|
Puzzle
Mar 20, 2010 20:03:50 GMT
Post by icefisher on Mar 20, 2010 20:03:50 GMT
Magellan talks about me waving *my* arms. While I see veritable Mexican wave from you, Icefisher and Magellan. If I point out the empirical evidence, you complain that empirical evidence can be evidence for stupid beliefs. If I point out the physical evidence, you complain that there is no good *empirical* evidence. Meanwhile, any alternative belief that has neither empirical evidence nor physical evidence is considered acceptable. Don't be such a moron Steve. Underlying monotonic warming over a 100 years is not evidence in a world that clearly has evidence for multiple 2 to 4deg warming/cooling shifts from natural causes running in longterm cycles. And of course since we have trouble even with high tech thermometers to accurately gauge the temperature of the earth within a degreeC making it easy to have an argument about whether the temperature some 1000 years ago is known within a couple of degreesC. And certainly non-monotonic warming that increases the slope then decreases it over decadal time scales does not belong at all in the predicted theoretical slope of a theory of longterm monotonic warming. But plenty of morons ate that one hook line and sinker. So what evidence are you talking about? Smarter guys than you who believe in AGW figured out the answer to that. . . .the need to invent a piltdown man to show the longterm monotonic natural warming does not exist and to manufacture evidence where none existed. Problem with these "smart guys" is they are dumb as thieves and left an email trail to their conspiratorial conversations.
|
|
|
Puzzle
Mar 20, 2010 20:41:45 GMT
Post by icefisher on Mar 20, 2010 20:41:45 GMT
Wow, you seem to be judging people based on very little or no information... What exactly do you know about what I have studied and the quality of it? Nothing. If you have any more arguments based on nothing, let us known in advance, that would be more honest. BTW you need a degree in physics or math to do a master in atmospheric physics here.
LOL! I didn't rule out a degree in some middle ground. Actually being smart has little to do with ones ability to understand big complex systems. Atmospheric Physics is almost an oxymoron and you effectively admit that above: "The exact magnitude and variations of the energy fluxes INSIDE the earth's system are however still poorly understood (this has lead to Trenberth's famous "it's a travisty" comment). This is why we are still having problems forecasting the internal variability of the earth (which is far more complex than a global average energy budget). It might take a very long time (if ever) for us to understand and predict them. A great puzzle indeed. "
I would add to that that in most likelihood it will take even longer to fully appreciate how solar systems operate and interact. . . .but then again an "atmospheric" physicist isn't interested in that topic as it is outside of the box.
Indeed there are rare individuals who gain the micro knowledge that comes from a pure science background and still have enough time and passion to gain the observational experience to actually develop the required intuition to actually be good at predicting the system. . . .since as you freely admit the model is not made up of real world parts, nor an accurate physical representation of them experience becomes an absolutely necessary ingredient.
One can learn how to run a farm but I dare say that atmospheric processes appear to run in multi-centennial and longer cycles and since the age of close monitoring of these systems its apt to be quite sometime before we understand them. You might not live long enough to see how these cycles work via figuring out the physical process and sure as heck aren't going to live long enough to figure it out via modeling. Maybe your great great great great grandson will have a eureka moment from your efforts and the documentation of your work if you do it carefully enough though. Or who knows maybe something unusual will occur that will reveal the truth. The Piltdown Man approach to that has already occurred though.
That's a nice spin to it (that I'm dishonest, because I have a model (I do not) and you don't, and I have a degree in physics (actually, not yet) so I must be right. Where did I say something like that? And does that have to do with other climate scientists in general?
Perhaps you should read up on the definition of intellectual dishonesty. There are people here who have good questions about what you believe and you discard them on the basis of what some skeptics believe. It is intellectual dishonesty to not respond directly to the tough questions, build a strawman and shoot that down instead.
I did say that I find it interesting that you accuse an atmospheric physicist of being ignorant of atmospheric physics. I still do. It seems like you don't know the basics of AGW, because the way you describe your "simple model" (whatever that may be) has nothing to do with AGW. And, to go on with your reasoning, we don't know the exact internal variability, so we also don't know the general energy balance. That's like saying we don't know the details, so we have no idea of the general picture... Your statement that you believe that there is no empirical evidence for AGW reinforces my belief that you don't know the basics of AGW.
That is like saying you know how to fly because you observed a bird has wings. Or in the case, of "Nauts" closer analogy that because you know a light bulb generates heat and there is a light bulb turned on in the microwave when the water is boiled in 2 minutes it must be the lightbulb that heated the water. That isn't even likely AJ when as you admit you know far less than half of what there is to know and you have no unique empirical evidence to suggest you are right.
I do not understand why you come up the the current inpredictability of earthquakes. There are many other things that are inpredictable in nature. BTW farming is quite different than climate physics, in case you haven't noticed.
Indeed. . . .many farms have been successfully managed.
I was not talking about scientists, but about skeptics. Read any skeptical blog (this one is a good example) and you'll find a lot of people talking about global cooling, which just isn't happening.
And your response is honest in that context. But you use that response for everything. You tell me if it is because you are that ignorant or if it is because you think everybody else is more ignorant.
|
|
|
Puzzle
Mar 21, 2010 1:16:41 GMT
Post by trbixler on Mar 21, 2010 1:16:41 GMT
"Mar 20, 2010 Climategate Was an Academic Disaster Waiting to Happen " Professors kick Diogenes of Sinope out while seeking domain control. Meanwhile my math is better than yours as we all know intelligence is measured in DB. "Consider the undergraduate curriculum. Over the last several decades, departments have watered down the requirements needed to complete a major, while core curricula have been hollowed out or abandoned. Only a handful of the nation’s leading universities - Columbia and the University of Chicago at the forefront - insist that all undergraduates must read a common set of books and become conversant with the main ideas and events that shaped Western history and the larger world. There are no good pedagogical reasons for abandoning the core. Professors and administrators argue that students need and deserve the freedom to shape their own course of study. But how can students who do not know the basics make intelligent decisions about the books they should read and the perspectives they should master? The real reasons for releasing students from rigorous departmental requirements and fixed core courses are quite different. One is that professors prefer to teach boutique classes focusing on their narrow areas of specialization. In addition, they believe that dropping requirements will lure more students to their departments, which translates into more faculty slots for like-minded colleagues. By far, though, the most important reason is that faculty generally reject the common sense idea that there is a basic body of knowledge that all students should learn. This is consistent with the popular campus dogma that all morals and cultures are relative and that objective knowledge is impossible. " icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate
|
|
|
Puzzle
Mar 21, 2010 2:29:58 GMT
Post by aj1983 on Mar 21, 2010 2:29:58 GMT
icefisher: Wow, you seem to be judging people based on very little or no information... What exactly do you know about what I have studied and the quality of it? Nothing. If you have any more arguments based on nothing, let us known in advance, that would be more honest. BTW you need a degree in physics or math to do a master in atmospheric physics here.
LOL! I didn't rule out a degree in some middle ground. Actually being smart has little to do with ones ability to understand big complex systems. Atmospheric Physics is almost an oxymoron and you effectively admit that above: "The exact magnitude and variations of the energy fluxes INSIDE the earth's system are however still poorly understood (this has lead to Trenberth's famous "it's a travisty" comment). This is why we are still having problems forecasting the internal variability of the earth (which is far more complex than a global average energy budget). It might take a very long time (if ever) for us to understand and predict them. A great puzzle indeed. "I would add to that that in most likelihood it will take even longer to fully appreciate how solar systems operate and interact. . . .but then again an "atmospheric" physicist isn't interested in that topic as it is outside of the box. What you are stating for atmospheric physics is also true for nearly all other fields in physics (you'll find limited understanding and uncertainties everywhere). Besides physics (from mechanics, electrodynamics to relativity and quantum mechanics), I also study physical oceanography, meteorology, climate, and have done a few courses in astronomy and extraterrestrial climates as well, because it is an interesting subject (I would have liked to do more biology and chemistry, but I have limited time). So I have -some- experience in other fields as well. Is that enough to fully appreciate or understand the fields? Probably not. We know the details of nearly nothing, as physics in general is poorly understood and full of uncertainties. Your comment on atmospheric physics (an "oxymoron") is yet another bold assumption and judgement of you based on nothing. Atmospheric physics is the field of physics where they use physics to study the atmosphere. Just as astronomy (physics of everything outside our planet), particle physics, physical oceanography, geophysics it is physics applied to a certain area. All physics is applied to a certain area (even fundamental particle physics looking into the question what is "matter"). Atmospheric scientists have exactly the same mathematical background here as astronomists and particle physicists for example.
Indeed there are rare individuals who gain the micro knowledge that comes from a pure science background and still have enough time and passion to gain the observational experience to actually develop the required intuition to actually be good at predicting the system. . . .since as you freely admit the model is not made up of real world parts, nor an accurate physical representation of them experience becomes an absolutely necessary ingredient. It's the best we can do. My definition of a "model" is a collection of physical laws describing some system. All physics is thus based on physical models, and an essential part of science. As an observationalist, I tend to "distrust" computer models ("you are building your own virtual reality") but since they are based on the physical laws that we know of, it is a great tool in science. One can learn how to run a farm but I dare say that atmospheric processes appear to run in multi-centennial and longer cycles and since the age of close monitoring of these systems its apt to be quite sometime before we understand them. You might not live long enough to see how these cycles work via figuring out the physical process and sure as heck aren't going to live long enough to figure it out via modeling. Maybe your great great great great grandson will have a eureka moment from your efforts and the documentation of your work if you do it carefully enough though. Or who knows maybe something unusual will occur that will reveal the truth. The Piltdown Man approach to that has already occurred though. That's why we describe systems using physics (often using math as "language"), so that we can describe things of which you can never get a feeling. In such complex systems however, not all interactions are known. Actually in very simple systems, most interactions are unknown, that's why we need the physics to estimate which processes will be most important. Intuition, however, can be very useful/helpful when doing so. I don't understand why you are calling it a hoax (Piltdown Man).That's a nice spin to it (that I'm dishonest, because I have a model (I do not) and you don't, and I have a degree in physics (actually, not yet) so I must be right. Where did I say something like that? And does that have to do with other climate scientists in general? Perhaps you should read up on the definition of intellectual dishonesty. There are people here who have good questions about what you believe and you discard them on the basis of what some skeptics believe. It is intellectual dishonesty to not respond directly to the tough questions, build a strawman and shoot that down instead.
I have looked up the definition (I'm not a native English speaker), but I do not see why I am intellectually dishonest. I do not advocate a position of which I know is not true, and I do not omit aspects of the truth as far as I know. (What's "the truth" in science btw?) If I do, ask specific questions. If I don't know them, I'll let you know.
I did say that I find it interesting that you accuse an atmospheric physicist of being ignorant of atmospheric physics. I still do. It seems like you don't know the basics of AGW, because the way you describe your "simple model" (whatever that may be) has nothing to do with AGW. And, to go on with your reasoning, we don't know the exact internal variability, so we also don't know the general energy balance. That's like saying we don't know the details, so we have no idea of the general picture... Your statement that you believe that there is no empirical evidence for AGW reinforces my belief that you don't know the basics of AGW.That is like saying you know how to fly because you observed a bird has wings. Or in the case, of "Nauts" closer analogy that because you know a light bulb generates heat and there is a light bulb turned on in the microwave when the water is boiled in 2 minutes it must be the lightbulb that heated the water. That isn't even likely AJ when as you admit you know far less than half of what there is to know and you have no unique empirical evidence to suggest you are right. From your example it seems like you didn't understand what I was saying. BTW: The lightbulb is not a good analogy, because the systems are by far not isolated. Much more important however is that we do know (better than) the order of magnitude estimations of the energy flows inside the systems (both earth-atmosphere and lightbulb-waterbowl), so then we know that the light bulb does not produce enough energy to cook the water in 2 minutes. The analogy is however illustrative of how some skeptics think the climate systems works; that there must exist some unknown mechanism which determines climate variations and counteract the effect of CO2. Then I will ask them what mechanism they propose for that, because I am interested. I remain skeptic about that though, because most proposed theories seem unlikely to me. A scientists (physicist) looks at the magnitudes of processes to estimate their relative importance. We haven't found any processes in the atmosphere which are large enough to significantly counteract the warming from CO2, which are generally accepted by most scientists. The only thing which could come close is an extremely strong negative cloud feedback, in which warming would lead to a extreme increase of low clouds (enhancing albedo, while being most infrared "transparant", because they emit LW radiation at a temperature (and thus a rate) nearly equal to the surface). This is not likely, and also not observed. However some scientists (Lindzen for example) do propose (without much succes until now(!)) mechanisms for this. Actually, it is more correct to state that the uncertainty in the cloud feedback is still so large, that it is still possible that it significantly counteracts warming from CO2 (however, the uncertainty works both ways). From discussions with many people I get the feeling that many people not doing research in a physical science field seem to have a problem with the way uncertainties are handled in physics. They seem to "want" more certainty, or they discard the physics completely. They tend to forget that all physics is somewhat more or less uncertain, and that our understanding is limited, even though our knowledge of it has been very useful until now. I do not understand why you come up the the current inpredictability of earthquakes. There are many other things that are inpredictable in nature. BTW farming is quite different than climate physics, in case you haven't noticed.Indeed. . . .many farms have been successfully managed. I was not talking about scientists, but about skeptics. Read any skeptical blog (this one is a good example) and you'll find a lot of people talking about global cooling, which just isn't happening.And your response is honest in that context. But you use that response for everything. You tell me if it is because you are that ignorant or if it is because you think everybody else is more ignorant. What response do I give for everything ? If I have to choose between your options, then I'd say I tend to be more ignorant than everybody else.
|
|
|
Puzzle
Mar 21, 2010 3:00:38 GMT
Post by aj1983 on Mar 21, 2010 3:00:38 GMT
So what evidence are you talking about? Smarter guys than you who believe in AGW figured out the answer to that. . . .the need to invent a piltdown man to show the longterm monotonic natural warming does not exist and to manufacture evidence where none existed. Problem with these "smart guys" is they are dumb as thieves and left an email trail to their conspiratorial conversations. More judgements based on nothing... It's a habit of you I see. We can summarize it nice and easily (correct me if I'm wrong): All climate science is a piltdown man and an evil conspiracy, and all AGW proponents are dumb, ignorant, dishonest morons. So it is totally no use discussing climate science with you if you have such an attitude towards it and people who are proponents of AGW. I'm glad not everybody here on this board has such an attitude.
|
|
|
Puzzle
Mar 21, 2010 10:17:41 GMT
Post by karlox on Mar 21, 2010 10:17:41 GMT
So what evidence are you talking about? Smarter guys than you who believe in AGW figured out the answer to that. . . .the need to invent a piltdown man to show the longterm monotonic natural warming does not exist and to manufacture evidence where none existed. Problem with these "smart guys" is they are dumb as thieves and left an email trail to their conspiratorial conversations. More judgements based on nothing... It's a habit of you I see. We can summarize it nice and easily (correct me if I'm wrong): All climate science is a piltdown man and an evil conspiracy, and all AGW proponents are dumb, ignorant, dishonest morons. So it is totally no use discussing climate science with you if you have such an attitude towards it and people who are proponents of AGW. I'm glad not everybody here on this board has such an attitude. I would kindly suggest that you all guys quit making such direct personal crossed references like if we were watching a TV Debate among two politicians running for some post or office Nowadays behind and in front of any ´idea´ or political or social debate and movements, as currently being shown to the great public there is a very simplistic approach, that´s the one we call marketing, Publicity, Propaganda... AGW is therefore reduced to simple estatements such as ´A Global Mean Temperature Rise is ocurring due to mankind activity increasing atmospheric CO2 levels´ and next the list of associated natural disasters that might or might not take place, both options covered by the theory many cases... (That´s a good bet indeed) And for the other side -the ´skeptics´- they happily joined the game, which I regard as being in this side as heavily polluted and controlled by certain economic and political powers and interest as AGW movement currently is. Nobody either side AGW or skeptics can´t see it? This would be a positive starting point for discussion, a sign of independent minded people. Next try to keep it as ´scientifically´ as possible -the discussion itself. As for my opinion -not scientific neither technical- there are too many questions and problems to be answered, too much room for new knowledge... And we -general public- need Boards and Threads such as this one to get to see a broader picture of the Scientific discussion, which is being hidden by the politica unrest and confrontation. Warming or Cooling, Red or Blue, Black or White... there are in fact two different simplistic proposals for mankind -economic and political responses- to what coming geoestrategic world´s map is likely showing... The ´Keep on Growing Model by All Means´ is the real point of the discussion. Global Mean Temperature means in fact nearly nothing the way it is being used as a big headline to call for people´s attention.
|
|
|
Puzzle
Mar 21, 2010 16:36:23 GMT
Post by steve on Mar 21, 2010 16:36:23 GMT
Magellan talks about me waving *my* arms. While I see veritable Mexican wave from you, Icefisher and Magellan. If I point out the empirical evidence, you complain that empirical evidence can be evidence for stupid beliefs. If I point out the physical evidence, you complain that there is no good *empirical* evidence. Meanwhile, any alternative belief that has neither empirical evidence nor physical evidence is considered acceptable. Don't be such a moron Steve. Underlying monotonic warming over a 100 years is not evidence in a world that clearly has evidence for multiple 2 to 4deg warming/cooling shifts from natural causes running in longterm cycles. It's not sensible to talk about "natural causes" of warming as though they are somewhat magical and undetectable. The empirical evidence is that there has been warming following a prediction of warming. The physical evidence is that there is a plausible cause of rising CO2. The only reason that previous "natural causes" are so "mysterious" is that we weren't there to see what is going on. You'd like to think so wouldn't you. But none of their conspiratorial conversations indicate any serious doubt from them about the last century of warming or the validity of their basis for believing in CO2-induced warming.
|
|
|
Puzzle
Mar 21, 2010 16:54:23 GMT
Post by nautonnier on Mar 21, 2010 16:54:23 GMT
Don't be such a moron Steve. Underlying monotonic warming over a 100 years is not evidence in a world that clearly has evidence for multiple 2 to 4deg warming/cooling shifts from natural causes running in longterm cycles. It's not sensible to talk about "natural causes" of warming as though they are somewhat magical and undetectable. The empirical evidence is that there has been warming following a prediction of warming. The physical evidence is that there is a plausible cause of rising CO2. The only reason that previous "natural causes" are so "mysterious" is that we weren't there to see what is going on. You'd like to think so wouldn't you. But none of their conspiratorial conversations indicate any serious doubt from them about the last century of warming or the validity of their basis for believing in CO2-induced warming. "It's not sensible to talk about "natural causes" of warming as though they are somewhat magical and undetectable. The empirical evidence is that there has been warming following a prediction of warming. The physical evidence is that there is a plausible cause of rising CO2. The only reason that previous "natural causes" are so "mysterious" is that we weren't there to see what is going on."Steve this is a supportable hypothesis only if there has been NO other warming ever that has not been associated with a CO 2 increase. As there _have_ been other such warmings unassociated with CO 2 then your hypothesis has to have some demonstrable method of showing that there this warming can ONLY be due to CO 2 and no other cause. As far as I am aware this has not been done. (I am starting to sound like Jim C).
|
|
|
Puzzle
Mar 21, 2010 19:06:12 GMT
Post by icefisher on Mar 21, 2010 19:06:12 GMT
So what evidence are you talking about? Smarter guys than you who believe in AGW figured out the answer to that. . . .the need to invent a piltdown man to show the longterm monotonic natural warming does not exist and to manufacture evidence where none existed. Problem with these "smart guys" is they are dumb as thieves and left an email trail to their conspiratorial conversations. More judgements based on nothing... It's a habit of you I see. We can summarize it nice and easily (correct me if I'm wrong): All climate science is a piltdown man and an evil conspiracy, and all AGW proponents are dumb, ignorant, dishonest morons. So it is totally no use discussing climate science with you if you have such an attitude towards it and people who are proponents of AGW. I'm glad not everybody here on this board has such an attitude. More dishonesty on your part. Where exactly (give reply #) do I say "All climate science is a piltdown man?". One would have to be a total moron to believe the perpetrators of the fraudulent science we have been seeing coming out of a certain sector of the climate science community are the only climate scientists in the world. You seem like a smart guy but you sure seem to think you are a lot smarter than you are as you seem to believe you don't have to read what you reply to.
|
|
|
Puzzle
Mar 21, 2010 20:36:00 GMT
Post by icefisher on Mar 21, 2010 20:36:00 GMT
Steve the Omniscient Says: "The only reason that previous "natural causes" are so "mysterious" is that we weren't there to see what is going on."
LOL! So how did you test this hypothesis Steve?
Steve the fully-evolved homo sapiens, huh? Maybe we create a special species for our ancestors. . . .Presteve Sapiens! ROTFLMAO!
|
|
|
Puzzle
Mar 21, 2010 21:33:05 GMT
Post by magellan on Mar 21, 2010 21:33:05 GMT
More judgements based on nothing... It's a habit of you I see. We can summarize it nice and easily (correct me if I'm wrong): All climate science is a piltdown man and an evil conspiracy, and all AGW proponents are dumb, ignorant, dishonest morons. So it is totally no use discussing climate science with you if you have such an attitude towards it and people who are proponents of AGW. I'm glad not everybody here on this board has such an attitude. More dishonesty on your part. Where exactly (give reply #) do I say "All climate science is a piltdown man?". One would have to be a total moron to believe the perpetrators of the fraudulent science we have been seeing coming out of a certain sector of the climate science community are the only climate scientists in the world. You seem like a smart guy but you sure seem to think you are a lot smarter than you are as you seem to believe you don't have to read what you reply to. You seem like a smart guy but you sure seem to think you are a lot smarter than you are as you seem to believe you don't have to read what you reply to. Think back when you were a snotty nosed brat and thought you knew it all.....couple that with publik edukashun, everyone else are idiots. See, you just don't understand AGW correctly, even though many of us here have being listening to this AGW carping for over 20 years (and decades before that for other coming "disasters"). If they had direct evidence, they'd be telling us all about it. If there were predictive skills built into GCM's, we'd know them by name. If ' the physics' were as straight forward as they claim, there wouldn't be the need to keep reshaping the hypothesis. I started at least two threads asking for evidence supporting the CO2 AGW hypothesis. Result? SOS It's so bad [some] don't even know what empirical evidence is. They really should review the scientific method and what constitutes evidence for AGW (caused by rising CO2 levels).
|
|
|
Puzzle
Mar 22, 2010 0:28:14 GMT
Post by socold on Mar 22, 2010 0:28:14 GMT
"your hypothesis has to have some demonstrable method of showing that there this warming can ONLY be due to CO2 and no other cause" What is the case is that it is remarkably easy, with reference to science, to explain the warming through the rise in co2. That's the knowledge we do have. On the otherhand there is no known natural cause that can explain it. This is the situation that over 100 years of science has led us to. Of course the knowledge we have could be wrong and the ignorance we have could hide some natural explanation we don't yet know. But I wouldn't bank on it. Here's also some requested empirical evidence for the knowledge: www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm
|
|
|
Puzzle
Mar 22, 2010 1:35:09 GMT
Post by nautonnier on Mar 22, 2010 1:35:09 GMT
"your hypothesis has to have some demonstrable method of showing that there this warming can ONLY be due to CO2 and no other cause" What is the case is that it is remarkably easy, with reference to science, to explain the warming through the rise in co2. That's the knowledge we do have. On the otherhand there is no known natural cause that can explain it. This is the situation that over 100 years of science has led us to. Of course the knowledge we have could be wrong and the ignorance we have could hide some natural explanation we don't yet know. But I wouldn't bank on it. Here's also some requested empirical evidence for the knowledge: www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htmInteresting SoCold so your position is that the Earth has NEVER warmed in this way before? As it appears that in human history it has done so.
|
|
|
Puzzle
Mar 22, 2010 1:52:18 GMT
Post by icefisher on Mar 22, 2010 1:52:18 GMT
"your hypothesis has to have some demonstrable method of showing that there this warming can ONLY be due to CO2 and no other cause" What is the case is that it is remarkably easy, with reference to science, to explain the warming through the rise in co2. That's the knowledge we do have. On the otherhand there is no known natural cause that can explain it. This is the situation that over 100 years of science has led us to. Of course the knowledge we have could be wrong and the ignorance we have could hide some natural explanation we don't yet know. But I wouldn't bank on it. Here's also some requested empirical evidence for the knowledge: www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htmNothing unusual going on Socold. With a lot of double peakers in the records for interglacials we are right in the zone. This graph is really fudging as the current temperatures should be smoothed at the same rate all the remainder of the data is. Icecore samples don't come up with yearly or even decadal values so the little hockey stick at the end is really manufactured by mixing data sources obviously. The data points for the historical data appears to be multi-centennial and if you use centennial data we are on the dotted line.
|
|
|
Puzzle
Mar 22, 2010 10:22:24 GMT
Post by steve on Mar 22, 2010 10:22:24 GMT
nautonnier
You might want to review the logic of that statement before I use it to bring down the whole of modern science.
|
|