ERRATA: I made a mistake regarding the 2% figure, I misheard what was being presented during my visit with the BEST team at Berkeley. As many of you may know I’m about 80% hearing impaired and the presentation made to me was entirely verbal with some printed graphs. Based on the confidentiality I agreed to, I did not get to come back with any of those graphs, notes, or data so I had to rely on what I heard. I simply misheard and thought the 2% were the Japan station analysis graphs that they showed me.
I was in touch with Dr. Richard Muller on 3/28/2011 who graciously pointed out my misinterpretation. I regret the error, and thus issue this correction about the 2% figure being truly a random sample, and not just stations in the Japan test presentation shown to me.
I am told of another correction, and that is that Dr. Caldeira was shown a paper they are working on related paper on oceans, and that contained the preliminary 2% graph from the surface analysis, but was not the full surface analysis paper, which hasn’t yet been written.
According to Dr. Muller, that 2% test run does not contain all the bias corrections they plan to apply for station moves, discontinuous records, UHI and other station effects. I look forward to seeing the data when those are applied to the full dataset.
This episode where Mr. Romm gets an email from Dr. Caldeira and creates a “finding” illustrates the danger in rushing to judgment on snippets of preliminary results, and as BEST says: “The Berkeley Earth team feels very strongly that no conclusions can yet be drawn from this preliminary analysis.”
I still believe that BEST represents a very good effort, and that all parties on both sides of the debate should look at it carefully when it is finally released, and avail themselves to the data and code that is promised to allow for replication.
– Anthony Watts
Last week Willis told you about how Joe Romm at Climate Progress botched a blog post so bad, Joe had not only to fix his own post by removing false claims about population trends, so did the paper’s authors. Then, rather than simply admit a mistake and move on, he spun it into some sort of twirling victory dance, bizarrely claiming that because Willis put up a chart of CO2 rates, “he” got us to admit that CO2 rates were increasing because Willis chose it as a reference. Heh, well if that floats your boat, you go Joe. WUWT has quite a history in discussing CO2 with graphs, rates, and guest essays, no news there.
This week, it’s the old pea and thimble trick combined with desperation and some silly claim of “exclusive”, like some cheap MSM news labeling graphic where they’ve caught some sex poodle on tape. After earlier writing a piece condemning the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project (BEST) he’s now put up his interpretation of an email from scientist Ken Caldiera who said:
I have seen a copy of the Berkeley group’s draft paper, which of course would be expected to be revised before submission.
Their preliminary results sit right within the results of NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU, confirming that prior analyses were correct in every way that matters. Their results confirm the reality of global warming and support in all essential respects the historical temperature analyses of the NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU.
Their analysis supports the view that there is no fire behind the smokescreen put up by climate science deniers.
The only problem is this: there’s no “draft paper” yet, there’s nothing that is “submission ready”, not even close. It hasn’t been written. In fact, BEST hasn’t even done a full global analysis yet. How do I know this? It’s simple; I’ve visited the team and asked them directly, something Romm has not done.
Caldeira was simply looking at the same set of data (some preliminary charts and graphs that Richard Muller carries around with him in a file folder), that BEST has been showing to several people, including me. The only difference is that people like myself, Steven Mosher, and his friend Zeke Hausfather who visited BEST with him, haven’t run off the rails to make early and unsubstantiated claims about it “confirming” anything yet. And now, Romm’s adding to his original blogpost, is backpedaling, while at the same time picking a fight with Steven Mosher for notifying him on the issue in comments. It is sad, comical, and oh-so-typical of the sort of thing we’ve come to expect at Climate Progress. Romm simply got excited and jumped the shark. He’s not doing himself any favors with this sort of thing.
Here’s the Initial Findings statement from BEST, written by lead scientist Robert Rhode (of globalwarmingart.com) which pretty much mirrors what Caldeira is saying:
The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project has not yet done the analysis of the full data set with the corrections to produce a global surface temperature trend. We are first analyzing a small subset of data (2%) to check our programs and statistical methods and make sure that they are functioning effectively. We are correcting our programs and methods while still “blind” to the results so that there is less chance of inadvertently introducing a bias.
A preliminary analysis of 2% of the Berkeley Earth dataset shows a global temperature trend that goes up and down with global cycles, and does so broadly in sync with the temperature records from other groups such as NOAA, NASA, and Hadley CRU. However, the preliminary analysis includes only a very small subset (2%) of randomly chosen data, and does not include any method for correcting for biases such as the urban heat island effect, the time of observation bias, etc.
The Berkeley Earth team feels very strongly that no conclusions can yet be drawn from this preliminary analysis.
That 2% subset they refer to is some weather stations in Japan. They chose Japan because it made for a compact insular test case for the code, combining rural, urban, and airport stations under one organization’s output to keep it simple. Like Ken Caldeira, I’ve seen that preliminary 2% output. I’ve also seen a lot of other things, some things Caldieira hasn’t seen that the BEST team has shared with me. So has Zeke and Mosher, but neither they nor I are screaming “exclusive” and jumping to conclusions like Romm is doing over Caldeira’s general statement on that 2% sample run to test the code.
What’s even funnier is that whenever we mention USHCN trends for USA stations, AGW proponents are quick to point out that the USA has only about 6% of the land surface area of the Earth (USA: 9,629,091 km2, Earth: 148,940,000 km2 source), but they are now willing to go with the weather station data from 377,930 square kilometers of Japan’s land area which is 0.25% of the Earth’s surface area, as enough for “confirmation” of a global trend.
In response to this latest yapping from Romm, BEST has also now updated their FAQs page here, and says this:
NEW – What do your results show?
The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project has not yet done the analysis of the full data set with the corrections to produce a global surface temperature trend. We are first analyzing a small subset of data (2%) to check our programs and statistical methods and make sure that they are functioning effectively. We are correcting our programs and methods while still “blind” to the results so that there is less chance of inadvertently introducing a bias.
A preliminary analysis of 2% of the Berkeley Earth dataset shows a global temperature trend that goes up and down with global cycles, and does so broadly in sync with the temperature records from other groups such as NOAA, NASA, and Hadley CRU. However, the preliminary analysis includes only a very small subset (2%) of randomly chosen data, and does not include any method for correcting for biases such as the urban heat island effect, the time of observation bias, etc. The Berkeley Earth team feels very strongly that no conclusions can yet be drawn from this preliminary analysis.
Compare Romm’s “exclusive” to Zeke’s writeup over at Lucia’s last week which preceded Romm’s. Zeke’s essay has firsthand accounts, is a lot easier to read, and doesn’t need gratuitous exclamation points. For those who don’t know him, Zeke Hausfather is very much in the warming camp, but he’s also a reasonable person. Zeke wrote about a technique that I agreed to keep in confidence until they had a paper accepted for publication or chose to announce it on their own, but it may have been just a slip or communications misunderstanding:
Their major innovation, in addition to those that overlap the work of other bloggers, is to treat inhomogenities as the start of separate records. The least squares method of record combination has the major benefit of allowing relatively short records to be combined together without introducing biases. This means that instead of trying to artificially correct inhomogenities detected by comparing individual stations to their neighbors, they can simply treat these as break points, where subsequent measurements from the same site are treated as a separate record and are optimally fit to the larger series using the LSM approach.
The issue hasn’t been the slight warming over the past century, we’ve always conceded that there is some. The issue has always been magnitude, uncertainties, and cause. With the BEST project, we’ll get closer to the ground truth of magnitude and uncertainties, but it will say nothing about the cause, except perhaps to help define the contributions of UHI and station siting.
I’ll repeat what I said earlier about BEST:
And, I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. I’m taking this bold step [providing my surfacestations data to them] because the method has promise. So let’s not pay attention to the little yippers who want to tear it down before they even see the results. I haven’t seen the global result, nobody has, not even the home team…
…
My gut feeling? The possibility that we may get the elusive “grand unified temperature” for the planet is higher than ever before. Let’s give it a chance.
More science, less barking.
I have seen a copy of the Berkeley group’s draft paper, which of course would be expected to be revised before submission.
Their preliminary results sit right within the results of NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU, confirming that prior analyses were correct in every way that matters. Their results confirm the reality of global warming and support in all essential respects the historical temperature analyses of the NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU.
Their analysis supports the view that there is no fire behind the smokescreen put up by climate science deniers.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
If their process is indeed transparent, and the data sets used get published along with whatever changes were made to these data sets by the suppliers of the data sets, then please go right ahead and publish the efforts. This is good basic research.
This transparent (I hope) step would then form the basis for research efforts by others on this new data set. The key here is knowing exactly what those methods were in forming the new data set, from sensor distribution and changes (IE fallout), to raw data recording and calibration of sensors, to raw data collection, to raw data computerization, to “ready to use” data sets, to statistical methods used by those who then work with these data sets. Caution: Let us hope that the data they are using comes from raw station records and not from “data sets” others have provided. Else they are just attempting to scrub the same stain.
The previous research efforts on temperature trends failed to publicly critique the data set as a first step and to then publish their critique. The complaint that the dog ate the records took on a whole new meaning. Judith Curry has much to say about the data set several research groups used in common in the past (and they all came to the same conclusions surprise surprise), none of it flattering.
If these guys want a Laural crown, produce an attempt to provide an unimpeachable data set. Because I have no doubt that said data set will be combed with very, very, very critical eyes. As it should. When this group publishes their result in providing a new data set, we are still only at level one basic research.
Anyone jumping the gun and running with that new data set before publicly critiquing, duplicating its methods, and indicating areas of research that should be completed before the data set can be used for second level research, should not be involved in research.
We will soon enough know who should be allowed to remain at the bench in the lab, and who should be demoted to sweeping the lab floor.
steven mosher says:
March 22, 2011 at 10:11 pm
“I’m thinking of a place on the earth. Guess the temperature.. Go ahead..”
At what time of day?
Found in: John Whitman on March 22, 2011 at 9:30 pm
We were told something amazingly similar by the Democratic candidate during the last US Presidential election. And indeed, some say the current administration is the most open and transparent one we’ve had in decades, perhaps the most EVAH.
Bit of a giggle really. Phil Jones is proven absolutely correct by Curry, Watts and Mosher.
Talk about an unintended consequence.
REPLY: Well you are entitled to your own warped interpretation, even if it is wrong. Such a rush to cite “proof” and not a thing has been published yet. – Anthony
Just where and how has Ken Caldeira been a funding source for the BEST project?
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
We were told something amazingly similar by the Democratic candidate during the last US Presidential election. And indeed, some say the current administration is the most open and transparent one we’ve had in decades, perhaps the most EVAH.
Open in this case means airhead.
I don’t use MWP or LIA or any of the other As and Ps as meaning anything global, just like current warming isn’t global. Please don’t preach to me.
Ok, Byrd Station, Antarctica.
Only because YOU and everyone else (including your statements above) are calling it an average!!
So making stuff up minimizes the error? Fantastic!
Except we don’t know, for any given point on the planet, what the temperature will be next week within 1C. Oh, and I’ve never heard it called an index until your post just now. It’s always called “Global Average Temperature”. And I still say it’s meaningless. Yesterday where I live it was about 7c, not 14.5. Oh, you mean the AVERAGE (even though I’m confused if I call it an average). And no, the average temp for my area for the month or the year to date is not 14.5c. So what good is an average, for a whole year?
John Tofflemire says:
March 22, 2011 at 7:15 pm
This might help re: the average global temperature / averaging intensive variables topic.
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/globaltemp/GlobTemp.JNET.pdf
That notwithstanding, the BEST project should be interesting, especially the error bars.
The post at the BEST web site says:
…
A preliminary analysis of 2% of the Berkeley Earth dataset shows a global temperature trend that goes up and down with global cycles, and does so broadly in sync with the temperature records from other groups such as NOAA, NASA, and Hadley CRU. However, the preliminary analysis includes only a very small subset (2%) of randomly chosen data, and does not include any method for correcting for biases such as the urban heat island effect, the time of observation bias, etc.
The Berkeley Earth team feels very strongly that no conclusions can yet be drawn from this preliminary analysis.
Anthony Watts says:
That 2% subset they refer to is some weather stations in Japan. They chose Japan because it made for a compact insular test case for the code, combining rural, urban, and airport stations under one organization’s output to keep it simple.
There is real inconsistency here in these two posts. It seems to me that using weather stations only in Japan doesn’t seem like a random process, yet the BEST team says the stations mimic the Global Data and were randomly chosen.
Can we rely on this sort of ” inside information” about the study, or is the BEST team misrepresenting the status of the program on their web site. If BEST is trying to remain impartial, and wants to be seen as impartial, why is it giving people who oppose the idea of AGW, and criticized the GISS, CRU and NCDC data special access to what is going on? This could make it seem like they are influencing the process.
REPLY:Ah I see you are immediately back to wasting everyone’s time here, so I’ll waste some of yours with some sarcasm. I’m not going to give you any additional information, as you’ve proven yourself to be a hostile commenter who will just run over to the Rommulans and rant about it there, followed by more ranting from the Rommulan general. Comical, they can’t even wait for the science, they MUST STERILIZE it before it reaches Earth. Can’t have anything that might threaten the Rommulans now can we? /sarc – Anthony
From Tim Clark on March 23, 2011 at 6:05 pm:
“Open” and “transparent” are open to interpretation, of course. Many things about this administration are open to interpretation, like “leadership.”
And remember, few things are as open and transparent as armed robbery in broad daylight. ☺
Anthony
It seems like quite a reasonable question to me:
Was the 2% sample random or was it from Japan? (or is there more than one sample?)
Knowing this is important to interpreting statements made so far about the BEST results.
It seems that Muller himself has disclosed what he expects to see coming out of the BEST study in the following talk he gave at Berkeley recently:
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/13429263
If you click on the link, and move the time marker at the bottom of the picture to the 1:21 minute mark, you can hear Prof Muller answer a question about the BEST study. He says that there will be at most a 0.1 or 0.2C change up or down to the temperature anomaly found from the land temperature record. Even though they haven’trun the complete data set, they are starting to write the paper.
To quote him exactly :
“None of the effects raised by the properly skeptical is going to have anything more than a marginal effect on the amount of global warming.”
When given a choice of whom to believe about the status of the BEST study, out of all who comment on it, I would choose Prof Muller.
Why do I feel that this project is a Trojan horse?
Let us get WUWT and others to announce ahead of time that they support it and then
Wham! Operation Skeptic Kill success.
However, I could be wrong and the BEST team is doing a great job, but wait until
the data results are announced and made available for review before jumping on board.
I would not say upfront that whatever the results are will be accepted, until the
entire data set and methodology has been reviewed. And then, it only reflects ground data collected, which has to be compared to satellite data.
Moshers “index” rant about how average has meaning made me think about the stock market.
Let say you wanted to invest 1000$. Yould look at the average price for the whole stock market, and that might tell you a small amount or it might not.
Or, you could buy an S&P 500 index fund on the basis that its running at around 4% this year.
Or, you could buy an index fund that follows Telecoms and it is running at -4% and lose money.
Or you could buy an index fund that tracks S & P 500 Energy Stocks which are running at 13% YTD.
Now, looking at global temperature, you could try and determine which “sector” caused any changes in the GMT index.
Was it the Sunshine Hours “sector” or the CO2 “sector” or the Methane “sector” or the land use “sector” or the natural variablity “sector”. Which sector or combination of sectors caused the changes?
Shall we “invest” a trillion dollars in the CO2 “sector” when in fact the change in GMT was caused by the money we invested in cleaning up the air in the 20th century which caused the Sunshine Hours “sector” to skyrocket? Or maybe it was the natural variablity “sector”, which we have zero control that makes up most of the changed in the GMT index.
An Energy Stock is not a Telecom stock etc.
Sunshine Hours is not CO2 and they are not land use etc etc.
Which “sector” cause the GMT index to change?
You claim the CO2 “sector” and are ignoring all the other “sectors”.
I think it is Sunshine Hours. Others think land use. A few think Methane?
Without studying all “sectors” , betting trillions on the wrong “sector” is a colossol waste of money!
The average price of all stocks is pretty useless. The average temperature is pretty useless too unless the index also tracks all the “sectors” too.
Soros was convicted of insider trading in France.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2002/dec/20/france.internationalnews
He spent 25 million (at least) to defeat George Bush.
And he found being a 14 year old a Nazi looter the most exciting time of his life.
“KROFT: (Voiceover) To understand the complexities and contradictions in his personality, you have to go back to the very beginning: to Budapest, where George Soros was born 68 years ago to parents who were wealthy, well-educated and Jewish.
When the Nazis occupied Budapest in 1944, George Soros’ father was a successful lawyer. He lived on an island in the Danube and liked to commute to work in a rowboat. But knowing there were problems ahead for the Jews, he decided to split his family up. He bought them forged papers and he bribed a government official to take 14-year-old George Soros in and swear that he was his Christian godson. But survival carried a heavy price tag. While hundreds of thousands of Hungarian Jews were being shipped off to the death camps, George Soros accompanied his phony godfather on his appointed rounds, confiscating property from the Jews.
(Vintage footage of Jews walking in line; man dragging little boy in line)
KROFT: (Voiceover) These are pictures from 1944 of what happened to George Soros’ friends and neighbors.
(Vintage footage of women and men with bags over their shoulders walking; crowd by a train)
KROFT: (Voiceover) You’re a Hungarian Jew…
Mr. SOROS: (Voiceover) Mm-hmm.
KROFT: (Voiceover) …who escaped the Holocaust…
(Vintage footage of women walking by train)
Mr. SOROS: (Voiceover) Mm-hmm.
(Vintage footage of people getting on train)
KROFT: (Voiceover) … by — by posing as a Christian.
Mr. SOROS: (Voiceover) Right.
(Vintage footage of women helping each other get on train; train door closing with people in boxcar)
KROFT: (Voiceover) And you watched lots of people get shipped off to the death camps.
Mr. SOROS: Right. I was 14 years old. And I would say that that’s when my character was made.
KROFT: In what way?
Mr. SOROS: That one should think ahead. One should understand and — and anticipate events and when — when one is threatened. It was a tremendous threat of evil. I mean, it was a — a very personal experience of evil.
KROFT: My understanding is that you went out with this protector of yours who swore that you were his adopted godson.
Mr. SOROS: Yes. Yes.
KROFT: Went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews.
Mr. SOROS: Yes. That’s right. Yes.
KROFT: I mean, that’s — that sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for many, many years. Was it difficult?
Mr. SOROS: Not — not at all. Not at all. Maybe as a child you don’t — you don’t see the connection. But it was — it created no — no problem at all.
KROFT: No feeling of guilt?
Mr. SOROS: No.
KROFT: For example that, ‘I’m Jewish and here I am, watching these people go. I could just as easily be there. I should be there.’ None of that?
Mr. SOROS: Well, of course I c — I could be on the other side or I could be the one from whom the thing is being taken away. But there was no sense that I shouldn’t be there, because that was — well, actually, in a funny way, it’s just like in markets — that if I weren’t there — of course, I wasn’t doing it, but somebody else would — would — would be taking it away anyhow. And it was the — whether I was there or not, I was only a spectator, the property was being taken away. So the — I had no role in taking away that property. So I had no sense of guilt.
BillyBob says:
March 24, 2011 at 8:38 pm
Soros was convicted of insider trading in France.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2002/dec/20/france.internationalnews
Is this a felony, which is what Smokey claimed? He paid a fine. Martha Stewart actually served time in jail for this. So what?
He spent 25 million (at least) to defeat George Bush.
Is this a crime? Like a majority of people in the US in the 2000 election he preferred Bush’s opponent.
And he found being a 14 year old a Nazi looter the most exciting time of his life.
I would think so too, if I were in danger of being turned into a lampshade in a concentration camp. Would anyone 14 year old boy have voluntarily confessed his Jewish identity and surrendered to the Nazis after his dad was killed by them? What purpose would that serve.
He was lucky and survived the holocaust by posing as a gentile! Is this a reason to say that he funneled Jews into cattle cars and loved the Nazis, and supports dictators? These are all lies.
Get Real!
From eadler on March 25, 2011 at 7:40 pm:
Yup. Earned Soros a spot on a “Famous Financial Felons” list alongside Jeffrey Skilling and Ken Lay of Enron fame besides others.
http://www.dailyfinance.com/investing/famous-financial-felons/
In your previous comment you cited Soros’ Wikipedia entry. Said entry clearly mentions Soros’ felony conviction. Why are you questioning what Smokey and BillyBob have said, when your own source confirmed it?
I see you are giving your normal attention to detail. Soros was convicted of felony insider trading in France, which was upheld on appeal, and fined more than US$2 million.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/14/business/worldbusiness/14iht-soros.1974397.html
Martha Stewart was convicted in the United States on FOUR different counts: Conspiracy to obstruct justice, make false statements, and commit perjury; False statement (2 counts); Obstruction of justice. For that she got jail time, not for a conviction on insider trading.
http://money.cnn.com/2004/03/05/news/companies/martha_verdict/
Again with your fine attention to detail. The donations were made, per your Wikipedia entry source, for the 2004 election. George W. Bush was clearly favored by the electorate in the popular vote, not only getting 62,039,073 votes versus Kerry’s 59,027,478, but Bush got 50.73% of all votes cast, clearly beating not only Kerry but Kerry and all other presidential candidates combined.
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2004/popular_vote.html
As to the involvement of the young Soros in the looting in Hungary… You must have some highly romanticized vision of the “collecting,” perhaps involving a truck and going around to calmly pick up the possessions. What actually happened was truly inhumane. You should read about what really happened and how horrible it was. “Looting” doesn’t quite describe the depths of absolute depravity.
http://www.degob.hu/english/index.php?showarticle=2030
If you can read that, and continue to defend Soros for saying he felt no guilt, felt pretty much nothing, and for how he felt that to be the most exciting time of his life… Then you are worse than we thought.
You know, the uncharitable might suspect that all the risible ‘Rommulan’ stuff directed at ‘eadler’ above is a transparent attempt to divert attention from the disturbing content of his comment and re-rally the tribe around how nasty the enemy is (what, with all those horrible facts and all that contemptible evidence!)
I wrote
eadler says:
March 23, 2011 at 7:53 pm
“…..
There is real inconsistency here in these two posts. It seems to me that using weather stations only in Japan doesn’t seem like a random process, yet the BEST team says the stations mimic the Global Data and were randomly chosen.
Can we rely on this sort of ” inside information” about the study, or is the BEST team misrepresenting the status of the program on their web site. If BEST is trying to remain impartial, and wants to be seen as impartial, why is it giving people who oppose the idea of AGW, and criticized the GISS, CRU and NCDC data special access to what is going on? This could make it seem like they are influencing the process.
REPLY:Ah I see you are immediately back to wasting everyone’s time here, so I’ll waste some of yours with some sarcasm. I’m not going to give you any additional information, as you’ve proven yourself to be a hostile commenter who will just run over to the Rommulans and rant about it there, followed by more ranting from the Rommulan general. Comical, they can’t even wait for the science, they MUST STERILIZE it before it reaches Earth. Can’t have anything that might threaten the Rommulans now can we? /sarc – Anthony
Now that Anthony Watts has admitted that he made a mistake about Japan being the basis for the 2% sample, will he apologize to me for wasting everybody’s time, when I made a comment that was totally factual and on target?
eadler says:
“Now that Anthony Watts has admitted that he made a mistake about Japan being the basis for the 2% sample, will he apologize to me for wasting everybody’s time, when I made a comment that was totally factual and on target?”
You are so obnoxious. Anthony has a hearing disability; he didn’t hear the entire conversation, and he was obligated to keep the basic paper confidential. He wasn’t allowed to take any documents, which would have avoided the mistake. And all you can do is troll about it.
You’ve been wrong plenty, and so have others. If you don’t think you’re a troll, post the same demands of those in the link who made a very similar mistake – without Anthony’s disability.
On any other blog you would have been banned for trolling long ago. Instead of jumping on any possible chance to criticize Anthony [who promptly owned up to making a rare mistake], you should be praising him for the 99% of the time that he’s right.
I suggest you go back to one of your alarmist echo chambers and spew your hatred there. No doubt you’ll be cheered on by their mindless anti-science, duplicitous denizens that head-nod at every alarmist notion, and at every attack on the internet’s “Best Science” site, no matter how far fetched or ridiculous they sound.
Here, you get no traction, and it is you who wastes everyone’s time. An apology is in order from you, not from Anthony.