From New Zealand Climate Change, this goes beyond “noble cause corruption”. This is outright malicious interference with the scientific process, and it’s damned ugly. I can’t imagine anyone involved in professional science who could stand idly by and not condemn this.
– Anthony
Climategate 2 and Corruption of Peer Review
The post here is a follow-up from my last post on some Climategate 2 emails, which I have tied together into a kind of narrative. Why should you read this? It is very simple. There are plenty of articles, views etc. out there claiming that the climategate 2 emails are being taken out of context. I have also seen Phil Jones has been saying that it is just the normal ‘to and fro’ of normal scientists going about their business etc. etc.
This is most certainly not the case in the emails that follow. There really is no hiding place for the authors, and no ambiguity. The emails will track how annoyance at the publication of a ‘contrary’ article in a journal develops into an attack on the editor, Chris de Freitas, an accomplished scientist. The attack includes a plot to see if they can get him sacked from his job at University of Auckland. Within the story, it is evident exactly what kind of ‘scientists’ the key authors are. The word scientist applied to these people has denigrated the meaning of the word.
Amongst those involved are Phil Jones, Michael Mann, Jim Salinger, Tom Wigley, Barrie Pittock, Mike Hulme + others. In addition Pachauri, the head of the IPCC is copied into many of the emails, meaning that he was fully aware that some of the key scientists in the IPCC were effectively out of control.
The post is very long, but please stick with it. The story unfolds, and is worth the effort if you really want to see what is going on. When quoting the emails, I do so minus annoying symbols such as >>>. Where I am commenting within the email text, I place the text as [this is my comments], and any bold text is my emphasis.
The starting point is email 2683, from 12 April 2003 when there is grumbling about a paper by Soon & Baliunas (S&B) published in the journal Climate Research (abreviated to CR in the emails). There is some discussion of the S&B study, and Mike Hulme discusses the potential of the paper on the thoughts of policymakers with Barrie Pittock:
Yes, this paper has hit the streets here also through the London Sunday Telegraph. Phil Jones and Keith Briffa are pretty annoyed, and there has been correspondence across the Atlantic with Tom Crowley and Ray Bradley. There has been some talk of a formal response but not sure where it has got to. Phil and Keith are really the experts here so I would leave that to them. Your blow by blow account of what they have done prompts me again to consider my position with Climate Research, the journal for whom I remain a review editor. So are people like Tim Carter, Nigel Arnell, Simon Shackley, Rob Wilby and Clare Goodess, colleagues whom I know well and who might also be horrified at this latest piece of primary school science that Chris de Freitas from New Zealand has let through (there are a good number of other examples in recent years and Wolfgang Cramer resigned from Climate Research 4 years ago because of it).
I might well alert these other colleagues to the crap science CR continues to publish because of de Freitas and see whether a collective mass resignation is appropriate. Phil Jones, I believe, is already boycotting reviews for that journal.
The first point to note is their concern is as much about the impact upon policy as it is about the science. This will become important for setting the context for the progressive process in which they eventually seek to destroy the career of the offending editor.We then get a response from Salinger, in response to Pittock’s call for someone to ‘take up the gauntlet’:
Dear Mike, Barrie, Neville et al
Saturday morning here and thanks for all your efforts. I note the reference to Chris de Freitas. Chris writes very voluminously to the NZ media and right wing business community often recycling the arguments of sceptics run overseas, which have been put to bed.
I, personally would support any of these actions you are proposing particularly if CR continues to publish dishonest or biased science. This introduces a new facet to the publication of science and we should maybe have a panel that ‘reviews the editors’. Otherwise we have the development of shonkey editors who then manipulate the editing to get papers with specific views published. Note the
immediacy that the right wing media (probably planned) used the opportunity!
Your views appreciated – but I can certainly provide a dossier on the writings of Chris in the media in New Zealand.
There are several points of note here. First of all, the positioning of de Freitas as being part of a right-wing, and there is even suggestion of a conspiracy. Finally, just to demonstrate that de Freitas is an ‘outsider’, Salinger will produce the evidence. Having a different view, it seems, is condemnation. Pittock then responds to Salinger:
Thanks for your comments and suggestions. I hope the co-editors of ‘Climate Research’ can agree on some joint action. I know that Peter Whetton is one who is concerned. Any action must of course be effective and also not give the sceptics an excuse for making de Freitas appear as a martyr – the charge should surely be not following scientific standards of review, rather than publishing contrarian views as such. If a paper is contested by referees that should at least be stated in any publication, and minimal standards of statistical treatment, honesty and clarity should be insisted on. Bringing the journal and publisher into disrepute may be one reasonable charge.
‘Energy and Environment’ is another journal with low standards for sceptics, but if my recollection is correct this is implicit in their stated policy of stirring different points of view – the real test for both journals may be whether they are prepared to publish refutations, especially simultaneously with the sceptics’ papers so that readers are not deceived.
On that score you might consider whether it is possible to find who de Freitas got to review various papers and how their comments were dealt with. I heard second hand that Tom Wigley was very annoyed about a paper which gave very low projections of future warmings (I forget which paper, but it was in a recent issue) got through despite strong criticism from him as a reviewer.
Here we have our first indications that de Freitas may be about to face problems.
Excerpts:
People with bona fide scientific background should not review articles, as they might actually accept them for publication.
…
… is it not partially the responsibility of climate science to make sure only satisfactorily [agreeing with their views] peer-reviewed science appears in scientific publications?
…
We Australasians (including Tom as an ex pat) have suggested some courses of action. Over to you now in the north to assess the success of your initiatives, the various discussions and suggestions and arrive on a path ahead. I am happy to be part of it.
Again, good science is the science that agrees with their own views. Bad science is to take an opposing view. ‘Purity of science’ is taken to mean ‘agreeing with my views’. Again, this is disturbing, but more disturbing is the moral righteousness that leads towards the comment that Salinger is happy to be part of it.
…
Also assessing copyright as the ‘other’ Soon/Baliunas paper in Energy and Env. is essentially the same as that in CR. Hans wanted to try this first, but didn’t want to tell all what he was doing. Fears a backlash if de Freitas gets removed without due cause. So let’s all try and keep the emails down, and hope we can report something to all once the correspondence Hans initiates gets replies.
Here, they are trying to get de Freitas through other means, which is copyright violation.
…
This is all very tragic. I will, if I have time, try to finish the story, or others may want to take it forwards if they have the time or inclination. What I do know is that this particular case appears to be one of the most clear and damning I have yet seen with regards to the ‘team’ seeking to stifle debate, and ultimately destroy the scientific process. It is just all the more shocking for the tribalistic hounding of Chris de Freitas.
Read the full article here.
If you would like to see the next section of the story, it can be found here. It is even more damning, an excerpt:
email 4808.
Phil Jones is following up on the email of Mann, in which he proposes writing a letter to the other editors of Climate Resarch, asking for the editors to resign in protest at de Freitas being an editor.
Did anything ever come of this? [the email to the CR editors]
Clare Goodness was in touch w/ me indicating that she had discussed the matter w/ Von Storch, and that DeFrietas would be relieved of his position. However, I haven’t heard anything. A large segment of the community I’ve been in contact with feels that this event has already done its damage, allowing Baliunas and colleagues to attempt to impact U.S. governmental policy, w/ this new weapon in hand–the appearance of a legitimate peer-reviewed document challenging some core assertions of IPCC to wave in congress. They appear to be making some headway in using this to influence U.S. policy, which makes our original discussions all the more pressing now.
In this context, it seems important that either Clare and Von Storch take imminent action on this, or else actions of the sort you had mentioned below should perhaps be strongly considered again. Non-action or slow action here could be extremely damaging.I’ll forward you some emails which will indicate the damage that the publication has already caused.
Thanks very much for all your help w/ this to date, and for anything additional you may be able to do in this regard to move this forward.
UPDATE: Dr. Chris de Freitas has responded here, well worth a read.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
R. Gates;
The real issue is one of sensitivity and the effects of fast and slow feedbacks– these are the big unknowns.>>>
But R. Gates, that’s the whole point! If sensitivity is HIGH, then we would have seen substantial changes in global temps by now…. but we haven’t. If sensitivity is low…. we have nothing to be concerned about. If feedbacks are fast…we would have seen substantive changes in global temps by now, even if sensitivity was farily low… but we haven’t. If feedbacks are slow… they appear to be so slow then that they will take centuries to become significant. I think we can adapt to a degree or so in a few centuries time, don’t you? After all, we survived from the last ice age until now….
R. Gates, you say “There is no logical error in our understanding of the basic physics of how CO2 operates in relationship to electromagnetic radiation, and its related greenhouse properties.”
Could you please explain what greenhouse properties are.related and how they are related to electromagnetic radiation?
davidmhoffer says:
November 28, 2011 at 8:09 pm
R. Gates;
The real issue is one of sensitivity and the effects of fast and slow feedbacks– these are the big unknowns.>>>
But R. Gates, that’s the whole point! If sensitivity is HIGH, then we would have seen substantial changes in global temps by now…. but we haven’t. If sensitivity is low…. we have nothing to be concerned about. If feedbacks are fast…we would have seen substantive changes in global temps by now, even if sensitivity was farily low… but we haven’t. If feedbacks are slow… they appear to be so slow then that they will take centuries to become significant. I think we can adapt to a degree or so in a few centuries time, don’t you? After all, we survived from the last ice age until now….
———–
Yes, the whole point is about the unknowns of sensitivity, and also about the differences on sensitivity that may exist between rates of change in CO2. But you seem to be making an error in your view on fast and slow feedbacks. Some feedbacks are slow and some are fast, and so it is a quality that goes with the feedback, not with the nature of the sensitivity of climate to any given forcing over a period of time. In respect to a doubling of CO2, which is the current benchmark for understanding the sensitivity of the climate to this particular forcing, it could well be the case that the climate displays a different kind of sensitivity to a doubling over 10,000 years versus a few hundred. As far as humans surviving a doubling, let’s say even if the temperatures went up 3C on a global basis. I have no doubt in the ability of humans to adapt to change. So long as it doesn’t adversely affect our ability to grow the enormous amount of grains that it takes to feed 7+ billion of us, or hit our food and water supply in some other adverse ways, I’m sure we’ll find a way to adapt. Overall, the ocean food chain would be my biggest concern I suppose. But I’m not currently believing a catastrophe would be inevitable from even a 3C rise in temps.
BigWaveDave says:
November 28, 2011 at 10:35 pm
R. Gates, you say “There is no logical error in our understanding of the basic physics of how CO2 operates in relationship to electromagnetic radiation, and its related greenhouse properties.”
Could you please explain what greenhouse properties are.related and how they are related to electromagnetic radiation?
———
Suggest you start here, and read all 8 parts:
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/12/23/understanding-atmospheric-radiation-and-the-greenhouse-effect-part-one/#entry
Sorry, Gates, your link is just BS, and the question was directed to you, Could you please explain what greenhouse properties are related to electromagnetic radiation.
R Gates, Joel Shore
From de Freitas’ reply thread,
How do you defend an obvious conspiracy to smear the character of somebody, apply pressure to them to alter the way they are doing their job, and try to get them fired all for publishing a paper after a fair review process that disagrees with you?
Here too is simple evidence in disproof of your attitudes
Taxpayer1234 says: November 27, 2011 at 7:42 pm
My husband is a chemist with over 25 years of experience in industry. He says the AGW “scientists” have the same level of maturity and grasp of reality as 5-year-olds. I thought he was exaggerating…but after reading this stuff, I see he’s right on target.
How do you two manage to keep coming here and not change, not show growth through interaction? You know how many times you get answered. I don’t think you are just attention-seeking. But what are the core stumbling-blocks wrt scientific attitude and findings, with the skeptics’ position, for each of you? Not the periphery, just the core.
Enquiring minds would like to know.
Email 4993.txt – May 12, 2003
See the P.S. at the email of this email string.
How did Mann know Chris de Freitas was going to be dismissed?
Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 11:41:55 -0600
From: Jerry Meehl
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Harvard-Smithsonian Climate study]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.1 required=5.0
tests=FWD_MSG,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES,SPAM_PHRASE_02_03,
USER_AGENT_MOZILLA_XM,X_ACCEPT_LANG
version=2.41
X-Spam-Level:
Mike,
Thanks! It never ceases to amaze me what tactics the naysayers come up
with–this latest, using what would appear to be a quasi-legitimate
“journal” to publish results that they then claim are peer-reviewed and
mainstream to launch a disinformation campaign, is very devious. Plus
it appears they have won–the current administration is on their
side–but they keep it up anyway. Bizarre.
Johannes Loschnigg (the AMS congressional fellow I mentioned) may
contact you directly if he needs more ammunition in his capacity of
climate person assigned to deal with these issues in Liebermann’s
office.
Thanks again!
Jerry
“Michael E. Mann” wrote:
>
> HI Jerry,
>
> This is crap of the worst kind–it was written explicitly for
> political purposes; there is no science there at all–the mainstream
> media completely ignored it, having figured that out, but various
> right-wing groups (such as “Western Fuels Association”) have continued
> to try to promote this in fringe media circles and through political
> channels within washington DC (so the story continued to appear on web
> sites like “Techcentralstation” and Murdoch-supported newspapers).
>
> I’ll forward a whole bunch of emails (in confidence) that should
> clarify the situation. We’ve all decided that this is so bad a direct
> response cannot even be made. Phil Jones and I, and Ray Bradley, Henry
> Diaz, and Malcolm Hughes are writing two review papers which will
> dismiss much of what they’ve said.
>
> please feel free to contact me for more information,
>
> cheers,
>
> mike
>
> p.s. NYT, Scientific American, and a few other journalists are working
> on exposes of Baliunas and co., and those should appear soon. It
> looks like Chris Defrietas, the editor at “Climate Research”
> responsible for publishing the Baliunas et al piece, and numerous
> other dubious other awful articles by “skeptics” over the past couple
> years, will be dismissed as a result of this latest act.
>
[snip . . unnecessary abuse]
BigWaveDave says:
November 29, 2011 at 12:32 am
By reading what R. Gates wrote, it seems that what the warmistas propose is that if a molecule of CO2 absorbs a photon it will lose that photon plus another thereby increasing the temperature of the air. Simple quantum mechanics would saythe molecule would absorb a photon and emit a photon as it returns to a lower energy state. I do believe what they propose violates the Conservation of Energy principle. There are no known mechanisms by which you can get more energy out of a system than is introduced into it.
BigWaveDave says:
November 29, 2011 at 12:32 am
Sorry, Gates, your link is just BS, and the question was directed to you, Could you please explain what greenhouse properties are related to electromagnetic radiation.>>>
And while you are at it R. Gates, could you explain your comment on another thread that the globes in the Al Gore experiment were superflous? Or why it was you were willing to bet that if the experiment were carried out as illustrated they would show the results as illustrated? Can you explain where, in your supposed understanding of the physics, you went totaly and completely wrong?
Babsy;
By reading what R. Gates wrote, it seems that what the warmistas propose is that if a molecule of CO2 absorbs a photon it will lose that photon plus another thereby increasing the temperature of the air>>>
R. Gates can rather eloquent, but his grasp of the actual physics is pretty weak. There are warmistas who spout propoganda and repeat things that they believe to be true without understanding them. Then there are warmistas who have a real grip on the physics and can give you an actual explanation of what they believe to be true that has some actual scientific value. R. Gates is not, in my opinion, in the latter group.
Babsy says:
November 29, 2011 at 6:40 am
BigWaveDave says:
November 29, 2011 at 12:32 am
By reading what R. Gates wrote, it seems that what the warmistas propose is that if a molecule of CO2 absorbs a photon it will lose that photon plus another thereby increasing the temperature of the air.
_____
Where would you get this rather odd idea? I never wrote such nonsense, nor believe such nonsense. Greenhouse gases absorb and re-emit electromagnetic radiation at specific wavelengths based on the unique characterisitics of each type of molecule. Suggest you visit:
http://www.spectralcalc.com/spectral_browser/db_intensity.php
To see all the various absorption bands for different molecules yourself. No energy is created in this process, and as far as each individual molecule is concerned, it is a zero-sum game. The net result however, in terms of the Earth’s climate is that because more net energy (primarily solar in origin) stays in the system because of the greenhouse gases, we enjoy a much much warmer world then we would have without them. Take them away, and we get cooler, increase them and we get warmer. Very simple. What is not so simple is how sensitive the climate is to increasing CO2 in a geologically rapid way from human activities. CO2 increases naturally as oceans warm during the upswing of Milankovitich cycles when coming out of a glacial period into an interglacial, and this release of CO2 becomes a positive reinforcement to the Milankovitch forcing, but this is a gradual process. The spike in CO2 from human activities can be likened to a human CO2 volcano, and what we don’t really know is how sensitive the climate will be to this spike. Anywhere from 2C to 4C warming for a doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial levels seems a very reasonable estimate.
Lucy Skywalker says:
November 29, 2011 at 2:03 am
R Gates, Joel Shore
How do you two manage to keep coming here and not change, not show growth through interaction? You know how many times you get answered. I don’t think you are just attention-seeking. But what are the core stumbling-blocks wrt scientific attitude and findings, with the skeptics’ position, for each of you? Not the periphery, just the core.
Enquiring minds would like to know.
_____
Not sure the context of your question. Has someone proven that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas? Abosolutely nothing revealed in any of the Climategate 1.0 or 2.0 emails has brought into question any of the actual science. Revealing that scientists are also “all too human” with egos just like the rest of us is hardly a revelation to me.
But in terms of my attitudes changing about AGW since coming to WUWT several years ago…absolutely they have. I’ve also learned a great deal about solar influences and the MWP, and cosmic rays, etc. that I might never had an interest in otherwise. But of course I am still a “warmist” in the sense that I believe that humans have and are altering the climate through our activities, as it is obvious on the micro-scale and macro-scale. Whether this will be “catastrophic” or not, is an entirely different matter…
R Gates
Thanks. Appreciated. As to CO2, that takes a lot of explaining, because so many factors have IMHO conspired to make it look as if we are to blame for rising CO2, and as if this will cause and has caused rising temperatures. Have you read my primer (click my name)? Easier to digest, re CO2, is to view my more recent presentation (find in the top RH corner of my opening page).
R. Gates wrote:
You are correct on this point. I did not intend to suggest that we live within a simulation (which could contain logical errors). Proving the statement as originally written would be very interesting indeed.
I have said nothing regarding CO2. That is your choice of concepts, not mine.
I also note that I have offered no evidence to support my assertion, nor do I offer any credentials.
R. Gates;
The spike in CO2 from human activities can be likened to a human CO2 volcano, and what we don’t really know is how sensitive the climate will be to this spike. >>>
Based on the last century of human CO2 emissions and the global temperature record, we know this: sensitivity is very small.
R. Gates;
Anywhere from 2C to 4C warming for a doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial levels seems a very reasonable estimate.>>>
Given that the pre-industrial era ended in 1920, we can observe that the temperature record prior to the pre-industrial era shows a general warming trend nearly identical to the post-industrial era. Given the logarithmic nature of CO2, whatever actual sensitivity really is, over half the effect you be happening right now based on the 40% increase in CO2 since 1920. That makes a sensitivity of even 2 degrees highly unlikely.
R. Gates says:
November 29, 2011 at 11:28 am
Sure it is. I know of a guy in California who owns a toll bridge. I can put you two in touch…
davidmhoffer says:
November 29, 2011 at 3:25 pm
Babsy says:
November 29, 2011 at 3:33 pm
=======================================
You’re forgetting that R. Gates is from the Trenberth school of data analysis and null hypothesis interpretation.
davidmhoffer said:
” That makes a sensitivity of even 2 degrees highly unlikely.”
____
Interesting opinion, but the science would say differently. I’ll trust the science….thanks.
Lucy Skywalker says:
November 29, 2011 at 1:39 pm
R Gates
Thanks. Appreciated. As to CO2, that takes a lot of explaining, because so many factors have IMHO conspired to make it look as if we are to blame for rising CO2, and as if this will cause and has caused rising temperatures. Have you read my primer (click my name)? Easier to digest, re CO2, is to view my more recent presentation (find in the top RH corner of my opening page).
_____
I find your page interesting, but hardly convincing of anything. For example, the graph you display which (correctly) shows temperatures falling while CO2 has risen the last 10 years is hardly scientific proof of anything. As you must well know, the flattening of temperatures over the past decade have been (and are being) studied by many groups worldwide, and their analysis leads some pretty interesting conclusions…none of which in any way dispute the long term warming that will result from the continual inceases in CO2 levels. There are just a few big things that control climate over the long-term such as Milankovitch cycles, greenhouse gas levels, and really big and thankfully very rare mega-volcanic eruptions or meteor strikes. There are a few things that control climate over the medium term such as solar variations, ENSO, etc. Everything else that is short-term can be considered “background” noise, or natural variations. You really can’t even start seeing the effects of CO2 through this shorter-term noise until at the minimum of 17 years. So to show a graph of the past 10 years and ask “where’s the warming?” displays a certain level of ignorance of the science behind CO2, and perhaps more so, behind the multiple factors that go into making up the climate over very short time frames.
R. Gates says:
November 29, 2011 at 6:20 pm
davidmhoffer said:
” That makes a sensitivity of even 2 degrees highly unlikely.”
____
Interesting opinion, but the science would say differently. I’ll trust the science….thanks
=====================================
Your idiotic science maybe, but not the science of real scientists.
Tell us, in your own words, with math not links, why you think you’re right about 2 – 4 degrees, based on the data.
…. and, while you’re at it answer David Hoffer’s question from what, a month ago, about the dumbass Gore experiment ? Or pay up on his bet.
Don’t go hiding now, or posting your usual passive aggressive crap.
Tell us which science YOU trust, with math please.
Also, why don’t you tell us why you say “I had scientific training” and why you don’t say “I’m a scientist” ?
You remind me of a guy who lasted one day in my lab. I’m guessing that’s the answer.
What I would like to see is a mechanism. When I was in grad organic mechanisms and structure we had to draw all the reactions out on paper. With the warmistas, it’s all about “You’ll just have to believe us”. The truth is, they don’t have a mechanism by which increases in CO2 cause the temperature of the atmosphere to increase. If they did, they’d be screeching at the top of their lungs for all the world to see. But they don’t.
davidmhoffer says:
November 29, 2011 at 3:25 pm
R. Gates;
The spike in CO2 from human activities can be likened to a human CO2 volcano, and what we don’t really know is how sensitive the climate will be to this spike. >>>
Based on the last century of human CO2 emissions and the global temperature record, we know this: sensitivity is very small.
_____
We know nothing of the sort. The past century of CO2 emissions and temperature records can tell us very little or next to nothing about the sensitivity of the climate to the geologically speaking rapid spike in CO2 levels caused by human activity. The effects of this spike are still being processed throughout the system, and even in the very unlikely event that CO2 levels would stop rising right now and stay around 390 ppm or so, the final temperature effects will take decades to fully translate throughout the climate system. Given that CO2 levels will probably continue to rise for many more decades, the final temperature effect (everything else staying the same) is not known, but 3C for a a doubling from 280 to 560 ppm is quite within both model estimates and the paleoclimate record.
Gates replies to Lucy:
“I find your page interesting, but hardly convincing of anything. For example, the graph you display which (correctly) shows temperatures falling while CO2 has risen the last 10 years is hardly scientific proof of anything. As you must well know, the flattening of temperatures over the past decade have been (and are being) studied by many groups worldwide, and their analysis leads some pretty interesting conclusions…none of which in any way dispute the long term warming that will result from the continual inceases in CO2 levels.”
Down is up, ignorance is strength, temperatures falling while CO2 has risen, and warming will result from rising CO2. …Not.
But even if it were CO2, and not the natural and unchanged warming trend from the LIA, it’s all good. CO2 is harmless and beneficial. That is a real, testable, falsifiable hypothesis: just show empirical evidence of global harm, and it’s falsified. But neither Gates nor anyone else has been able to show global harm from human CO2 emissions. Their belief system is the only basis for presuming that the [beneficial] global warrming trend from the LIA is caused by human CO2. People like Gates lack any testable evidence to support their belief. It is enough for them that Algore demonizes “carbon”, making their belief akin to religious dogma. Thus, their belief is not science – it is religion.
R. Gates;
Well, I had an excellent riposte to your last reply, but Philincalifornia kinda took the wind out of my sails. So…
Excellent points Philincalifornia! R. Gates, could you respond to Phil’s questions as well as mine?
This post:
Babsy says:
November 29, 2011 at 7:09 pm
Was in reply to this post:
philincalifornia says:
November 29, 2011 at 6:45 pm
Just so everyone is on the same page.