself for slander like th...Chic,<br /><br /><i>You should ban yourself for slander like that. Who are you trying to impress? Walk it back or I'll not comment here further.</i><br /><br />I'm not big on ultimatums, please don't make a habit of issuing them to me. I'm sorry that I offended you. I'm not sorry that I don't think much of Anthony and have harsh things to say about him. That's about as much as I can manage at the moment, because that exchange seriously pissed me off.Brandon R. Gateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031044715994785956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-69882014335414639172016-04-14T15:40:57.637-07:002016-04-14T15:40:57.637-07:00Mark,
Doesn't seem to serve us in our day and...Mark,<br /><br /><i>Doesn't seem to serve us in our day and age though, might be it's like overeating, obsolete physiology.</i><br /><br />I doubt if I'm the first to wonder if intelligence is overrated in the grand scheme of things evolution-wise. Here of course I presume humans are actually "intelligent".<br /><br /><i>Sometimes I think some of the folk over there irritate me more than they irritate you, even when it's you they're trying to battle with.</i><br /><br />It's possible, but short of swapping brains (ew), how would we really know? Nobody's done anything to irritate me personally. More just tired of arguing about the same shit, and getting clobbered for explaining why I think it's fruitless and/or returning fire with similar rhetoric because that's easier. Probably fair to say that a good part of it for me is self-irritation.Brandon R. Gateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031044715994785956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-64191180782843251432016-04-14T15:15:41.156-07:002016-04-14T15:15:41.156-07:00Brandon,
The most charitable thing I can say is t...Brandon,<br /><br /><i>The most charitable thing I can say is that Anthony clearly hasn't spent much time around professional scientists, has the self-awareness of a brick, and intelligence to match.</i><br /><br />You should ban yourself for slander like that. Who are you trying to impress? Walk it back or I'll not comment here further.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-10809703773574180072016-04-14T15:09:03.343-07:002016-04-14T15:09:03.343-07:00Chic,
Mark claims to be a contrarian, but doesn&#...Chic,<br /><br /><i>Mark claims to be a contrarian, but doesn't offer much of a challenge to the majority opinion here.</i><br /><br />Yup. Not what I've come here for right now.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-55516051094825369712016-04-14T15:05:46.632-07:002016-04-14T15:05:46.632-07:00JohnMashey,
Would funding his work fit under the ...JohnMashey,<br /><br /><i>Would funding his work fit under the Red Team idea?</i><br /><br />I found your link to Bill Ruddiman's post enlightening. I wasn't aware of so much interest in the implications of pre-industrial anthroprogenic effects. However, I'm not clear on how that relates to Red Team funding. FWIW, I say yes, definitely.<br /><br />Mark claims to be a contrarian, but doesn't offer much of a challenge to the majority opinion here. Let me try. First of all, I don't see why he is so apologetic about his Salby remarks which to me seem entirely on point. The controversy over Salby's research is an entirely different matter from the circumstances and appropriateness of his dismissal.<br /><br /><i>1) The Christy/Spencer work has been funded by Federal government for decades.</i><br /><br />Are you referring to the satellite measurements which provide all of us much needed atmospheric temperature info or the research that goes into papers giving their interpretations of that and other data? Do you see any distinction between the two services and know the funding breakdown between the two?<br /><br />2) What does contributing to GMI/Merchants of Doubt have to do with anything? Was that federally funded?<br /><br />3) Do you suspect Christy/Spencer intentionally adulterate satellite data so that it can be used to claim no global warming? If so, why do they get similar results to RSS and radiosonde data?<br /><br />4) Are the constant model comparisons and arguing over uncertainties a matter of public record? I would be interested in those discussions.<br /><br />I don't think the comparison between smoking and climate change is congruent. If your hypothetical genetic predisposition to cancer warranted smoking, dispensation could easily be made. In fact, 20 some states have legalized marijuana. But the case for mitigating climate change affects everyone, not just a few smokers who individually choose to take the risk.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-79303921809604412662016-04-14T13:43:17.859-07:002016-04-14T13:43:17.859-07:00Brandon,
No place is ideal. I will say that thus ...Brandon,<br /><br /><i>No place is ideal. I will say that thus far my overall experience has been positive.</i><br /><br />That is rather gracious of you. Sometimes I think some of the folk over there irritate me more than they irritate you, even when it's you they're trying to battle with.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-63169785532674989232016-04-14T13:41:40.670-07:002016-04-14T13:41:40.670-07:00I know I would have wanted to clean your clock. TB...<i> I know I would have wanted to clean your clock. TBH, I still kind of do, mainly over your comments to/about Jan Perlwitz.</i><br /><br />Yeah, people like to fight. I do too. The trouble is it doesn't appear to get us anyplace. Mebbe it's a good instinct for pre-civilization. Get mad at something, kill it, eliminate the problem. Doesn't seem to serve us in our day and age though, might be it's like overeating, obsolete physiology.<br />Anyways.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-66940185348044958582016-04-14T13:29:30.751-07:002016-04-14T13:29:30.751-07:00Mark, Part 3;
The BlackBoard is better, but as yo...Mark, Part 3;<br /><br /><i>The BlackBoard is better, but as you've directly experienced :) not ideal either.</i><br /><br />No place is ideal. I will say that thus far my overall experience has been positive.<br /><br /><i>I commented briefly over at Climate Etc., but IMO that's like trying to talk in some strange mixture of PhD's and preschoolers.</i><br /><br />lol, now *that's* an apt description.Brandon R. Gateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031044715994785956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-75117320647348238612016-04-14T13:25:55.690-07:002016-04-14T13:25:55.690-07:00Mark, Part 2;
Continuing Perlwitz v. Watts (may a...Mark, Part 2;<br /><br />Continuing Perlwitz v. Watts (may as well be Tyson v. Spinks):<br /><br /><i>------------------<br /><br />Jan P Perlwitz July 10, 2013 at 3:15 am<br /><br />Mr. Watts, since when is the announcement of armed self-defense, in the case that motivated anti-science fanatics among your devote follower herd becomes violent against me and my colleagues is a threat? Isn’t the right to armed self-defense one of the basic principles of your country? You are growing a quasi-religious cult here. I consider it very possible that some “skeptic” fanatics are going to use violence against people and institutions, equally motivated, for instance, as religious fanatics are attacking abortion clinics. It has not been the first time that someone expressed his wish of violence against me or my colleagues on your blog. One example in the past, for instance, was someone named Robert E. Phelan. But be happy, you have your pretext now to make the ban finally offcial, after you and your intellectually challenged moderator friends hadn’t really found any good one before, so that you had to retract your previous one, combined with your pathetic attempt to blame me for it. So, bye, bye, then. I have played enough with you and the other science haters on your junkscience blog.<br /><br />------------------<br /><br />Anthony Watts July 10, 2013 at 8:08 am<br /><br />Note: above Mr. Perlwitz makes an exit statement <a href="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/08/professor-critical-of-agw-theory-being-disenfranchised-exiled-from-academia-in-australia/#comment-1360237" rel="nofollow">at 315AM:</a> <br /><br />I decided to allow it, because he’s blaming our deceased moderator Robert Phelan who cannot defend himself while at the same time suggesting all manner of derogatory labels for skeptics.<br /><br />Ask yourselves: “is this the behavior of a professional scientist”?<br /><br />------------------</i><br /><br />The most charitable thing I can say is that Anthony clearly hasn't spent much time around professional scientists, has the self-awareness of a brick, and intelligence to match.Brandon R. Gateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031044715994785956noreply@blogger.com