A link to where to download the new FOIA2011.zip file is posted below the fold – This will be a top post for a few days -NEW STORIES APPEAR BELOW THIS ONE -I’ve also reversed the order of the updates to be newest at top for better visibility – Anthony
UPDATE50: 1:15 PM PST 11/30 The genesis of RealClimate.org seems to have been found. Surprisingly, the BBC’s Roger Harrabin seems to have been involved in the genesis meeting.
UPDATE49: 10:00 AM PST 11/30 While not email related, just as Climategate breaks David Suzuki commits an egregious propaganda error second only to the 10:10 video where kids are blown up for not going along with carbon reduction schemes at school. He’s targeting kids and Santa Claus at Christmas – Santa’s home is melting.
UPDATE48: 9:20 AM PST 11/30 Dr. Phil Jones on the “lack of warming” -he may need a backup plan.
UPDATE47: 9AM PST 11/30 Fudge factor collection in the emails, or is climate modeling a social issue?
UPDATE46: A look at UEA/CRU’s email infrastructure and email systems in general suggests that the “deleted” emails to/from Phil Jones and others at CRU probably still exist and can be subject to FOIA.
UPDATE45: 1:30PM PST 11/29 If there was award for clueless timing, this would win it no contest: Penn State to lecture on “climate ethics”
UPDATE44: 9AM PST 11/29 Mike Mann reprises the role of Captain Queeg in The Cain Mutiny when seeing de Freitas being vindicated by the publisher of Climate Research (see the update in the article).
UPDATE43: 8AM PST 11/29 An Excel Spreadsheet with Climategate 1 and 2 emails ordered chronologically should be helpful in determining that supposedly missing”context”
UPDATE42: 7AM PST 11/29 The CRU crew says: “what we really meant was…”
UPDATE41: 4AM PST 11/29 James Padget schools Steve Zwick – Guide to Defending the Indefensible. Some people just can’t handle Climategate.
UPDATE40: 12AM PST 11/29 Penn State has the same “look the other way” problem with Climategate as they did with the Jerry Sandusky scandal.
UPDATE39: It seems “vexatious” is Dr. Phil Jones favorite new feeling word after summer 2009.
UPDATE38: Severinghaus says Mike Mann didn’t give a straight answer regarding why trees don’t work as thermometers after 1950
UPDATE37: Climate sensitivity can’t be quantified with the current data according to NCAR’s Wigley, with paleo data – even less so.
UPDATE36: Dr. Chris de Freitas responds to the ugly attempt by The Team at getting him fired.
UPDATE 35: “Stroppy” Dr Roger Pielke Sr. shows just how much a “old boys network” the peer review process is.
UPDATE34: More internal dissent of the hockey stick. Mann tries to beat down the concern over “hide the decline” while not letting the dissenting scientist know there was a decline.
UPDATE33: Gobsmacking! Rob Wilson proves McIntyre and McKittrick correct in an email to colleagues at CRU, showing that when random noise time series are fed into Mike Mann’s procedure, it makes “hockey sticks”. The confirmation that M&M is right never leaves the walls of CRU.
UPDATE32: 9:30PM PST 11/27 BREAKING – Canada to pull out of Kyoto protocol. Another Climategate fallout ?
UPDATE31: 4:30PM PST 11/27 BOMBSHELL An absolutely disgusting string of communications that shows the tribal attempt at getting an editor of a journal fired on made up issues – all because he allowed a publication that didn’t agree with “the Team”. This is ugly, disturbing, and wrong on every level.
UPDATE30: 9:45 AM PST 11/27 Newsbytes. Major crack in the warming wall at the UK prime minister’s office. BBC in collusion with Climategate scientists.
UPDATE29: 9AM PST 11/27 The saga of the missing station data at CRU and the “pants on fire” defense of it as told by Willis Eschenbach. Dr. Phil Jones is between a rock and a hard place, quite.
UPDATE 28: 1:30PM PST 11/26 An email shows the UNFCCC considers activists an essential tool saying “…organized and deeply committed environmental activism has long been an important part of the UNFCCC process…”
UPDATE27: 7AM PST 11/26 Climategate 2 features prominently in WUWT’s newest feature “Hits and Misses”
UPDATE26: 2:50 PM 11/25 Two separate examples show obstruction and collusion by members of “The Team” to prevent any dissenting science from being properly considered by the NRC in 2007.
UPDATE25: 2PM 11/25 Keith Briffa asks another colleague to delete email to avoid FOIA
UPDATE24: 1:30PM 11/25 New Climategate 1/2 combined search engine here
UPDATE23: 9AM PST 11/25 via bishop-hill, strange infighting:
#4101 – Edward Cook tells Phil Jones that Mike Mann is “serious enemy” and “vindictive”. Mike Mann had criticized his work.
Apparently Mann went “a little crazy” over a paper showing the MWP exists.
Details here
UPDATE22: 11AM PST 11/24 Am unsurprising admission from a BBC environmental reporter to Dr. Phil Jones that they really have no impartiality at all (ho ho) when it comes to climate issues.
UPDATE21: 9:50AM PST 11/24 “FOIA2011″ and Climategate – A Chinese-POTUS connection?
UPDATE20: 9:30AM PST 11/24 World renowned climatologist Phil Jones can’t even plot a temperature trend line in Excel. I’ve offered a solution that WUWT readers can help with.
UPDATE19: 9AM PST 11/24 Gail Combs finds some disturbing connections between the Team and The World Bank
UPDATE18: 1:45PM Scott Mandia, aka “Supermandia” wins the award for the silliest climategate rebuttal, ever. It’s like stupid on steroids.
UPDATE17: 12:55PM PST 11/23 Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. has an excellent piece on “Gatekeeping” related to Trenberth and the Pielke-Landsea hurricane paper and the IPCC. You may recall Landsea resigned from the IPCC over this. Pielke says: “The gatekeeping of the IPCC process is abundantly clear, and the shadowy suggestion that they can find out who the reviewers are from another colleague is a bit unsettling as well.” Trenberth looks particularly bad here.
UPDATE16: 11:30AM PST 11/23 Insider scientist at CRU says our “reaction to Mike Mann’s errors was not particularly honest” – story here
UPDATE15: 7:50AM 11/23 Ric Werme found an email from the late John L. Daly to Mike Mann and the team – it is well worth a read here
UPDATE14: 2:45 AM PST 11/23 Willis Eschenbach offers a guest post here explaining how his FOIA requests went astray. Mr. David Palmer was the Freedom of Information Officer for the CRU at the time. In the newly released emails, he expresses his frustration with the whole procedure.
UPDATE13: 12:05AM 11/23 Craig Stone writes:
I have published a searchable database of the emails at http://foia2011.org
All email addresses and phone numbers are automatically redacted. It’s extremely rudimentary right now, but I’ll be refining the functionality and improving the search capabilities and navigation over the course of the next week.
UPDATE 12: 9:30 PM PST We’ve known for some time that Al Gore made up a bunch of claims in his AIT movie that simply weren’t true. Now this revelation in the new email batch shows that in the case of Kilimanjaro’s disappearing snows, even Phil Jones and Dr. Lonnie Thompson don’t believe global warming is the cause, even though Thompson put out a press release nearly a year ago saying just that. Told ya so. Pants on fire and all that. Anything for “the cause” right?
UPDATE11: 4:45PM PST Kevin Trenberth gets all misty eyed and sing-songy at Christmas here
UPDATE10: 4:30PM PST Some thoughts on cracking the big remaining all.7z file here
UPDATE9: 2:25PM PST Josh weighs in with the first satirical cartoon here
UPDATE8: 140PM PST Mike Mann shows his true colors:
email 1680.txt
date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 12:03:05 -0400
from: “Michael E. Mann”..
subject: Re: Something not to pass on
to: Phil Jones
Phil,
I would not respond to this. They will misrepresent and take out of context anything you give them. This is a set up. They will certainly publish this, and will ignore any evidence to the contrary that you provide. s They are going after Wei-Chyung because he’s U.S. and there is a higher threshold for establishing libel. Nonetheless, he should
consider filing a defamation lawsuit, perhaps you too.
I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose McIntyre, and his thusfar unexplored connections with fossil fuel interests.Perhaps the same needs to be done w/ this Keenan guy.
I believe that the only way to stop these people is by exposing them and discrediting them….
UPDATE7: 1:20 PM PST Phil Jones and Tom Wigley calls another scientist (The former state climatologist of California) a “jerk” for publishing his UHI results.
UPDATE6: 12:08PM PST Here’s an email that collaborates a radio interview I did in Seattle with Thomas Peterson in summer 2007, yes these are 100% real emails, no doubt whatsoever now. More here: Climategate 2.0 – NCDC: “Mr. Watts gave a well reasoned position”
UPDATE 5: 11:00AM PST In a statement, UEA doesn’t deny these emails, but posts about the whitewash investigations of the past, like they matter now.
UPDATE4: 9:45 AM PST I’ve changed the headline from Climategate 2.0 to Climategate 2.0 emails – They’re real and they’re spectacular! with a hat tip to Jerry Seinfeld. The relevance of that headline is particularly interesting in the context of where Dr. James Hansen of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) has his office in NYC.
UPDATE3: 9:25 AM PST – Having read a number of emails, and seeing this quote from Mike Mann in the Guardian:
When asked if they were genuine, he said: “Well, they look like mine but I hardly see anything that appears damning at all, despite them having been taken out of context. I guess they had very little left to work with, having culled in the first round the emails that could most easily be taken out of context to try to make me look bad.”
I’m going to conclude they are the real deal. I’ve posted a BitTorrent link to the file below. One big difference between Climategate 1 and 2 is that in 1, it took days for the MSM to catch on, now they are on top of it.
UPDATE2: 8:45AM PST The Guardian has a story up by Leo Hickman, and this excerpt suggests they may be the real deal:
Norfolk police have said the new set of emails is “of interest” to their investigation to find the perpetrator of the initial email release who has not yet been identified.
The emails appear to be genuine, but this has yet to be confirmed by the University of East Anglia. One of the emailers, the climate scientist Prof Michael Mann, has confirmed that he believes they are his messages.
UPDATE1: 8:20 AM PST These emails have not been verified yet, and this story was posted by one of my moderating staff while I was asleep. Until such time they are verified, tread lightly because without knowing what is behind the rest of the zip file, for all we know it’s a bunch of recipes and collection of lorem ipsum text files. I’m working to authenticate these now and will report when I know more – Anthony Watts
===============================================================
Early this morning, history repeated itself. FOIA.org has produced an enormous zip file of 5,000 additional emails similar to those released two years ago in November 2009 and coined Climategate. There are almost 1/4 million additional emails locked behind a password, which the organization does not plan on releasing at this time.
The original link was dropped off in the Hurricane Kenneth thread at about 4 AM Eastern. It is still there.
Some initial snippets floating around the blogosphere:
<3373> Bradley: I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year
“reconstruction”.
<3115> Mann: By the way, when is Tom C going to formally publish his roughly 1500 year
reconstruction??? It would help the cause to be able to refer to that
reconstruction as confirming Mann and Jones, etc.
<3940> Mann: They will (see below) allow us to provide some discussion of the synthetic
example, referring to the J. Cimate paper (which should be finally accepted
upon submission of the revised final draft), so that should help the cause a
bit.
<0810> Mann: I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she think’s she’s
doing, but its not helping the cause
<2440> Jones: I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the
process
<2094> Briffa: UEA does not hold the very vast majority of mine [potentially FOIable emails] anyway which I copied onto private storage after the completion of the IPCC
task.
JeffId has some initial reaction
From the ReadMe file:
/// FOIA 2011 — Background and Context ///
“Over 2.5 billion people live on less than $2 a day.”
“Every day nearly 16.000 children die from hunger and related causes.”
“One dollar can save a life” — the opposite must also be true.
“Poverty is a death sentence.”
“Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilize
greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels.”
Today’s decisions should be based on all the information we can get, not on
hiding the decline.
This archive contains some 5.000 emails picked from keyword searches. A few
remarks and redactions are marked with triple brackets.
The rest, some 220.000, are encrypted for various reasons. We are not planning
to publicly release the passphrase.
We could not read every one, but tried to cover the most relevant topics such
as…
==============================================================
Here’s one about UHI that is convincing:
cc: liqx@cma.xxx
date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 11:16:37 +0800
from: =?gb2312?B?JUQ1JUM1JUMwJUYyJUMzJUY0IA==?= <limmy@xxx>
subject: Re:Re: thank you
to: p.jones@xxx
Dear Phil,
Again I find that the emails from my CMA mail boxes can not get to you.
From attaches please find the data of 42 urban stations and 42 rural stations (by your
list) and a reference of homogenization of the data. we have tested and adjusted the abrupt
discontinuities of the data during 1951-2001, but the following years (2002-2004) has only
been quality controled and added to the end of the series, but we found the relocation
during these 3 years have minor effects on the whole series in most of the stations.
I partly agree with what Prof. Ren said. and we have done some analysis on the urban heat
island effect in China during past years. The results are differnt with Ren’s. But I think
different methods, data, and selection of the urban and rural stations would be the most
important causes of this. So I think it is high time to give some new studies and graw some
conclusion in this topic. I hope we can make some new achives on this both on global scale
and in China.
Best
Qingxiang
—– Original Message —–
From: “Phil Jones” < p.jones@xxxx >
To: “Rean Guoyoo” < guoyoo@xxxx >
Cc: “%D5%C5%C0%F2%C3%F4” < limmy@xxx>, < liqx@cma.xxx >
Sent: 2007-09-24 16:25:59 +0800
Subject: Re: thank you
Dear Guoyu,
I think I emailed you from America last week. I am away again next week,
but here this week.
I do think that understanding urban influences are important. I will
wait for Dr Li Qingxiang to send some data, but there is no rush, as I am
quite busy the next few weeks.
Best Regards
Phil
At 00:59 20/09/2007, you wrote:
The following message was returned back when I sent via cma site. I send it again via
this site. I also forwarded this message to Dr, Li Qingxiang.
Regards,
Guoyu
Dear Phil,
Thank you for your message of Sept 11, 2007. I have just been back from the US. Sorry
for the delayed response.
I noted the discussion on blog sites. This is indeed a big issue in the studies of
climate change.
In the past years, we did some analyses of the urban warming effect on surface air
temperature trends in China, and we found the effect is pretty big in the areas we
analyzed. This is a little different from the result you obtained in 1990. I think there
might be at least three reasons for the difference: (1) the areas chosen in the analyses
are different; (2) the time periods analyzed are obviously varied, and the aft-1990
period is seeing a more rapid warming in most areas of China; (3) the rural stations
used for the analyses are different, and we used some stations which we think could be
more representative for the baseline change.
We have published a few of papers on this topic in Chinese. Unfortunately, when we sent
our comments to the IPCC AR4, they were mostly rejected.
It is my opinion that we need to re-assess the urbanization effect on surface air
temperature records for at least some regions of the continents. I am glad that you are
going to redo it using the updated dataset. I expect you to obtain the new outcome.
As for the dataset, I believe that Dr. Li Qingxiang could give you a hand. He and his
group conducted a lot work of detection and adjustment of the inhomogeneities in the
past years, and the adjusted and the raw datasets are all stored and managed in his
center. The datasets we used are also from his center.
I’d be happy to discuss some issues with you late, but I would not necessarily be as a
co-author because my contribution would be rather minor.
Best regards,
Guoyu
NCC, Beijing
Shape Yahoo! in your own image. [1]Join our Network Research Panel today!
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 xxxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
—————————————————————————-
=======================263ÌìÏÂÓÊ£ÐÅÀµÓÊ×Ôרҵ=======================
Attachment Converted: “c:\eudora\attach\Detecting and Adjusting Temporal Inhomogeneity in
Chinese Mean Surface Air Temperature Data.pdf” Attachment Converted: “c:\eudora\attach\To
Jones.rar”
====================================================================
Here’s a bit torrent link to the FOIA2011.zip file
You’ll need a bit torrent client
BETTER LINK:
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=ROCGBR37
Documentation Of A Cozy Interaction Between An AMS BAMS Editor And Phil Jones
Perhaps an exemplification of the Peter Principle? Or maybe the final product of ‘state schooling’ from K through to BS, MS or PhD?
I would like to see, purely from an entertainment perspective, a good line of argumentation put forwards, but, alas, not forthcoming from this ‘specimen’ …
.
Jeez what have I been smoking tonight! Correction again, the correct document IS 0333!
Apologies
As a fisher, hunter, farmer, and CEO, I must be one of those who was overlooked by a “Physicist” (heh) during his less than extensive survey. The house of cards is collapsing, and I am sure you and yours are in a panic. My doubts harken back to my early training in the method where an old prof inculcated the most basic principles of scientific inquiry- skepticism itself. The moment those associated with the AGW enterprise (and it is an enterprise) began to viciously attack those who presented any data or theory counter to the narrative, I knew. These emails, part 1 and 2 prove one thing for certain. These people committed to “the cause”, regardless of their credentials, are not scientists.
am I alone in thinking that our ‘physicist’ friend is being just a bit naive.
He talks about reading what CEOs, militarists etc etc (incl. farmers (that’s me)) are saying about catastrophic climate change and apparently how they all believe it to be true.
No.
What is true is that our elected leaders believe it to be true and it is their actions that all these people are talking about- especially that huge and very dangerous thing that will impact on everyone – Carbon Tax. That is the catastrophe, not the climate.
And if, 37 trillion is going to be spent, who in their right mind would not be hankering after a share of that – not at all of course thinking of anybody/thing called Solyndra for example.
Is it yet another sad reflection of our education systems that modern physicists can be so ‘green’ in every sense of the word?
@ur momisugly “sceptical says:
November 22, 2011 at 9:25 am
[quote]It will be interesting to see how partial quotes taken out of context will be spun this time. Last time, those who did the spinning were left with egg on their face after numerous investigations.[/quote]
Oh, you mean like how Penn State handled its knowledge of a child predator in their midst? If they managed to whitewash that for 33 years, whitewashing a little climate investigation would be a piece of cake.
2368
Dave,
Do I understand it correctly – if he doesn’t pay the £10 we don’t have to respond?
With the earlier FOI requests re David Holland, I wasted a part of a day deleting
numerous emails and exchanges with almost all the skeptics. So I have
virtually nothing. I even deleted the email that I inadvertently sent.
There might be some bits of pieces of paper, but I’m not wasting my time
going through these.
Cheers
Phil
RE: Smokey: (November 22, 2011 at 10:24 am)
“The onus is entirely on the alarmist crowd to show convincingly, per the scientific method, that a rise in CO2 will cause runaway global warming and climate disruption.”
That is exactly the condition that Fear-Forced (Post-Normal) Science is meant to lay aside, as the presumed consequences of inaction are supposed to be so dire that there is no time to debate the issue.
Thanks, Prof. Mann for screwing more people from Penn State than Jerry Sandusky.
Henry@Gail Combs
I assume you are referring to the fact that I said that
“a correlation can be picked up if you compare the results in my tables with that of the leaf area index, shown in the world chart below:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/24/the-earths-biosphere-is-booming-data-suggests-that-co2-is-the-cause-part-2/
In the red areas, which shows the area on earth where life is blooming and where it is getting greener, you will note from the results in my tables that the increase in maxima is picked up and trapped by the increasing vegetation as exhibited by higher means and minima.. In the blue ares, where substantial de-forestation has been going on, you will find mean temperatures staying largely unchanged or even declining, even though maxima are rising”.
However, I am still working on that,
I think I do need to do more statistical analyses of weather stations before I can make an historical claim.
This is just a “hobby” and I don’t have a lot of time for it.
I sure wish I had the universities here working with me (especially the stats classes) instead of being so completely naive and pathetic.
“farmers, fishers, and hunters, not to mention most mathematicians, scientists, and engineers”
“fishers”
That tells me that A physicist is more likely “A journOlist”, probably in the employ of the CBC. But who knows, maybe they use that stupid emasculated name for fishermen in certain hyperpolitica parts of the USA, too.
LOL
My guess is that “a physicist” is that well known heavyweight, Scott Mandia. Who else would name himself in such a pretentious manner.
What do you guys think?
http://www.minnesotansforglobalwarming.com/m4gw/assets_c/2011/11/Hide-the-Decline-2-The-Cause-755.html
@A physicist says: November 22, 2011 at 10:38 am
“The plain fact is, almost every serious professional organization nowadays is rejecting those brands of climate-change skepticism that express themselves mainly in cherry-picking, witch-hunting, and slogan-shouting.”
I wouldn’t expect a cowardly, anonymous troll to even recognise a “serious professional organization” if one was to bite his ass. And your boring and tendentious posts prove the point.
Whilst you clearly excite yourself with your endlessly repeated “cherry-picking, witch-hunting, and slogan-shouting.” chant, most rational people are more concerned about the dogma, incompetence, greed & malice which has been the hallmark of the Thermogeddonists for years and which is abundently here on display in the latest Climategate 2 emails. This concern is greatly amplified by being mindful of the Trillion Dollar expenditure on non-solutions to the CO2 non-problem.
The outcome?
Just read
@cui bono says: November 22, 2011 at 10:41 am.
And contemplate for once in your selfish, miserable little life, the effects of the cAGW scam on the poor and dispossessed in countries far poorer than the UK. The education, clean water & medicine that a tiny fraction of “decarbonisation” would pay for. The destruction of hope. And (with obvious implications for future peace and stability) the claim that their misfortune is down to the First World’s unpaid “Carbon Debt”.
Exceptions to the hearsay rule include “informal admissions” and evidence that tends to show a state of mind. This is what these emails do.
The timing is intriguing. Just as the first block was released a few days before the Copenhagen shindig, these predate the Durban upcoming fiasco.
There is another important factor. We are in the midst of a growing global financial crisis. The crisis will affect both the appetite for funding and policies which might affect the exit from financial stagnation. There are not many economists around who in these circumstances would support “green economies” as a serious means of getting back on the right economic track.
Because of the above this second batch of emails will have a much harder impact than the first. Which shows that the person(s) doing the leaking have a strategic mind.
Nik
Any Josh cartoons on the horizon ? 🙂
Found another copy of it here:
http://btjunkie.org/torrent/ClimateGate-Dump-2011/4239ebd36afc51afef4486028c1940739e6112964629
Let us raise our fists and red flags … for THE CAUSE!!!!!
0339- Discusses Mann and his bristle cones + McIntyre
In some quarters I have seen it offered that the reason the President of Penn State was sacked in the pedophilia scandal is because the non-investigation into something that could have jeopardized a revenue stream is a pattern there (at the university under his watch)—because of the non-investigation into Mann, and other more minor issues.
If so, while it may not gain massive “media” attention, it may gain some university attention.
Write to the board of governors; they have the sacking power, and with fewer places to hide, Mann will be easier to corner, won’t he?
2333 — “This is for YOURS EYES ONLY. Delete after reading – please !” Ooops
Scientists welcome sceptical viewpoints because such viewpoints give them an opportunity to show why their hypothesis is to be preferred.
It didn’t happen quite like that did it?
Is the “perpetrator” (as described by the crack [smoking?] Norfolk police) really saying we need to find USD37,000,000,ooo,000 to spend on bird choppers, solar panels, lunar panels, perpetual motion machines, and other “sustainable” energy, so we can “stabilize” (American spelling) our emmissions at “sustainable levels” (whatever that means) ???
Great. No problem.
Someone please call China and tell them we need to borrow enough for 74,000 more Solyndras.
We’ll pay them back with, um, stabilised, …sustainable, …um, levels. Of something.
From Raymond Bradley to Keith Briffa (2560)
re Mike’s last missive, I have responded to Julie directly. Forget about
it…too much acrimony on all of this. One day, (perhaps) Mike will grow
up…
Ray
One of my favorites (and note, put it in context with Mann’s angry reaction reported today in the media):
Cook:
I am afraid that Mike is defending something that increasingly can not be
defended. He is investing too much personal stuff in this and not letting the
science move ahead
@A physicist says:
November 22, 2011 at 10:38 am
You’re obvious new to this trolling thing, aren’t you?
Consensus does not determine science, nor does appeal to authority. I find the progressive mind, like that of children, to be very susceptible to peer-pressure. That’s why progressives have such uniformity of opinion and so little original thought. Conformity is very important to progressives and they inhabit a shame sub-culture.
Me, I’m from Missouri (which a often pronounce as Mizzura, just to annoy my spouse) and you have to show me. Give me some real facts.