Guest essay by Joseph D’Aleo, CCM, Weatherbell Analytics
National Academies of Science defines a scientific theory as
“a well-substantiated explanation of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.”
Dr Richard Feynman, Cornell Physicist in a lecture explained how theorys that failed the test of data or experiment are falsified (“wrong”) and must be discarded.
Global Warming Theory Has Failed
(1) Warming not ‘global’. It is shown in satellite data to be northern hemisphere only
(2) It is now not warming. Warming (global mean and northern hemisphere) stopped in the 1990s
(3) Models suggest atmosphere should warm 20% faster than surface but surface warming was 33% faster during the time satellites and surface observations used. This suggests GHG theory wrong, and surface temperature contaminated.
(4) Temperatures longer term have been modified to enhance warming trend and minimize cyclical appearance. Station dropout, missing data, change of local siting, urbanization, instrumentation contaminate the record, producing exaggerating warming. The GAO scolded NOAA for poor compliance with siting standards.
(5) Those who create the temperature records have been shown in analysis and emails to take steps to eliminate inconvenient temperature trends like the Medieval Warm Period, the 1940s warm blip and cooling since 1998. Steps have included removal of the urban heat island adjustment and as Wigley suggested in a climategate email, introduce 0.15C of artificial cooling of global ocean temperatures near 1940.
(6) Forecast models have failed with temperature trends below even the assumed zero emission control scenarios
(7) Climate models all have a strong hot spot in the mid to high troposphere in the tropical regions. Weather balloons and satellite show no warming in this region the last 30 years.
(8) Ocean heat content was forecast to increase and was said to be the canary in the coal mine. It too has stalled according to NOAA PMEL. The warming was to be strongest in the tropics where the models were warming the atmosphere the most. No warming has been shown in the top 300 meters in the tropical Pacific back to the 1950s.
(9) Alarmists had predicted permanent El Nino but the last decade has featured 7 La Nina and just 3 El Nino years. This is related to the PDO and was predicted by those who look at natural factors.
(10) Alarmists had predicted much lower frequency of the negative modes of the AO and NAO due to warming. The trend has been the opposite with a record negative AO/NAO in 2009/10
(11) Alarmists predicted an increase in hurricane frequency and strength globally but the global activity had diminished after 2005 to a 30+ year low. The U.S. has gone seven consecutive years without a landfalling major hurricane, the longest stretch since the 1860s
(12) Alarmists have predicted a significant increase in heat records but despite heat last two summers, the 1930s to 1950s still greatly dominated the heat records. Even in Texas at the center of the 2011 heat wave, the long term (since 1895) trends in both temperature and precipitation are flat. And when stations with over 80 years of temperature data were considered, the number of heat records last July were not extraordinary relative to past hot summers.
(13) Extremes of rainfall and drought were predicted to increase but except during periods of strong El Nino and La Nina, no trends are seen
(14) Alarmists indicated winter would become warmer and short. The last 15 years has seen a decline in winter temperatures in all regions. In places winter have been the coldest and longest in decades and even centuries.
(15) Alarmists had indicated snow would become increasingly rare in middle latitudes especially in the big cities where warming would be greatest. All time snow records were set in virtually all the major cities and northern hemisphere snow coverage in winter has increased with 4 of the top 5 years since 2007/08. Also among the east coast high impact snowstorms tracked by NOAA (NESIS), 11 of the 46 have occurred since 2009.
(16) Alarmists had indicated a decline of Antarctic ice due to warming. The upward trends since 1979 continues.
(17) Alarmists had indicated Greenland and arctic ice melt would accelerate. The arctic ice tracks with the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and the IARC shows the ice cover was similarly reduced in the 1950s when the Atlantic was last in a similar warm mode. In Greenland, the warmth of the 1930s and 1940s still dominates the records and longer term temperatures have declined.
(18) Sea level rise was to accelerate upward due to melting ice and warming. Sea levels actually slowed in the late 20th century and have declined or flattened the last few years. Manipulation of data (adjustment for land rises following the last glaciation) has been applied to hide this from the public.
(19) Alarmists claimed that drought western snowpack would diminish and forest fires would increase in summer. Snowpack and water equivalent were at or near record levels in recent winters from Alaska to the Pacific Northwest and Northern Rockies. Glaciers are advancing. Fires have declined.
(20) Alaska was said to be warming with retreating glaciers. But that warming is tied intimately to the PDO and thr North Pacific pattern NP and happens instantly with the flips from cold to warm and warm to cold. Two of the coldest and snowiest winters on records occurred since the PDO/NP flipped cold again (2007/08 and 2011/12). January 2012 was the coldest on record in many towns and cities and snowfall was running 160 inches above normal in parts of the south. Anchorage Alaska set an all time record for seasonal snow in 2011/12. In 2007/08, glaciers all advanced for the first time since the Little Ice Age. In 2011/12, the Bering Sea ice set a new high in the satellite era. Latest ever ice out date records were set in May 2013.
(21) Mt. Kilimanjaro glacier was to disappear due to global warming. Temperatures show no warming in recent decades. The reduction in glacial ice was due to deforestation near the base and the state of the AMO. The glaciers have advanced again in recent years
(22) Polar bears were claimed to be threatened. Polar bear populations instead have increased to record levels and threaten the populace.
(23) Australian drought was forecast to become permanent. Steps to protect against floods were defunded. Major flooding did major damage and rainfall has been abundant in recent years tied to the PDO and La Nina as predicted by honest scientists in Australia. All years with La Nina and cold PDO composited show this rainfall. Drought was associated with El Ninos and warm PDO fro 1977 to 1998
(24) The office of the Inspector General report found that the EPA cut corners and short-circuited the required peer review process for its December 2009 endangerment finding, which is the foundation for EPA’s plan to regulate greenhouse gases. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) report confirmed that EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program-which EPA acknowledges is the “scientific foundation for decisions” – is flawed, echoing previous concerns from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) that the agency is basing its decisions on shoddy scientific work.
(25) Of 18,531 citations in the 2007 IPCC Assessment Report, 5,587 or 30% were non-peer-reviewed material, including activist tracts, press releases, and in one amazing case, “Version One” of a Draft. In important instances, IPCC lead authors chose non-peer-reviewed material, or papers of low credibility, favoring their argument, in the face of prolific peer-reviewed material to the contrary. Instances include alleged climate relevance to malaria, hurricanes, species extinction, and sea levels.
Given the failures of global warming science, just a few mentioned here, the most disreputable alarmists like Oreskes, Cook and Trenberth and the demagogue party have tried to convince the uniformed by using the consensus argument. See the latest failed attempt here. It was also described on Forbes here.
“Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics.” Michael Crichton 17 January 2003 speech at the California Institute of Technology
Related articles
- Benchmarking IPCC’s warming predictions (wattsupwiththat.com)
- Schellnhuber Slips, Confirms Ocean Cycles Do Play A Major Role, Yet Hasn’t Added Them To Climate Models (notrickszone.com)
- To the Horror of Global Warming Alarmists, Global Cooling Is Here (forbes.com)
David, UK says:
June 5, 2013 at 12:53 pm
“You’re both being unfair. They seem like a right pair of mass debaters to me.”
You came close to owing me a new keyboard on that one!
This is a bit rough – several folks writing thoughts on bar napkins. Write. Edit. Repeat.
See comments by Ben and milo for examples.
Then there are the several references to the PDO. I have the impression that Joseph D. and buddy Joe B. do not have a good grasp of this phenomenon. Item #23 says: “Major flooding did major damage and rainfall has been abundant in recent years tied to the PDO and La Nina as predicted by honest scientists in Australia.” (Badly written but not the main issue.) One ought to have a recognized mechanism for the PDO signal that connects that mechanism to rainfall in Australia for this statement to be useful. While there is a PDO index that might correlate with Australian rainfall (or not, I have no idea), and there may be something like the PDO concept in the southern Pacific Ocean that might be connected to the ENSO agents, the what, where, and how seem to be missing.
Consider #13: “ Extremes of rainfall and drought were predicted to increase but except during periods of strong El Nino and La Nina, no trends are seen ”
Turn this around and it says ‘during strong El Nino and La Nina, trends are seen.’
Is this the intended meaning? If so, what trends are there?
Many years ago I was told that if I did not want to discuss and defend a statement I should not bring it up. While I appreciate the intent of Mr. D’Aleo’s posting, It needs work.
When, in 2011, scientists at CERN reported seeing neutrinos travelling faster than light, there was a buzz of excitement. I imagine that most scientists suspected an error but they went to look and, even though it would have overturned 100 years of theory and experiment, there was some genuine excitement at the thought of something new. Of course it turned out to be the result of several errors but, while being investigated, it gave us a glimpse of what real science looks like. No one was accused of being an Einstein denier and there was no attempt to supress or hide this dangerous heresy. These real scientists did not behave as though they knew the correct answer and as if their job was simply to educate the uninitiated, they set about discovering the truth.
When I see a figure like this 97% consensus I am not surprised because it is 97% of a club whose entry requirement is being a believer. The only other place we ever see these sorts of levels of agreement is in the election of banana republic dictators. The dissenting 3% is more surprising.
“Anyone who still believes that the media would give him the same sort of exposure they give to crooks like Cartoonist Cook and Scientologist Nuccitelli must be living under a rock.”
Some of you guys are unbelievable defeatist. Much, much easier to bitch and moan about those crooked warmists and the big bad MSM. I’m not living under a rock. To the contrary. This is something solid, honest, and real that we could all pitch in and accomplish if we put our minds to it.
It was put very elegantly by Albert Einstein. When he was told that 100 Nazi scientists had declared that his Theory of Relativity was wrong because it was formulated by a Jew, he replied “If I were wrong, one would be enough.”
pokerguy says (June 5, 2013 at 2:28 pm): “This is something solid, honest, and real that we could all pitch in and accomplish if we put our minds to it.”
But is it the best use of our time and money?
I’m saving this list as a field guide for what bad science looks like and as it unfolds toward oblivion.
‘ pokerguy says:
June 5, 2013 at 12:24 pm
I’ve got 500 dollars to help fund a well designed, statistically significant survey with meaningful definitions to counter this 97 percent b.s. We’re winning on the science but this is also about politics and P.R.’
On another thread here I have proposed some of my ideas about the required meta analysis. It may become a ‘Donna LF’ project. Otherwise it should be done by an academic group. Think about recent research into peer review.. The bottle neck consists of the cooperation of some experts or reviewers. In case of a low budget project I am available for free to assist in rater reliability issues.
pokerguy says:
June 5, 2013 at 2:28 pm
“Some of you guys are unbelievable defeatist. Much, much easier to bitch and moan about those crooked warmists and the big bad MSM. I’m not living under a rock. To the contrary. This is something solid, honest, and real that we could all pitch in and accomplish if we put our minds to it.”
It will be ignored by the media. Warmism will vanish by itself as it becomes less and less useful as the climate refuses to warm. Then, a new common enemy of humanity will be created – yes you guessed it – antropogenic Global Cooling. I’ll give you a preview: Scientists have a new, groundbreaking theory; excess CO2 radiates too much IR from the stratosphere to space. According models will be built; 97% of scientists will agree that that is what is really going on, and that we must do something about it; preferrably hand over all power to the UN.
Timeline of the switches from a warming to a cooling panic:
http://butnowyouknow.wordpress.com/those-who-fail-to-learn-from-history/climate-change-timeline/
When you can use the warming phase to accomplish your political goals, surely nothing stops you from using the cooling phase for the same. Science is the willing whore; bought and paid for.
(3) … This suggests GHG theory [is] wrong,… ” [D’Aleo]
That statement in the above EXCELLENT article does not say, as Simon C-S mischaracterizes it as saying (at 12:25PM today), “the GHE has failed ALL tests… .”
[assuming GHG and GHE refer to the same theory]
How and to what extent GHG theory is wrong is not discussed.
[Credit to: Gary Hladick for raising this issue and Dirk H for soundly expounding on it above]
If you accept that the GHE has failed ALL tests, then surely you must accept that the GHE is a fiction, which is what the PSI group of scientists have been saying all along.
There is no PSI “group of scientists”. Also, the GHE hasn’t failed all tests. The assertion of a strong positive feedback to the CO_2 linked component of the GHE has taken a bit of a battering and is almost certainly false, but that doesn’t mean that any of the thermodynamically incompetent assertions of the PSI nuts are worth the electrons required to form the image of their words on any screen. And electrons are pretty cheap.
Did you ever wonder why Anthony, and I, and Roy Spencer, and Dick Lindzen, and many others who actually have a clue about physics and meteorology spend an entirely disproportionate time bashing PSI’s absolutely absurd claims and their bad science just so that they might, one day, stop being an active embarrassment to the entire skeptical community and an active obstacle to its arguments?
So just to be entirely clear, the atmosphere is composed of a number of gases in various concentrations. Those gas atoms and molecules without the slightest doubt in the world absorb, emit, and scatter electromagnetic radiation in accord with the laws of quantum electrodynamics (the actual theory in physics that the aforementioned and revered Richard Feynman helped to invent). Experimental measurement of this radiation is straightforward — not only can one measure its integrated intensity in any given direction, one can measure its intensity as a function of frequency/wavelength across the entire IR through UV spectrum (and beyond on both ends, but this is the important part as far as climate is concerned).
You can walk outdoors any day of the week, any time of day or night, and point a suitable spectrometer up, and directly observe the so-called “downwelling” radiation coming from the atmosphere. One can plot its spectrum, and from the spectrum make straightforward inferences about the gases that are emitting it and the temperature (range) at which the emission occurs. You can orbit the earth any day of the week, any time of (local) day or night, and point a suitable spectrometer down, and directly observe the outgoing radiation in all frequencies/wavelengths from the entire column of matter from the ground to the detector. From this spectrum, one can make inferences concerning the gas molecules that emit it and their temperature. By comparing the two at the same place and time (especially at night, so that the measurements contain no component from direct solar radiation), one can directly observe the atmospheric radiation effect, a.k.a. the greenhouse effect in action.
That is why no actual scientist is going to assert that it doesn’t exist. It’s like asserting that the sun doesn’t exist, or that electrons don’t exist, or that gravity doesn’t exist. Existence is a long standing proven fact. What matters now are the details of the effect as being part of the energy flow in a dynamical open system, one that is startlingly complex and difficult to simplify to something computable and understandable. As perfectly reputable physicists have perfectly reasonably suggested, in the current state of the climate (which depends on many things including the last few hundred or thousand years of climate history) either a) hitherto ignored physics, e.g. Svensmark’s assertions about radiation and solar state have a sufficiently great influence on the climate that they can cancel, enhance, or confound simple CO_2 plus feedback models; b) the feedbacks used in these models are just plain wrong, in particular the assertions made about water, to the point where feedback could be strictly negative, that is, resisting perturbations due to variation in the CO_2 concentration; c) other gases associated with civilization and vulcanism, e.g. sulphates, that are known to contribute to the total atmospheric radiative effect with a negative sign (net cooling) are increasing at rates that equal or exceed that of CO_2 again cancelling all or part of the expected warming.
None of these are PSI suggestions or assertions, and all of them are subject to observation and falsification. Nor are they mutually exclusive — we could be seeing modulation of any expected CO_2 — linked warming from all three at once, with nonlinear coupling and further feedbacks. Or none of them. None of these theories assert that the GHE doesn’t exist, only that it is a lot more complicated than the GCMs would have it, quite possibly complicated enough so that CO_2 increases in the current state of the climate have little or no effect. That doesn’t mean that CO_2 isn’t an important contributor to the total GHE that lifts the Earth from the vacuum greybody temperature one would expect in the absence of any atmospheric absorption in the LWIR bands associated with its mean temperature range.
rgb
Simon C-S says (June 5, 2013 at 2:06 pm): “The whole AGW/CAGW business is grounded in and synonymous with the GHE.”
Ah, I see. So the article never explicitly trashed the so-called GHE, you just “read between the lines”, so to speak. Of course, the danger of reading between the lines is that sometimes one reads what isn’t actually there.
“Without the claimed CO2 GHE there would be no claimed (C)AGW.”
True.
“If AGW has failed, then GHE has, they cannot be separated.”
False logic. The statement “if A, then B” is not equivalent to “if no B, then no A”. Are PSI’s “robust physical explanations” based on this kind of thinking?.
What? Global Warming theory isn’t true?
Why didn’t somebody tell me?
It’s strange therefore that Anthony is vigorously defending the GHE yet proclaiming AGW has failed, it just doesn’t add up. It is PSI who have the line that maintains an integrity, that BOTH the GHE and CAGW claims have failed, with good, robust physical explanations why.
Surely you must be joking. State one, single “good, robust physical explanation” asserted by the PSI for why the GHE doesn’t exist. Be prepared to defend the assertion, as I am rather well prepared to eat any defense alive using nothing but actually valid physics. I’m reasonably well prepared to do the latter being as how I’m a physicist, I have Grant Petty’s book about 20 feet away, have written my own introductory physics and graduate electrodynamics textbooks, and actually have a clue as to what the first and second laws of thermodynamics are and how they work.
One would think that with the direct experimental proof Anthony showed the world (on youtube, none the less) that their tired, stupid, invalid arguments could finally be abandoned, but it is just like trying to get a religious believer to change their religious beliefs — not even direct spectrographs of the GHE contained (for example) in Petty’s book or here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/10/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-emission-spectra/
can convince a PSI member or one of their religious followers, any more than Galileo’s persecutors in the Catholic Church were willing to actually look through one of his telescopes.
Why believe your own eyes? Please, go on, help the PSI continue to give all the serious scientists who are climate skeptics an extra barrier to overcome by telling people to take their nonsense seriously.
rgb
Reblogged this on Power To The People.
Gary Hladik says (June 5, 2013 at 4:04 pm): “The statement “if A, then B” is not equivalent to “if no B, then no A”.
OK, I put my foot in it. 🙁 What I should have written was,
The statement “if A and B, then C” is not equivalent to “if no C, then no A”. Fortunately RGB explained it far better than I could.
*sigh* When will I learn that I just can’t multi-tas–Hey, look! A new article on WUWT!
🙂
Re: Simon says at 2:06PM, “If AGW has failed, then GHE has, they cannot be separated.”
Your comparison is not valid. You compare Anthropogenic Global Warming with GHE generally (which includes both natural and human CO2).
You would be correct if you said: “If AGW has failed, then AGHE has… .”
Personally, I think the anthro part of GHE is negligible, thus making your original statement meaningless.
“Models suggest atmosphere should warm 20% faster than surface but surface warming was 33% faster during the time satellites and surface observations used. This suggests GHG theory wrong, and surface temperature contaminated”
Such a thing might also occur if warming was driven largely by the sun.
@ur momisugly rgbatduke
“And electrons are pretty cheap.”
Not here in Australia. Each electron has to come with its own “Low Carbon” certificate, so we have to pay a fortune for the certification process. Our electricity bills just keep going up.
The problem is worse than Joseph suggests, The predictions ( Projections) are inherently untestable and therefore useless for policy decisions. Even if they matched reality for some period you would never know if that was the result of compensating errors in the micro algorithms .which structure the program . The horrifying thing is that the IPCC – AR4 science section states this quite openly but the statement is completely ignored in the Summary for Policymakers. The models produce projections or scenarios which are no more accurate than the assumptions, algorithms and data , often of poor quality, which were put into them. In reality they are no more than expensive drafting tools to produce power point slides to illustrate the ideas and prejudices of their creators. The IPCC science section AR4 WG1 section 8.6.4 deals with the reliability of the climate models .This IPCC science section on models itself concludes:
“Moreover it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining the future projections, consequently a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed”
What could be clearer. The IPCC AR4 science section itself says that we don’t even know what metrics to put into the models to test their reliability.- i.e. we don’t know what future temperatures will be and we can’t yet calculate the climate sensitivity to anthropogenic CO2.This also begs a further question of what mere assumptions went into the “plausible” models to be tested anyway. Nevertheless this statement was ignored by the editors who produced the Summary. Here predictions of disaster were illegitimately given “with high confidence.” in complete contradiction to several sections of the WG1 science section where uncertainties and error bars were discussed.
The importance of the later SREX 2011 report is that finally the IPCC recognised that the uncertainties of climate prediction are much greater than they previously acknowledged. They are now in the embarassing position of having to acknowledge that the whole UN CO2 scare is built on very uncertain foundations and they somehow need to as quietly as possible change their position.The first thing they do is to change the definition of climate change (Global Warming no longer seems a convenient term to use) They say :
“several of the definitions used in this Special Report differ in breadth or focus from those used in the AR4 and other IPCC reports.]
Climate Change: A change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g., by using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer. Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forcings, or to persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use.2[INSERT FOOTNOTE 2: This definition differs from that in the United Nations FrameworkConvention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), where climate change is defined as: “a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.” The UNFCCC thus makes a distinction between climate change attributable to human activities altering the atmospheric composition, and climate variability attributable to natural causes.”
In other words where previously climate change meant change due to human activity now it means change due to human and natural causes . They now say that they can’t distinguish these causes for the next 30 years. The rest of their predictions re extreme events are simply trivial and tautologous speculation – they simply say that if warming continues, certain extreme events are more likely to occur. If they don’t know what is happening in the next 30 years they certainly don’t know what will happen in the next hundred.
The entire modelling output of the IPCC and the Impact studies depending on these models have a tenuous connection to reality and can be safely be ignored for forecasting purposes and policy purposes.
Mr. Hladik, you had the essential proposition right!
It isn’t, in my opinion, that you cannot multi-task. It is, rather, that your fine mind has far better things to do with its time than to rebut simple simons (I just accidentally typed “sli” before making it “simon,” heh, heh). He’s more at my, much lower, level (common sense). Using your high intelligence on such a mundane matter is like trying to cruise along main street in a high-tuned race car. It tends to sputter and can easily stall, idling along like that. But, on the race track…. watch out!
So, my fine WUWT scholar and fellow warrior for truth, remember all you CAN do (far more than Simon or I ever will, I’m sure) and go look in the mirror and smile and say, “I like me.” #[:)]
[One of my all-time favorite movie lines is the late great John Candy in “Planes, Trains, and Automobiles” when he responds to Steve Martin’s verbal abuse with, “… I like me. … .”]
Hey, if I like you — you sure should!
@ur momisugly Rud Istvan and John F. Hultquist
I agree that this could be a useful resource, and that it needs cleaning up. Graphs, references,text boxes to explain NOAA PMEL
My own suggestions would be:
1. Points 4, 5, 18, 24 and 25 are or include accusations of misuse/manipulation of data. All this should be put into a separate section at the end, and expressed in a way that does not look like finger pointing and crying ‘Not fair! Fraud’. Fraud it might be, but whining “You cheated” does not win over public opinion.
2. For global claims, try to make sure that more than just US examples are given. 95% of the world’s population is not American, and we non-Americans have the strange idea that we matter too. (But include as many Australian examples as you wish.)
3. Organize the material so that it starts with the hardest hitting, least questionable, failed predictions. For example, the 16 year temperature stasis/CO2 increase, and the missing hot-spot both are solid failures of the general theory.
4. Include (as Rud suggested) graphs, references, text boxes to explain NOAA PMEL, PDO, etc.
5. Get someone (Lord Monckton or myself) to rewrite the whole thing in really good, pellucid, English. (A difficulty here. If Lord Monckton’s name is associated with it, it will be rejected out of hand in certain quarters and mocked in the media. I, on the other hand, would want to be paid.)
6. Get competent translators to produce versions in the other major languages.
And the importance of editing can be seen in the above post. I have left the phrase “Graphs, references,text boxes to explain NOAA PMEL” in the wrong place.
So I would suggest that point 6 should be
“have the whole thing edited by a professional and very old-fashioned editor”.
The current point 6 can become point 7.
Janice Moore says (June 5, 2013 at 4:36 pm): [snip]
Thanks, you’re hired! My next screwup is scheduled for 7:37 PM PDT, so plan your day accordingly. Look, I’m sorry about the low pay, but at least the hours are long. Like money, stupidity never sleeps…
🙂
@ur momisugly Gary Hladik — re: “Thanks” — You are very welcome!
LOL. Does the job come with a shovel, or do I need to bring my own? How about gloves?
**********************************************************************
“And the importance of editing can be seen in the above post. ” [Roha at 5:04PM]
I beg your pardon! #[;)]