Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Sunday, June 28, 2009

"Climate Change Reconsidered:- Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change Refutes the Alarmists

In Climate Change Reconsidered, the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) presents the scientific data which demonstrates the global warming alarmists are the modern era's version of "chicken little".

In “Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC),” coauthors Dr. S. Fred Singer and Dr. Craig Idso and 35 contributors and reviewers present an authoritative and detailed rebuttal of the findings of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), on which the Obama Administration and Democrats in Congress rely for their regulatory proposals.

The scholarship in this book demonstrates overwhelming scientific support for the position that the warming of the twentieth century was moderate and not unprecedented, that its impact on human health and wildlife was positive, and that carbon dioxide probably is not the driving factor behind climate change.

The authors cite thousands of peer-reviewed research papers and books that were ignored by the IPCC, plus additional scientific research that became available after the IPCC’s self-imposed deadline of May 2006.

The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is an international panel of nongovernment scientists and scholars who have come together to understand the causes and consequences of climate change. Because it is not a government agency, and because its members are not predisposed to believe climate change is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, NIPCC is able to offer an independent “second opinion” of the evidence reviewed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). NIPCC traces its roots to a meeting in Milan in 2003 organized by the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), a nonprofit research and education organization based in Arlington, Virginia. SEPP, in turn, was founded in 1990 by Dr. S. Fred Singer, an atmospheric physicist, and incorporated in 1992 following Dr. Singer’s retirement from the University of Virginia.


  • At 12:43 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    That's right, Joe. Absolutely no bias whatsoever with this report.

    Singer receives funding from Exxon, Shell, and ARCO among others and is an admitted Global Warming denier.

    Not so neutral, really....

    But, anyway, that's not nearly as interesting as the CSI of a baseball. Let's open another thread on that!!! (one that won't mysteriously close when the author gets his panties in a twist).

  • At 6:35 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Yet Singer isn't the only scientist who signs on to the report.

    Also no one is denying global warming.

    The cause of the warming is being debated.

    And the scientific data says the cause is not man-made.

    But I wouldn't expect a complete imbecile of a clown to understand any of that.

    I would expect an imbecilic clown like you to personaly attack the scientists as opposed to trying to understand the data.

    BTW the reason I close threads is because there isn't anything left for me to say and nothing to respond to.

    And then there is the fact that you have proven to be a low-life, maggot munching, lying moron.

    So why should I continue to pollute my blog?

    1- You don't have anything meaningful to say

    2- You don't appear to be capable of understanding anything beyond juggling

    So why should I bother?

  • At 6:44 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    About NIPCC-

    What was Dr. Singer’s and Dr. Idso’s motivation? It wasn’t financial self-interest: Except for a foundation grant late in the process to enable Dr. Idso to devote the many hours necessary to assemble and help edit the final product, no grants or contributions were provided or promised to the authors in return for producing this report. Nor was the motivation political: No government agency commissioned or authorized this effort, and the authors do not advise or support the candidacies of any politicians or candidates for public office.-

    Erik Pratt, proven liar and asshole, why should anyone believe anything you post?

  • At 6:54 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Right, Joe. Look up the SEPP, Singer's organization. My claim was that the following is misleading at best:

    because its members are not predisposed to believe climate change is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, NIPCC is able to offer an independent “second opinion” of the evidence reviewed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

    As I pointed out, maybe some of the members ARE predisposed to believe some things. HMMMMM. Try to keep the arguments straight, Joe.

    Now, how 'bout that BASEBALL CSI THREAD!!!

  • At 7:08 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Your claim is bullshit because you are relying solely on your sense of deduction.

    BTW you can't keep any arguments straight.

    You just make shit up and you don't care because you will never be held accountable for anything.

  • At 7:29 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Financial: SEPP does not solicit support from government or industry. Major contributions came from several charitable foundations; contributions from individuals ranged up to $10,000. SEPP ended 2004 with a small surplus.

  • At 11:28 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    That's nice, Joe. You seem to have found the source of SEPP funding. Is there any reason you didn't mention the totals from Big Oil?

    It's public record, Joe. Singer admitted he was funded by Big Oil. There's no shame in that--it's just disingenuous to claim no bias when you are funded by one side in an issue.

    But really, the BASEBALL CSI is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more interesting!

  • At 8:25 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The data Erik, focus on the scientific data.

    I know that is foreign territory for you but it is the data, not the scientist, which determines things.

    And again Singer is just one of many scientists which have demonstrated global warming is not manmade.

    BTW just because someone funds your project that does not mean you are getting paid to tell the story they want you to tell.

    (there wasn't anything on the SEPP website that said anything about funding from oil companies)

    And if I was big oil I would certainly use my money to check the facts because I would understand that governments and liberals in general, cannot be trusted to put forward the truth.

    So the bottom line is there isn't any data for manmade global warming and that fcat has your panties in a twist.

  • At 8:26 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    All that said do you have any valid references for your claims?

    If you do you had better provide it in your next post.

  • At 8:44 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Why do others always have to do your research for you, Joe?

    Have fun.

    Now, let's stick to what I claimed. I claimed that your OP was misleading when it claims that the panel members are not biased. That's all. I didn't claim the IPCC was unbiased, I just pointed out that neither are these guys. To claim otherwise is silly.

  • At 8:49 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Umm Erik, if YOU make a claim it is up to YOU to support it.

    It is not up to me to do YOUR research.

    And again a source of funding does not mean that bias was applied.

    Only imbeciles think that way.

    Also your source betrays you:

    ExxonMobil donated $10,000 to SEPP both in 1998 [21] and 2000 [22].-

    Only a low-life would think 10K would be enough to bias a scientist.

  • At 9:12 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Good, Joe. You've moved from "no they didn't" to "well, okay, they did donate $10,000". What about the others? How much money would be enough to bias a scientist? What's your number?

    Anywho...that CSI: Baseball isn't going to wait for CBS to pick it up.

  • At 12:00 PM, Blogger Joe G said…


    The donations came years ago.

    And $10,000 doesn't buy very much in the way of a scientist's time, equipment and anything else required.

    So unless they were dumping millions into this guy's research, every year, their small donations had no effect on any bias.

    IOW once again you come here with bold accusations that turn up to be trivial if not irrelevant.

    Left wing liberal brain-dead bias has everything to do with manmade global warming alarmism.

    The data has exposed you and your ilk for the "follow the prevailing wind" morons you are.

    Except as usual you were caught pissing into the wind.

    And you seem to be OK with that.

    Who wipes away your drool and changes your diaper?

  • At 12:07 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    that CSI: Baseball isn't going to wait for CBS to pick it up-

    I would say anyone can pick up the fact that you are a Cerebrally Boring Stooge.

  • At 12:17 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Any other donations, Joe? He received funding from more than one company. Anyway, what's your number for equaling bias?

    And why would the IPCC show bias that supposedly doesn't exist with the NIPCC?

    If a few piddly dollars aren't enough to sway the NIPCC, why are they enough to sway the IPCC?

    Strange discontinuity there.

  • At 12:30 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What does anything you are saying have to do with the data?

    IPCC shows bias to keep their jobs.

    This whole thing started with a guy who wanted to keep his job. That guy is the one who taught Al Gore.

    He has now come clean.

    There isn't any evidence for manmade global warming.

    And anyway the Antarctic shelf ice is increasing.

    The Arctic icecap has recovered.

  • At 3:53 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    The Arctic Icecap has recovered??? You don't seem to show the need to provide any evidence of that. Strange.

    Why would they need to show bias to keep their jobs? If they lost them, wouldn't they be able to work for Singer and the like?

    Not very convincing, Joe.

  • At 4:46 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The jobs of the IPCC require there be a solution so manmade global warming is what they are pushing.

    I take it you didn't read that Singer's group is pro-bono.

    But anyway:

    The Amazing Story Behind the Global Warming Scam:

    The story begins with an Oceanographer named Roger Revelle. He served with the Navy in World War II. After the war he became the Director of the Scripps Oceanographic Institute in La Jolla in San Diego, California. Revelle obtained major funding from the Navy to do measurements and research on the ocean around the Pacific Atolls where the US military was conducting post war atomic bomb tests. He greatly expanded the Institute's areas of interest and among others hired Hans Suess, a noted Chemist from the University of Chicago. Suess was very interested in the traces of carbon in the environment from the burning of fossil fuels. Revelle co-authored a scientific paper with Suess in 1957—a paper that raised the possibility that the atmospheric carbon dioxide might be creating a greenhouse effect and causing atmospheric warming. The thrust of the paper was a plea for funding for more studies. Funding, frankly, is where Revelle's mind was most of the time.-

  • At 4:47 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Recovering. Not recovered.

    My bad

  • At 5:01 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    I take it that you think donations don't allow people to work pro bono.

    I take it that you don't believe what Big Oil tells you about global warming being man made. Big Oil might lose their jobs if cars were to contribute to global warming. Try to be consistent, Joe.

  • At 5:03 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    I also take it that you don't believe Big Tobacco about cigarettes because, well, you know...the jobs and all.

    What about doctors who tout vaccines? Are they lying (so thy can cause world wide autism) because, well...their jobs.

    Is there no place we can get the real information!!!????!!!!

  • At 5:05 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    "The near-zero replenishment of the multi-year ice cover, combined with unusual exports of ice out of the Arctic after the summers of 2005 and 2007, have both played significant roles in the loss of Arctic sea ice volume," said Ron Kwok of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California who led the study.

    Data from the study will help scientists to better understand how fast the volume of Arctic ice is decreasing and how soon the region might be "nearly ice-free in the summer," said Kwok.

    A study published in April by the Colorado-based National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) also showed that the Arctic ice cap is thinner than ever and the maximum extent of Arctic ice was at an all-time low.

    The same month, US researchers warned that the Arctic could be almost ice-free within 30 years, not 90 as scientists had previously estimated.

  • At 5:11 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Wait, I forgot! If the ice melts, NASA goes away. No jobs in space if there's no ice. No, that doesn't make any sense...

  • At 5:23 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I take it that you don't undersatnd English.

    It is also obvious that you don't understand science.

    But anyway:

    Arctic sea ice continues to rebound-

    AARI Predicts Arctic Cooling/Ice Recovery To Continue-

  • At 5:32 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Your second link provides almost nothing. It shows that ice last year was up over the previous year, but still well below average. It makes no prediction on future events besides a graph which is not explained.

    Anyway, what about those lying NASA GUYS?

    And where's the CSI thread?

  • At 8:31 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    As I said English isn't your strength:

    The most competent polar scientific organization, Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute (AARI) in St. Petersburg, Russia published recently 3 books summarizing scientific results of climate changes in the Arctic region for the last century. One of it dedicated to Arctic climate. Based on the results obtained they forecast coming temperature and sea ice cover area changes in the Polar seas for the next 10-20 years.

    The authors showed that Arctic climate change is natural in origin and several orders of magnitude greater than the level of anthropogenic impact on the climate. Estimates of possible changes of Arctic air temperature and ice cover propagation area for the 21st century are given on a basis of the revealed stable cyclic oscillations of 10, 20 and 50 to 60 years.

  • At 11:50 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Yeah, the authors may have SAID that, but nothing in your link SHOWS that. And your first link is just a blogger. There aren't even an quotes from people who might know something.

    So, is there a reason you're ignoring what the NASA CLIMATE SCIENTISTS said? What might that reason be?

  • At 8:57 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Yeah, the authors may have SAID that, but nothing in your link SHOWS that.-

    The authors based what they said on the scientific data.

    THAT is why you have an issue with it.

    Those authors know more about the Arctic then NASA as they syudy it more closely.

  • At 9:00 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And your first link is just a blogger. -

    The scienttific data not thne person.

    Only assholes go after the person and leave the data alone.

  • At 10:03 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Ah, I see. The data that WAS NOT in your link. I'll take your word for it then.

    And secondly, I see again. Scientists who say things you like are right. Scientists who say things you don't like are wrong.

    Good to know.

    Any reason you're ignoring the NASA CLIMATE SCIENTISTS and THEIR DATA when you claim that the ice caps are improving?

  • At 10:05 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    More stuff for you to ignore:

    Arctic sea ice thinned dramatically between the winters of 2004 and 2008, with thick older ice shrinking by the equivalent of Alaska's land area, a study using data from a NASA satellite showed.

    Using information from NASA's Ice, Cloud and Land Satellite (ICESat), scientists from the US space agency and the University of Washington in Seattle estimated both the thickness and volume of the Arctic Ocean's ice cover.

    ICESat allows scientists to measure changes in the thickness and volume of Arctic ice, whereas previously scientists relied only on measurements of area to determine how much of the Arctic Ocean is covered in ice.

    Scientists found that Arctic sea ice thinned some seven inches (17.8 centimeters) a year, or 2.2 feet (67 centimeters) over four winters, according to the study by NASA and the University of Washington, published in the Journal of Geophysical Research-Oceans.

    They also found that thicker, older ice, which has survived one or more summers, shrank by 42 percent.

    "Between 2004 and 2008, multi-year ice cover shrank 595,000 square miles (1.5 million square kilometers) -- nearly the size of Alaska's land area," a report of the study's findings said.

  • At 11:59 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    1st graph in my link :

    Arctic ice extent bottomed out in 2007, and has recovered the last two years as shown by this graph from the University of Illinois Cryosphere.-

    Scientific data went into that graph.

    The 3rd graph, also based on the scientific data, shows a NATURAL CYCLE.

    And one more time for the willfully ignorant clown-

    I don't care what scientists say.

    I care what they can substantiate.

    One blogger with data is worth more than 1,000 scientists without it.

    I care about the data only.

    And it is obvious the IPCC doesn't or they wouldn't have ignored all the peer-reviewed research which goes against their claims.

  • At 12:04 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

  • At 4:00 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Good. Again, any reason you are IGNORING the CLIMATE SCIENTISTS' DATA!!!!!

  • At 7:26 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Everything I have cited is from climate scientists.

    What you cited was from 2007.

    And according to the data I cite it even says 2007 was the low point.

    This is 2009 and the ice cap has increased since 2007/08.

    And in 2010 the ice cap will have recovered a little more. In 2011 a little more and so on until the next warming cycle.

  • At 1:21 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    You can see into the future? Wow. You should spend more time at the track and less time with the school boards. You're missing an opportunity!

  • At 7:41 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Scientists make predictions based on research.

    But I understand that a clown wouldn't understand such things.

    Also to expose the vacuity of your position:

    Provide the scientific peer-reviewed research that demonstrates what the Actic ice cap should be.

    Then provide the scientific peer-reviewed research that demonstrates what the temperature of the Earth should be.

  • At 9:37 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Uh, what the temperature should be when?

    The ice cap should be pretty??? Is that what you're looking for?

    Come on, Joe; you were better at CSI.

  • At 10:37 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    clownie you are the one complaining about global warming and the Actic ice retreat.

    That means you should have the data that tells us what each should be.

    Ya see without that data all you have is whining.

    IOW you are as fucked up about this issue as you are with CSI.

  • At 9:35 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    You wanted me demonstrate "what the Actic ice cap should be".

    It should be pretty. It should be what? That request makes no sense.

  • At 9:56 AM, Blogger Joe G said…


    I know you are an asshole but you don't have to prove it every day.

    Ya see Erik CONTEXT is important.

    And the CONTEXT is about the extent of Arctic ice coverage.

    IOW Erik my request makes perfect sense to people who don't live with their head up their ass.

    But again I thank you for continuing to prove my point that you are a low-life, maggot-munching imbecile.

  • At 10:17 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe, you never use context when reading people's messages, no idea why you should ask others to.

    That may be the single most ironic thing you've ever said.

    Anyway, unlike you, I did try to sort out what you meant. Got to tell you, it's a little vague.

    Would you like me to tell you that the ice cap should be:

    1. Thick
    2. Cold
    3. Expansive
    4. Shrinking
    5. Growing
    6. Warming
    7. Moving
    8. Pulsating
    9. Melting
    10. Thinning
    11. Etc.

    Really, all of those things would be pertinent. Some of them are contradictory. What exactly would you like me to show "should be" happening.

  • At 10:18 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Xanax, Joe. Take some.

  • At 10:37 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Great, more bald and false accusations from Erik Pratt.

    He seems to think that just because he can say it and post it that makes it so.

    And even though I explained the context Erik the asshole chimes in with another imbecilic response.

    So tell me Erik, why should I care that you love to expose your stupidity?

  • At 10:39 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Cyanide Erik, take a lot.

  • At 2:36 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    So, what exactly did you mean by the ice cap "should be"?

    You forgot to clarify that. Some reason perhaps??? Try concentrating on communication, Joe.

  • At 9:46 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Erik I explained it already.

    Also if you are too stupid to understand the context then you are too stupid to have a discusssion.

    But we already knew that.

  • At 10:06 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    No, you didn't explain it, Joe. You've posted five comments since you said "provide evidence for what the ice caps should be" and I asked for clarification. The content of those 5 posts is as follows:

    1. claimed that I'm the only one complaining about global warming. Do you mean that I'm the only one in the world complaining about global warming???? (that's just stupid)

    2. whined about people not looking at context (something you never do. Tried to change your previous argument of "the ice caps are recovering" to the very narrow issue of ice extent.

    3. continued to claim that you were only ever talking about ice extent, even though that is clearly not what you were talking about for most of the thread

    4. tried to be funny by once again merely repeating something that I had said earlier instead of making the bit your own. (I'll still let you take my acting class free, Joe; let me know when you have some free time)

    5. repeated your goalpost moving one more time by referring to ice extent.

  • At 10:09 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Since you refuse to acknowledge anything except ice cap extent, I'll start there.

    Do you think that ice extent is the only measure of arctic health? Do you think that ice THICKNESS is relevant? What about SNOWFALL? Or WATER TEMPERATURE?

    All of these things are relevant to your claim that the Ice caps are recovering. All of these things are discussed by climate scientists. All of these things are ignored by JoeG. Why is that?

  • At 10:16 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Yse I did explain it Erik and if you are too stupid to understand that then you are too stupid to have a discussion.

    claimed that I'm the only one complaining about global warming.-

    The only one who is also commenting here in this thread.

    whined about people not looking at context -

    No whining just a fact.

    Tried to change your previous argument of "the ice caps are recovering" to the very narrow issue of ice extent.-

    Wrong again, as usual.

    I didn't try to change my claim has remained teh same- the Arctic icecap is recovering.

    I even provided the scientific data which shows this.

    continued to claim that you were only ever talking about ice extent-

    I never made that claim asshole.

    But anyway, that is what we were talking about when the post in question was made. Duh.

    Also the post in question said something about the temp of the Earth.

    IOW anyone complaining about global warming and ice cap retreat has to present the peer-reviewed scientific data which demonstrates what the over-all temperature of the Earth should be and what the extent of the ice coverage should be.

    Without either of those all you have is whining.

    And you have proven that all you have is whining, lying and being an asshole.

    IOW Erik once again you have proven that you are too twisted and dishonest to follow along.

  • At 10:22 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Since you refuse to acknowledge anything except ice cap extent, I'll start there.-

    That you even say something like that proves you are a lying asshole.

    Do you think that ice extent is the only measure of arctic health? Do you think that ice THICKNESS is relevant? What about SNOWFALL? Or WATER TEMPERATURE?-

    What about them?

    What should they be?

    1- I don't think ice extent has anything to do with Arctic health.

    No one knows if the Arctic should have ice or not.

    2- No one knows how thick the ice should be or even if there should be any ice.

    3- No one knows what the snowfall should be or even if there should be any snowfall.

    4- No one knows what the water temperature should be.

    All of these things are relevant to your claim that the Ice caps are recovering.-

    The claim I share with the climate scientists who provided the data for those graphs you don't know how to read.

  • At 10:23 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So Erik sez I am ignoring the scientists when in fact I cite the scientists.

    The reason I made my claim about Arctic icecap recovery is because the scientific data points to that.

  • At 10:27 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    If the ice caps may or may not have to be there, why say they are recovering? Couldn't it be just as true that there is supposed to be no ice and by this "recovery" of yours we'll all die because things are going in the wrong direction?

    Come on, Joe.

    Now you want to change your "supposed to be" to include more things than "ice extent"? Why change now?

    My question was, "Do you think that these other factors are relevant to ice cap recovery?" You managed not to answer that.

    Is an ice cap that s 20% larger in area but 93% less thick recovered? Obviously these are just made up numbers, but a clear example of how they may be related. Do you not think that ICE THICKNESS is related to ice cap recovery?

  • At 10:29 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Except for the evidence that I cited, Joe. It seems your only point is that Ice Cap recovery has only one factor: extent.

    As can be seen by looking at the reports from climate scientists, this is hardly the majority opinion.

  • At 10:34 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Except for the evidence that I cited, Joe.-

    You mean the evidence that is older than what I provided?


    It seems your only point is that Ice Cap recovery has only one factor: extent.-

    It seems that you are an asshole.

    As can be seen by looking at the reports from climate scientists, this is hardly the majority opinion.-

    And yet I have provided reports from climate scientists which are more recent than your citations.

    My reports even said that 2007/08 was the low point.

    That you are too stupid to understand what I posted doesn't mean anything to me.

  • At 10:36 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    If the ice caps may or may not have to be there, why say they are recovering?-

    Then why say there is a problem?

    And until you can present the data requested you don't have anything to say. All you have is whining.

  • At 10:37 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    So, I'll just put you down for thinking that Ice Extent is the one and only factor for Ice Cap recovery.

    Unless, you think otherwise...

  • At 10:38 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So I will just put Erik Pratt down for being a lying asshole.

    And I don't know of anyone who thinks otherwise.

  • At 10:39 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    From the scientific report Erik refuses to read:

    •Sea ice area and extent have continued to increase around Antarctica over the past few decades. Evidence shows that much of the reported thinning of Arctic sea ice that occurred in the 1990s was a natural consequence of changes in ice dynamics caused by an atmospheric regime shift, of which there have been several in decades past and will likely be several in the decades to come, totally irrespective of past or future changes in the air’s CO2 content. The Arctic appears to have recovered from its 2007 decline.

  • At 10:48 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Warning scientific data:

    SEa Ice-

  • At 10:51 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Data provided by NASDA and others:

    Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area-

    I take it that Erik doesn't know how to read a graph...

  • At 1:07 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Can the ice cap's CSI be calculated? Why don't you open a thread so you can avoid calculating the CSI of the obviously designed Ice Cap?


Post a Comment

<< Home