Note – this will be pinned as a top post for a few days. Other posts will appear below this one.
UPDATE: Josh weighs in with a Friday Funny.
UPDATE2: McKibben has a Forrest Gump moment with his latest propaganda video
I’m doing something I’ve never done before, I’m asking every reader of WUWT to write a letter to the editor this weekend. I don’t take this step lightly, but given what I’ve observed the last few days, I think it is time to stir the power of our collective WUWT community for the common good.
Readers may recall the debunkings I regularly put forth any time paid activists like Bill McKibben, Joe Romm, David Suzuki, or Brad Johnson (and others) try to make claims that human induced climate change is making our daily weather “more extreme”. You know and I know that this is “garbage science” (even worse than “junk science”) because it is an attempt to twist science to strike fear over climate into the hearts of the average citizen. It is an act of desperation, rooted in the fact that the modeled warming scenarios described by the scientist activist high priest of the global warming movement Dr. James Hansen, just have not come to pass. Climate feedbacks don’t seem to be strong, climate sensitivity doesn’t seem to be high, there’s been no statistically significant warming in the last decade, and thus the only thing left is to blame bouts of normally occurring severe weather on climate change. The level of thinking sophistication here isn’t much different from blaming witches for bad weather in medieval times, but the sophistication of telegraphing this message to the weak-minded is far more sophisticated than in those days.
And, yesterday, we saw a message similar to calls made during those dark times “she’s a witch, BURN her!” in Steve Zwick’s rant on Forbes.com where he says:
We know who the active denialists are – not the people who buy the lies, mind you, but the people who create the lies. Let’s start keeping track of them now, and when the famines come, let’s make them pay. Let’s let their houses burn. … They broke the climate. Why should the rest of us have to pay for it?
The level of delusional fail here is off the scale. If this were an isolated incident, we could simply laugh it off as the hateful rantings of a person afflicted with climate derangement syndrome. But there’s more.
Yesterday, it entered my children’s school (see below), and this week, we saw a survey on “extreme weather” conducted by Yale, use a phrase in the press release that is straight out of a propagandist organization, Bill McKibben’s 350.org. The heat is on to make climate all about the weather for propaganda purposes, and there’s no data to support it. It is a lie of global proportions. We need to step up. Here’s what I found in my children’s school yesterday:
At my children’s school yesterday, they had a book fair. In that book fair was this display from the publisher of a new book INsiders – Extreme Weather.
Of course you know what book I picked up to look at first, and it took me all of about 15 seconds to find this (I highlighted the relevant part digitally):
“Some scientists”? I think the author really meant “some activists”.
To be fair, there are some very good sections of the book well rooted in science, for example this one on lightning:
I know the author, H. Michael Mogil, who is well rooted in science, and who is a Certified Consulting Meteorologist. I can’t imagine him fully signing off on the climate=severe weather idea as McKibben et al put it. But, I think there was pressure from publishers to include the section on climate linkage, and I think he hedged his statement as best he could. My point is that is it beginning to pervade children’s books.
Also this week we had this poll released from Yale University, which got a ton of press thanks to it being carried in the Associated Press. It even made my own local newspaper.
The poll itself is a logical fallacy, with sloppy questions like this one:
I give it a thorough debunking here with a strong emphasis on the reporting bias introduced by our technologically saturated society. Anyone with a cellphone can report severe weather now and within minutes it can be known worldwide.
Here’s a quote from the lead author that was carried in news stories, bold mine:
“Most people in the country are looking at everything that’s happened; it just seems to be one disaster after another after another,” said Anthony A. Leiserowitz of Yale University, one of the researchers who commissioned the new poll. “People are starting to connect the dots.”
At the time, I didn’t note the significance of the “connect the dots” meme, but one of our sharp WUWT readers pointed out that this is the new catchphrase of Bill McKibben’s 350.org movement.
In tips and notes this morning, Nick Ryan confirmed this for me with this letter from McKibben he posted.
Subject: Good news.
From: organizers@350.org
To: nick_ryan@xxxx.xxx
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 18:57:30 +0000
Dear friends,
Good news this time.
At some point every one of us at 350 has thought to ourselves a little despairingly: is the world ever going to catch on to climate change? Today is one of those days when it feels like it just might happen.
A story on the front page of yesterday’s New York Times described a new poll — Americans in record numbers are understanding that the planet is warming because they’re seeing the “freaky” weather that comes with climate change.
And the story ends by describing the next step in this process: May 5, the giant Connect the Dots day that people are joining all around the globe: http://www.ClimateDots.org
When the zeitgeist conspires to help our efforts, we need to make the most of it. Two weeks is plenty of time to organize a beautiful photo for May 5, one that will help spread this idea. Are you in a place where flood and rain have caused havoc? Ten people with umbrellas can make a memorable “climate dot” for all the world to see. You’ll think of something appropriate for your place — and you can find lots of examples and ideas here.
This movement is growing quickly, and with not a moment to spare — new data from scientists like Jim Hansen at NASA shows that our carbon emissions have already made extreme weather many times more likely. We can’t take back the carbon we’ve already poured into the atmosphere, but if we work together hard and fast then we can keep it from getting steadily worse.
Earth Day is coming up this weekend, and there will be thousands of events across the US. Each one of them is a great place to spread the word about the big day of action on 5/5. When you’re on the front page of the Times it’s a sign that the message is starting to get through — but only one American in 300 reads that newspaper. Now it’s up to all of us to make sure that everyone around the world gets the message, and Connect the Dots day on 5/5 is our best chance to do that. Please join us.
Onwards,
Bill McKibben for 350.org
P.S. It is key to remember that these photos from May 5 are not just for their effect on that day. We need a bank of images showing the human face of global warming — pictures we’ll use for the hard and direct political work of the next few years. If people don’t know there’s a problem, they won’t try to solve it. So let’s show them on 5/5. Here’s a heartbreaking example, from some local activists in Texas:
Climate Activists in Texas
Clearly, due to the timing and the reference he made to “People are starting to connect the dots.”, the poll conducted by Anthony A. Leiserowitz of Yale University is just a tool that is connected to this 350.org “climatedots.org” campaign, it isn’t science, it is blatant advocacy disguised as science of the brand Dr. James Hansen practices.
So looking at what is going in total this week, I think it is time for us to exercise our own rights to free speech, and thus I’m asking WUWT readers to write letters to the editor to your local newspapers and magazines to counter what will surely be a blitz of advocacy in the coming days.
This tactic is used by these NGO’s so there is nothing wrong with it. It is free speech in the finest American tradition. There is one hitch though, and that’s the newspaper editors back-channel.
You see, one of the perks of being a journalist in the TV and radio news business is that I’m privy to how things work. In print media, editors have established a back-channel to alert each other of potential letter writing campaigns, such as those form letters like we see from “Forecast the Facts”.
The key is to make this your own letter, in your own words. While I can suggest topics, the letters need to be written in your own words for them to be accepted.
You can start here with this essay, and draw from it.
Warren Meyer made some excellent points yesterday in his Zwick rebuttal at Forbes:
A Vivid Reminder of How The Climate Debate is Broken
I really liked this part, which speaks to reporting bias (like we have with severe weather):
In the summer of 2001, a little boy in Mississippi lost an arm in a shark attack. The media went absolutely crazy. For weeks and months they highlighted every shark attack on the evening news. They ran aerial footage of sharks in the water near beaches. They coined the term “Summer of the Shark.” According to Wikipedia, shark attacks were the number three story, in terms of network news time dedicated, of the summer.
Bombarded by such coverage, most Americans responded to polls by saying they were concerned about the uptick in shark attacks. In fact, there were actually about 10% fewer shark attacks in 2001 than in 2000. Our perceptions were severely biased by the coverage.
How to write a letter:
1. Go to your local newspaper website, locate the guidelines for letters to the editor. Typical letter policies limit letters to 200-250 words.
2. Do your research, craft your letter carefully. Cite facts, cite statistics such as I offer on WUWT. Use your own words, don’t quote me, though quoting people like Professor Grady Dixon “…it would be a mistake to blame climate change for a seeming increase in tornadoes” is fine.
3. [added] Readers are submitting content ideas in comments, have a look at those. Fr example Steve E. writes: Dr. Roger Pielke Jr’s posting on the IPCC SREX Report, “A Handy Bullshit Button on Disasters and Climate Change” here: http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.ca/2012/03/handy-bullshit-button-on-disasters-and.html is also a good source for letter content.
4. Send it, being mindful of length and guidelines.
Thank you for your consideration. – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
You may want to google ‘Aristotle’s 13 fallacies’ which I found from reading Moncktons piece below this article http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/aristotle_fallacies.htm
some very useful pointers there
Martin Hoerling, leader of the climate extremes attribution team at NOAA, had some interesting comments to make on Rahmstorf’s paper on extreme weather. It may give some ideas.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/04/14/rahmstorfs-claims-of-increasing-extreme-weathera-damning-put-down-by-noaa-expert/
also this http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/fallacies_alpha.htm
especially the appeal to fear
I think they have hired professionals of the type who make TV ads. Most TV ads seem to be targeted at the moron demographic. Having read plenty of letters and comments from AGWers at newspaper sites and similar, I’d say there is a substantial overlap between the two demographics.
Is this a globally concerted effort? Nobody has (hardly) mentioned “Global warming” in the media for a year here in sweden. And suddenly, a few days ago, all the alarmists were out in full force in prime time in different medias. Coincident? I think not…
“very subject now taught in UK high schools uses the same politically motivated and propoganda-based examples regardless of the subject. Its appalling”
Only in the state schools, where dictats are issued as to what can be taught and to who from state commissar level. The private schools pay scant attention to those, they are paid by parents to educate their children not indoctrinate them.
AND from my personal knowledge of the system in the UK known as “SureStart”, for PRE-school children, I can point-out that this indoctrination is used there as well in a mild sense. Then moves-on in primary school and gets more intense as the children get older.
Don’t forget “watermelons”, these are not greens teaching the children.
I keep wondering what peer-reviewed papers one can rely on that doesn’t show man made warming caused by CO2?
To me there’s so much mud-slinging from both the warmistas and the warming scepticals I have a hard time seeing anything but the dirt dripping from the proverbial walls.
I’m not a scientist, but a layman with a deep interest for my surroundings. Also English isn’t my native tounge so I wish to appologize for any spelling errors before hand.
I did a small experiment where I took the HadCRUT4 anomaly data and in a very non-scientific way plotted a graph and added a trend for the century and came up with a figure giving a warming of some 0.08 per century, I don’t find that very alarming but then who am I to tell?
sounds like a fun event!
21 April: Centre Daily: PSU to host climate change presentation
A group of Penn State faculty and one graduate student will give a presentation on climate change at 7 p.m. on April 30.
Their presentation, “Changing the Moral Climate on Climate Change,” will focus on climate change denial. Speakers include professor Michael Mann, director of Penn State’s Earth System Science Center, Nobel-Prize co-winner for his work on the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and author of “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars;” science, technology, and society professor Donald Brown, a former Clinton administration U.N. representative; psychology professor Janet Swim, who served as chairwoman of the 2009 American Psychological Association’s task force on the psychology of climate change; engineering professor Rick Schuhmann, an environmental engineer and director of Penn State’s Engineering Leadership program; and Peter Buckland, a graduate student studying educational theory and policy.
The presentation will take place in room 101 of Penn State’s Thomas Building. A question and answer session will take place after the presentation…
http://www.centredaily.com/2012/04/21/3170348/psu-to-host-climate-change-presentation.html
21 April: Radio Iowa: O. Kay Henderson: State senators disagree over “climate change” (audio)
On the eve of “Earth Day” this Sunday a handful of state senators got into a partisan squabble over “climate change.”
It was Senator Rob Hogg, a Democrat from Cedar Rapids, who got things started by reading a statement from a group of Iowa religious leaders, including his own Catholic bishop.
“This was the statement: ‘Climate change is one of the most pressing challenges facing our world today and as religious leaders representing diverse faith traditions we are called to reaffirm our committment to be responsible stewards of Earth’s resources and to act in love to our neighbors both locally and globally,’” Hogg said. “‘Scientists, including those representing 28 Iowa colleges and universities who recently released a statement, have warned us that changes in global climate patterns are brining more extreme weather events to Iowa, the United States and our world.’”
That prompted Republican Senator David Johnson of Ocheyedan to ridicule the idea that humans are the main cause of climate change…
“With all due respect to our religious leaders…how much are you willing to spend to reverse what you call global warming?” Johnson asked. “…The country of Spain made a huge transition to their economy for green energy. What was the result of that? Bankruptcy?”…
Johnson responded with a little yelling of his own.
“I’m on the side of the scientists I served with in Antartica and Greenland and I’m the only member of this body that has done that,” Johnson said. “And there is no agreement in the scientific community, no consensus that things have really changed because change happens.”
Not every senator exhibited a hot temper. There were some light-hearted moments in this episode.
Senator Joni Ernst of Red Oak openly admitted to being a Republican who drives a fuel-efficient Prius.
“I did it just because I’m fiscally conservative and driving a Buick Enclave all around my rather large (senate) district was just not affordable,” Ernst said.
That prompted Senator Tom Courtney, a Democrat from Burlington, to admit he drives a gas-guzzling Corvette convertible….ETC ETC
http://www.radioiowa.com/2012/04/21/state-senators-disagree-over-climate-change-audio/
No place for heated debate
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/21/business/media/discoverys-frozen-planet-is-silent-on-causes-of-climate-change.html?_r=1&hp
And so it goes on and on and on….
Talking about climate activism entering school materials. In the UK have an examination for our senior students called ‘General Studies Advanced level’. Its not really a ‘taught’ lesson and some hold it in contempt for that reason, even some Universities. However, I worked with a relative of a head of a read brick University who had an analysis done on students final degree level (1st, 2:1 …etc). They found that no matter the level of the university entry qualifications, those who scored highest in their final degree were very positively correlated with high success at General Studies.
General studies is ALL about critical thinking. This year a complete section is on Global warming. I can post the entire paper that students are given for for prereading before the actual exam. The pro AGW get 4 subsections compared to the con’s I section. What should students do…follow the heard … or make a stand and refute the arguments for AGW? Remember, its going to be watermelons marking this
Here is a history of the rise of eco-extremism, written by Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace.
http://www.greenspirit.com/key_issues/the_log.cfm?booknum=12&page=3
The Rise of Eco-Extremism
Two profound events triggered the split between those advocating a pragmatic or “liberal” approach to ecology and the new “zero-tolerance” attitude of the extremists. The first event, mentioned previously, was the widespread adoption of the environmental agenda by the mainstream of business and government. This left environmentalists with the choice of either being drawn into collaboration with their former “enemies” or of taking ever more extreme positions. Many environmentalists chose the latter route. They rejected the concept of “sustainable development” and took a strong “anti-development” stance.
Surprisingly enough the second event that caused the environmental movement to veer to the left was the fall of the Berlin Wall. Suddenly the international peace movement had a lot less to do. Pro-Soviet groups in the West were discredited. Many of their members moved into the environmental movement bringing with them their eco-Marxism and pro-Sandinista sentiments.
These factors have contributed to a new variant of the environmental movement that is so extreme that many people, including myself, believe its agenda is a greater threat to the global environment than that posed by mainstream society. Some of the features of eco-extremism are:
• It is anti-human. The human species is characterized as a “cancer” on the face of the earth. The extremists perpetuate the belief that all human activity is negative whereas the rest of nature is good. This results in alienation from nature and subverts the most important lesson of ecology; that we are all part of nature and interdependent with it. This aspect of environmental extremism leads to disdain and disrespect for fellow humans and the belief that it would be “good” if a disease such as AIDS were to wipe out most of the population.
• It is anti-technology and anti-science. Eco-extremists dream of returning to some kind of technologically primitive society. Horse-logging is the only kind of forestry they can fully support. All large machines are seen as inherently destructive and “unnatural’. The Sierra Club’s recent book, “Clearcut: the Tradgedy of Industrial Forestry”, is an excellent example of this perspective. “Western industrial society” is rejected in its entirety as is nearly every known forestry system including shelterwood, seed tree and small group selection. The word “Nature” is capitalized every time it is used and we are encouraged to “find our place” in the world through “shamanic journeying” and “swaying with the trees”. Science is invoked only as a means of justifying the adoption of beliefs that have no basis in science to begin with.
• It is anti-organization. Environmental extremists tend to expect the whole world to adopt anarchism as the model for individual behavior. This is expressed in their dislike of national governments, multinational corporations, and large institutions of all kinds. It would seem that this critique applies to all organizations except the environmental movement itself. Corporations are critisized for taking profits made in one country and investing them in other countries, this being proof that they have no “allegiance” to local communities. Where is the international environmental movements allegiance to local communities? How much of the money raised in the name of aboriginal peoples has been distributed to them? How much is dedicated to helping loggers thrown out of work by environmental campaigns? How much to research silvicultural systems that are environmentally and economically superior?
• It is anti-trade. Eco-extremists are not only opposed to “free trade” but to international trade in general. This is based on the belief that each “bioregion” should be self-sufficient in all its material needs. If it’s too cold to grow bananas – – too bad. Certainly anyone who studies ecology comes to realize the importance of natural geographic units such as watersheds, islands, and estuaries. As foolish as it is to ignore ecosystems it is adsurd to put fences around them as if they were independent of their neighbours. In its extreme version, bioregionalism is just another form of ultra-nationalism and gives rise to the same excesses of intolerance and xenophobia.
• It is anti-free enterprise. Despite the fact that communism and state socialism has failed, eco-extremists are basically anti-business. They dislike “competition” and are definitely opposed to profits. Anyone engaging in private business, particularly if they are sucessful, is characterized as greedy and lacking in morality. The extremists do not seem to find it necessary to put forward an alternative system of organization that would prove efficient at meeting the material needs of society. They are content to set themselves up as the critics of international free enterprise while offering nothing but idealistic platitudes in its place.
• It is anti-democratic. This is perhaps the most dangerous aspect of radical environmentalism. The very foundation of our society, liberal representative democracy, is rejected as being too “human-centered”. In the name of “speaking for the trees and other species” we are faced with a movement that would usher in an era of eco-fascism. The “planetary police” would “answer to no one but Mother Earth herself”.
• It is basically anti-civilization. In its essence, eco-extremism rejects virtually everything about modern life. We are told that nothing short of returning to primitive tribal society can save the earth from ecological collapse. No more cities, no more airplanes, no more polyester suits. It is a naive vision of a return to the Garden of Eden.
John @ur momisugly 2.23am:
Not only state schools I’m afraid. Our eldest grandson told me that his school taught him that CO2 comprised 5% of the atmosphere! I got him to do some research and discover that his teacher was lying to him. This was at an English-style private school in Dubai.
We had a freak weather event in Manchester (the English one). We had a storm with hail stones the size of golf balls. Windows were broken, little old ladies cowered in their houses thinking they were being stoned by vandals, my car needed the roof replacing because of the dents, plants were destroyed etc. Weather doesn’t come much more extreme than that in England.
Oh, I forgot to mention, that was in the early 1970s.
So. What we have here is an organization that has finally put the icing on the cake. AGW scientists have been engaged in post-modern research described as drawing dot-to-dot. I would have to agree with that description. It certainly rises to the quality of said anthropogenic CO2-related global weirding research articles we have been discussing these many years.
Hugh Pepper says:
April 20, 2012 at 11:30 am
Ah Hugh the man of mighty mouth and no science, it seems you don’t want to come back and provide us with the science that you claim exists everywhere. Surely you must have multiple links to these amazing debunkings of everything that has been said here on WUWT, but yet you have presented us with nothing why? I know that most people here if presented with real (verifiable and reproducable) science will see the truth and change their way of thinking yet you offer nothing but an agrument from authority “trust the scientists they are right”. Well they have proven themselves to be liars and manipulators, so until they have real science benhind them with nary a model in sight you will get no faith from me in your quasi-religous nest of vipers that you have made your abode.
Can we start calling it ‘ terrorist’ science?
There was a telling from a man who was once in skylab oscillating above the Earth. With him were some other men and the first days each of them looks to the location on Earth their mothers have born them to live. But later on he has told they all have looked to the integer Earth.
I think this is an example showing that points of view depending on the angle of viewing.
Most of us do know, that viewpoints teaches by the authorities of isolated heaps of any kind are shifting only the balance of stupidity without any change in increasing the angle of the point of view.
This is to recognized when a campaign A {“your voice is needed in this fight – http://www.climatedots.org} is to balance with a campaign B.{“ write a ‘connect the dots’ letter this weekend”}. The anti campaign B is as stupid as the stupid campaign A.
There is a general principle in philosophy to recognize that a thing cannot be true and untrue at the same time, because this would be a contradiction. Despite this known principle, isolated heaps not only in religions (plural), or democracies (plural), but also in the intellectual heaps of conditioned/biased global warming economists unveil their low angle of view like the Sumerian proverb says: : “The traveler from distant places is a perennial lier.” (Samuel Noah Kramer, ‘The Sumerians’). It is a typical egocentric view from the level of the point of view of evolution: ‘The enemy is always the other”.
These days some security personal in the U.S.A. have said that if I would make a visit to the U.S. they first would know my profile, my identity and my personal data, and if I reject this idiosyncrasy, I’m not welcome. But there could be a problem. It could be that I have no interest to discuss or speak with persons in the U.S. That may be no problem to the security guard people, but it could be a problem to the people who do not think on the level of nations and their morality but on the timeless and a_local principles of philosophy.
OK. There is a untouchable right on the own things, on the own house. But not all, what is argued out of a person in his own house, his own country, his own nation, is owned by him, if this is the own of the other, or if there is no owner, because the things are immaterial or global or universal. Is there an ownership of climate, wind, rain or love?
There are claims on WUWT about peer reviewers like L.S. or W.E., claims known as fallacies; authorities are not scientific experts in general, maybe for their special discipline, and that this blog is most read in number on climate war does not mean that the sayings here are more true than one single different voice in this filtered S/N ratio. Science is free; independent from politics, warming economists, democracy, morality of the time. Science only can be if the consciousness is not biased from egocentric, like the geocentric world view prior to the consciousness of N. Copernicus. What is a centre? Is there a centre? If there is no centre or no centers (plural), there are no enemies.
There is no problem to moderate personal attacks from guests who do not accept the home policy. But to close a free speech is like to close the doors not only for suspect persons, suspect because they do not accept the home security of the U.S, but to all ‘enemies’ of the home.
“In Spain they created once an animal protection association needed urgently money.
They organized a large bullfighting for the cash.” (K. Tucholsky, 1930)
I think the principle of democracy are well founded in philosophy, but the principle cannot be limited to nations, not to countries, but to the integer world. I never have given a voting to others, because of the (holy) principle of democracy, which is not to be alienate, because it is an intrinsic reality of each living essence.
I will write no letter.
V.
“Protest, educate, document and volunteer”. I notice that “research” and “find empirical evidence” are conspicuously absent from their list of things that are supposedly required in order to demonstrate a causal link between the two phenomena.
Volker. The Life of Ryan comes to mind. That was beyond funny!
Or maybe it was the English equivalent of lorem ipsum. Brilliant! Unless of course you were being serious. In that case, my apologies for unintentional rudeness.
Wow, the people who quoted me both cherry-picked AND intentionally misrepresented my statements! Thank you for your contributions! I got a giggle that it was ‘but HURRICANES” and “but TORNADOS” in nature.
I don’t have to have a “peer reviewed” publication in order to prove the law of thermodynamics works, thank you, Jimbo!
Oh, I’m sure gravity varies, that’s why the multimillion dollar test center spread across a couple states in the southern US couldn’t find any change in gravity.
I emailed 350.org…
No matter how hard you try, what new PR campaign you bring out, how much money is given to you, what massaged “science” you announce, how scary your predictions, the weather/nature/empirical evidence will beat you every time.
The longer you leave it to admit the con, the harder it will be for you to resign with dignity.
You look like very nice people in your pictures.
Pamela Gray says:
April 21, 2012 at 6:48 am
“Or maybe it was the English equivalent of lorem ipsum. Brilliant! Unless of course you were being serious. In that case, my apologies for unintentional rudeness.“
There is a sumerian proverb: „Into an open mouth a fly enters”.
Things have always the meaning individuals give to it, because it is impossible to buy truth or seriousity, or the logic of fallacies. It’s not to me what is true; it’s up to the consumer of sayings.
Some people in our world belief that they have to control the mind of others especially if the other mind is in supposed contradiction to the given strong arguments.
The conclusion is: “All power to the xyz consumers, who know that arguing people ever talking ‘brilliant lorem ipsim’, because it well known that argumentation is a secret theology of deceivers.”
There are many deserts without academic conditioned minds.
I will not write a letter.
V.