In The News

[Guest mycroft]

According to the WUWT article "Temperatures above 100°F are common in Marble Bar and indeed throughout a wide area of northwestern Australia. On average, Marble Bar experiences about 154 such days each year." And Moscow? Well, it recorded 100f for the first time this year.

In a way the WUWT shows how remarkable the Russian heatwave was, they had to compare it with a place like Marble Bar to try and make it look less than extraordinary...

you asked, i came up with one.i thought the disagreement was on "has it happened before" and as i pointed out in my first post.Yes it has happened before, though not as severe, but appears to be down to a certain blocking weather pattern which is also affecting Pakistan and China

Edited August 24, 2010 by mycroft

[Methuselah]

According to the WUWT article "Temperatures above 100°F are common in Marble Bar and indeed throughout a wide area of northwestern Australia. On average, Marble Bar experiences about 154 such days each year." And Moscow? Well, it recorded 100f for the first time this year.

In a way the WUWT shows how remarkable the Russian heatwave was, they had to compare it with a place like Marble Bar to try and make it look less than extraordinary...

I agree, Dev. Whatever we think the 'cause' of the Russian heatwave is (or is not) there can be no real doubt that it was an exceptional heatwave. Quite what WUWT is trying to achieve (apart from the usual obfuscation, of course) is beyond my ken...

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.guardian....fter-the-deluge

Another commentators view....... If we do see the AGW fingerprint on the ENSO cycle emerging over the next 20 years a lot of folk will suffer as we debate what brought them to this fate.

Edited August 24, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100825200657.htm

Seems like ENSO's are becoming stronger?

Now didn't I read some papers about this being an expected response to something or other?

[jethro]

The important bit of that article though is the last paragraph:

"Lee said further research is needed to evaluate the impacts of these increasingly intense El Niños and determine why these changes are occurring. "It is important to know if the increasing intensity and frequency of these central Pacific El Niños are due to natural variations in climate or to climate change caused by human-produced greenhouse gas emissions," he said."

Observing something happening is one thing, deciding upon the reasons why, takes a great deal more research,

[Gray-Wolf]

But pointing to what is believed to be a 'response' to AGW is also valid is it not? Once again we see one 'study' in isolation but surely we should look at it amongst it's brother and sister studies that show other 'changes' that are in line with what is expected from the warming GHG's drives.

How many studies, showing impacts strongly consistent with AGW warming, must be dismissed before we think that the weight of evidence (across the board) tends to be confirming it's initial impacts (and so form a real and urgent 'call to action')?

[jethro]

But pointing to what is believed to be a 'response' to AGW is also valid is it not? Once again we see one 'study' in isolation but surely we should look at it amongst it's brother and sister studies that show other 'changes' that are in line with what is expected from the warming GHG's drives.

How many studies, showing impacts strongly consistent with AGW warming, must be dismissed before we think that the weight of evidence (across the board) tends to be confirming it's initial impacts (and so form a real and urgent 'call to action')?

I'm not dismissing, simply asking that the scientists involved be allowed to study further and reach conclusions, before anybody else leaps to conclusions for them. All too often these articles are presented as evidence to support the poster's views when in reality, they do no such thing - they pose another question, not provide an answer.

It's an interesting article but little can be interpreted from it other than, we don't have any previous studies which show/explain this from the data we have which dates back to 1982. Given that a lot is still unknown about the PDO, the causes and effects and the longevity of the known cycles, it's far too early to leap to conclusions - scientists cannot even agree on the reasons behind the PDO and what drives the changes. Isolating this one change and determining cause surely should come after they have more knowledge of the basics?

A WWI soldier has been found in a melting glacier in the Dolomites, he is believed to have died during the fighting between Italian and Austro-Hungarian troops between 1915 and 1917. Does this mean the climate there was warmer prior to that point? Logic (or at least my logic) suggests it must have been otherwise he would have been found earlier, or if not discovered, certainly rotted away to nothing but bones if he'd lain uncovered for any period of time.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1306109/Skeleton-World-War-I-soldier-buried-glacier-Italian-ski-resort.html?ITO=1490#ixzz0xhikZVVb

[Gray-Wolf]

We still use guns to force avalanches today don't we J'? If you want a more 'reasonable' cause he was amongst the thousands overtaken by avalanches (purposely brought down on troop emplacements?). His missing head is key as this would suggest that any 'loose bits' of his blown apart body ended up in different areas of the avalanche. The fact that we have melted through the bulk of this would show considerable warming since the event would it not?

EDIT: One to watch though as if it was an avalanche the evidence will be readily available?

EDIT:EDIT;

This just in.......

http://www.vancouver...2855/story.html

http://www.nationalp...3698/story.html

Seems a 'Bermuda sized chunk' has now collapsed from the last remnants of the ice shelfs (over 3, to 5 thousand yrs old) on the North shore of Ellesmere Island (no entombed soldiers though.......)

Edited August 26, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[Guest mycroft]

But pointing to what is believed to be a 'response' to AGW is also valid is it not? Once again we see one 'study' in isolation but surely we should look at it amongst it's brother and sister studies that show other 'changes' that are in line with what is expected from the warming GHG's drives.

How many studies, showing impacts strongly consistent with AGW warming, must be dismissed before we think that the weight of evidence (across the board) tends to be confirming it's initial impacts (and so form a real and urgent 'call to action')?

But how are we to know that they are anything to do with AGW,even if it is happening!

[Gray-Wolf]

I imagine this is where our own individual 'nous' enters into the fray mycroft!

It appears that 90% surety just doesn't wash with some sections of the population and they 'need' more to be convinced.

Within that 10% are ,sadly, lodged the nutters of extreme (the same applies to moon landings and 'flat Earth' with a small number of doubters on the farcical extremes!)

It would appear that I need less 'proof positive' than your good self and the plethora of studies that support the 'modelled impacts' of AGW are becoming less and less easy to ignore.

It's just the same with the demise of Ward Hunt. How much of this 'remnant of the last ice age' has chosen the past 15yrs to give up the ghost and melt? I have to ask 'why' this should be and find the dramatic changes in the Arctic pointing squarely towards a sustained degradation of the Arctic above and beyond past (3 to 5 thousand years for the Ellesmere Island Ice Shelfs) 'natural' variations.

When you couple this with a strengthening ENSO ,a more Northerly track of L.P.'s into the Arctic Basin, an emerging Arctic Amplification (and it's impacts on circulation) continued warming of the planet, Extreme flooding events, extreme drought events, etc,etc I find the 'emerging proofs' hard to dismiss. But this is just my 'tolerances' being displayed.

[sunny starry skies]

I imagine this is where our own individual 'nous' enters into the fray mycroft!

It appears that 90% surety just doesn't wash with some sections of the population and they 'need' more to be convinced.

Within that 10% are ,sadly, lodged the nutters of extreme (the same applies to moon landings and 'flat Earth' with a small number of doubters on the farcical extremes!)

It would appear that I need less 'proof positive' than your good self and the plethora of studies that support the 'modelled impacts' of AGW are becoming less and less easy to ignore.

It's just the same with the demise of Ward Hunt. How much of this 'remnant of the last ice age' has chosen the past 15yrs to give up the ghost and melt? I have to ask 'why' this should be and find the dramatic changes in the Arctic pointing squarely towards a sustained degradation of the Arctic above and beyond past (3 to 5 thousand years for the Ellesmere Island Ice Shelfs) 'natural' variations.

When you couple this with a strengthening ENSO ,a more Northerly track of L.P.'s into the Arctic Basin, an emerging Arctic Amplification (and it's impacts on circulation) continued warming of the planet, Extreme flooding events, extreme drought events, etc,etc I find the 'emerging proofs' hard to dismiss. But this is just my 'tolerances' being displayed.

Much like a single extreme event not being indicative by itself of change, an increasing trend of extreme events (such as the well-known temperature charts for the US) is much more persuasive. In a similar way, right across the globe, we see responses consistent with AGW - one of those responses on their own are not indicative, but all together they provide a much stronger body of evidence, especially when taken alongside the direct measurements of increased radiative forcing due to CO2 molecules.

Jethro, in your Dolomites soldier example, increased snowfall in that region after he died would have the same effect as lowering temperatures.

Edited August 26, 2010 by sunny starry skies

[Gray-Wolf]

Much like a single extreme event not being indicative by itself of change, an increasing trend of extreme events (such as the well-known temperature charts for the US) is much more persuasive. In a similar way, right across the globe, we see responses consistent with AGW - one of those responses on their own are not indicative, but all together they provide a much stronger body of evidence, especially when taken alongside the direct measurements of increased radiative forcing due to CO2 molecules.

Jethro, in your Dolomites soldier example, increased snowfall in that region after he died would have the same effect as lowering temperatures.

http://www.newscient...=climate-change

The above is a report on the meeting last week to see if we can ascribe AGW to individual weather events (apparently the 03' european drought was 50% likely to have been AGW induced!)

As for our soldier it was common practice to haul Guns up to 9,000ft to bury other troops/gun emplacements. The odds seem to favour either being blown apart (which caused an avalanche) or being blown apart and then getting swamped by an avalanche. If he is in-situ the where's the head? I'm sure they'd have covered the immediate area to find it (but with no success). Anyone watching "Finding the Fallen" will know the lengths folk now go to to recover ,and identify, soldiers from the Great War.

Edited August 26, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[Guest mycroft]

I imagine this is where our own individual 'nous' enters into the fray mycroft!

It appears that 90% surety just doesn't wash with some sections of the population and they 'need' more to be convinced.

Within that 10% are ,sadly, lodged the nutters of extreme (the same applies to moon landings and 'flat Earth' with a small number of doubters on the farcical extremes!)

It would appear that I need less 'proof positive' than your good self and the plethora of studies that support the 'modelled impacts' of AGW are becoming less and less easy to ignore.

It's just the same with the demise of Ward Hunt. How much of this 'remnant of the last ice age' has chosen the past 15yrs to give up the ghost and melt? I have to ask 'why' this should be and find the dramatic changes in the Arctic pointing squarely towards a sustained degradation of the Arctic above and beyond past (3 to 5 thousand years for the Ellesmere Island Ice Shelfs) 'natural' variations.

When you couple this with a strengthening ENSO ,a more Northerly track of L.P.'s into the Arctic Basin, an emerging Arctic Amplification (and it's impacts on circulation) continued warming of the planet, Extreme flooding events, extreme drought events, etc,etc I find the 'emerging proofs' hard to dismiss. But this is just my 'tolerances' being displayed.

As you say individual thoughts,

As regards 90% surety.No i don't buy it from an organistion "IPCC" that can't be bothered to check up/peer review and gets its info from decades old press cuttings.

Would those "modelled impacts" include the "Hot Spot" in the upper trophoshere over the tropics that sadly has (as far i recall ) not yet appeared.Plus the "cool years" 1940-1975 yet CO2 was still on the riseand global temp dropped??.And proxy tree ring data not behaving as it should after 1960??.Extreme flooding and drought have been part and parcel of humanity sine we first crawled out the oceans.

As you say there are nutters, lodged within the argument,many of whom think that the Antartic ice shelf is dissappearing depite record growth,and that the Artic/Greenland icecap will melt,

Emerging proofs is the one thing that climate science is yet to convince a large part of the population of yet

wouldn't you say.

but this is just my in-tolerances showing. Now back to Above Top Secret site.

Edited August 26, 2010 by mycroft

[sunny starry skies]

As you say individual thoughts,

As regards 90% surety.No i don't buy it from an organistion "IPCC" that can't be bothered to check up/peer review and gets its info from decades old press cuttings.

Would those "modelled impacts" include the "Hot Spot" in the upper trophoshere over the tropics that sadly has (as far i recall ) not yet appeared.Plus the "cool years" 1940-1975 yet CO2 was still on the riseand global temp dropped??.And proxy tree ring data not behaving as it should after 1960??.Extreme flooding and drought have been part and parcel of humanity sine we first crawled out the oceans.

As you say there are nutters, lodged within the argument,many of whom think that the Antartic ice shelf is dissappearing depite record growth,and that the Artic/Greenland icecap will melt,

Emerging proofs is the one thing that climate science is yet to convince a large part of the population of yet

wouldn't you say.

but this is just my in-tolerances showing. Now back to Above Top Secret site.

Most misconceptions like these can be found among the long list of skeptic arguments at Skeptical Science. I've listed them below with links to useful articles for you to read mycroft.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

IPCC: ever tried to produce a document with as few errors as AR4? http://www.skepticalscience.com/IPCC-Himalayan-glacier-2035-prediction.htm

Tropospheric hotspot: http://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot.htm - or more up-to-date here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/08/the-key-to-the-secrets-of-the-troposphere/ - the key point being that the hot spot occurs under any warming, not just GHGs.

'Cool years': aerosols: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-mid-20th-century-intermediate.htm

'post-1960 trees': http://www.skepticalscience.com/Tree-ring-proxies-divergence-problem.htm - Only some trees (high northern latitudes) and only post-1960. Other trees (lower latitudes etc) don't have the problem, neither do other proxies. Matching centuries worth of non-divergence-related proxies with centuries of divergence-related trees identifies this issue as a uniquely recent phenomenon.

Greenland/Antarctica are observed to be losing mass: http://www.skepticalscience.com/melting-ice-global-warming.htm

None of these are really news though!

[Guest mycroft]

Most misconceptions like these can be found among the long list of skeptic arguments at Skeptical Science. I've listed them below with links to useful articles for you to read mycroft.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

IPCC: ever tried to produce a document with as few errors as AR4? http://www.skepticalscience.com/IPCC-Himalayan-glacier-2035-prediction.htm

Tropospheric hotspot: http://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot.htm - or more up-to-date here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/08/the-key-to-the-secrets-of-the-troposphere/ - the key point being that the hot spot occurs under any warming, not just GHGs.

'Cool years': aerosols: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-mid-20th-century-intermediate.htm

'post-1960 trees': http://www.skepticalscience.com/Tree-ring-proxies-divergence-problem.htm - Only some trees (high northern latitudes) and only post-1960. Other trees (lower latitudes etc) don't have the problem, neither do other proxies. Matching centuries worth of non-divergence-related proxies with centuries of divergence-related trees identifies this issue as a uniquely recent phenomenon.

Greenland/Antarctica are observed to be losing mass: http://www.skepticalscience.com/melting-ice-global-warming.htm

None of these are really news though!

thanks for the post,but i'll take it with a pinch of salt from that particular site

unless climate audit, climate skeptic, wuwt. can be linked in to sceptical views and argments

cheers

[Gray-Wolf]

No takers on the latest collapse of Ward Hunt then? (well that's a real ward hunt.....)

[jethro]

No takers on the latest collapse of Ward Hunt then? (well that's a real ward hunt.....)

What kind of a question is that?

Sometimes I really do wonder if folk on here want to discuss this issue because they're genuinely concerned about the climate and our future or if they're just bored and want to play a game of tit for tat, I'm right and you're wrong, blah, blah, blah.

May I suggest if it's the former, then phrasing questions in such a confrontational manner is perhaps not the best way forward. If it's the latter, then find a new hobby.

[Gray-Wolf]

J' , you either take me (or you?) to seriously!

As is often mooted 'what can we do about it?' It's made quite clear that it'd take a near ice age to re-build the thing but there is surely a point to it's (the Arctic ice shelfs) melting out now?

For those who see only 'natural variation' surely it'd take a bit of explaining as to why the rocks below haven't seen the sun in at least 3 to 5 thousand years and it is really this bit of 'knowledge' I'm after as I can do no more than believe what I see in the Arctic as a 'real' and modern phenomena (and far beyond the 'natural variations' the paleo record shows us).

Every time an 'uncomfortable' piece of knowledge emerges that pushes folk closer to accepting the IPCC " 90% surety" that " it's us what done it !" there are grumps from folk?

Why?

EDIT: In so far as 'Man' V's 'Natural' there is only one answer?

AGW proponents never question the 'natural' variations in climate the question is purely the extent of 'mans' influence on the climate.

He either has ,or has not, queered the deal?

Edited August 26, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[jethro]

J' , you either take me (or you?) to seriously!

As is often mooted 'what can we do about it?' It's made quite clear that it'd take a near ice age to re-build the thing but there is surely a point to it's (the Arctic ice shelfs) melting out now?

For those who see only 'natural variation' surely it'd take a bit of explaining as to why the rocks below haven't seen the sun in at least 3 to 5 thousand years and it is really this bit of 'knowledge' I'm after as I can do no more than believe what I see in the Arctic as a 'real' and modern phenomena (and far beyond the 'natural variations' the paleo record shows us).

Every time an 'uncomfortable' piece of knowledge emerges that pushes folk closer to accepting the IPCC " 90% surety" that " it's us what done it !" there are grumps from folk?

Why?

EDIT: In so far as 'Man' V's 'Natural' there is only one answer?

AGW proponents never question the 'natural' variations in climate the question is purely the extent of 'mans' influence on the climate.

He either has ,or has not, queered the deal?

What I take seriously is that everyone on here has a fair crack of the whip and the freedom to express their opinions without being either intimidated or ridiculed by others. Sometimes you walk dangerously close to the line. You may be saying it in a jocular manner but that doesn't come across in the written word.

Every year as the melt season progresses we go through the same process of people getting ever more adamant that they're right and here's the visual evidence to prove it. To be honest, it approaches a scene from the Boxing Day sales where folk push and push to get their chance before it's too late.

The figures will speak for themselves at the end of the season regardless of the opinions expressed here, however loudly they may be expressed or however often.

[Guest mycroft]

J' , you either take me (or you?) to seriously!

As is often mooted 'what can we do about it?' It's made quite clear that it'd take a near ice age to re-build the thing but there is surely a point to it's (the Arctic ice shelfs) melting out now?

For those who see only 'natural variation' surely it'd take a bit of explaining as to why the rocks below haven't seen the sun in at least 3 to 5 thousand years and it is really this bit of 'knowledge' I'm after as I can do no more than believe what I see in the Arctic as a 'real' and modern phenomena (and far beyond the 'natural variations' the paleo record shows us).

Every time an 'uncomfortable' piece of knowledge emerges that pushes folk closer to accepting the IPCC " 90% surety" that " it's us what done it !" there are grumps from folk?

Why?

EDIT: In so far as 'Man' V's 'Natural' there is only one answer?

AGW proponents never question the 'natural' variations in climate the question is purely the extent of 'mans' influence on the climate.

He either has ,or has not, queered the deal?

Horrors of horrors ward hunt is melting,haven't we been coming out of the last ice ige for the last 10,000 years

isn't that supposed to happen or or is the coincidence that is happened in the 21st century just too much to ask that natural things happen. just like the rest of the northern glaciers melted over time and exposed most northern europe

Just like the Larsen B ice shelf breaking off, maybe it reached it's natural breaking point for an ice shelf

we only started study the place from 1950 onwards (Antartica)

GW Quote

"AGW proponents never question the 'natural' variations in climate the question is purely the extent of 'mans' influence on the climate".

What utter tosh, AGW proponents question all natural variations and if its a extreme event then it has to be AGWs

fault

GW Quote

"Every time an 'uncomfortable' piece of knowledge emerges that pushes folk closer to accepting the IPCC " 90% surety" that " it's us what done it !" there are grumps from folk?"

Thats the sceptics argument! how do we know whether that "piece of uncomfortable knowkedge" as you call it

is not natural its automatically thought of as AGW thats why folk get grumpy.A bit like the little boy who cried wolf too many times in the end no one belived him!!!

[sunny starry skies]

Every variation has to have a cause - whether 'natural' or not. Appealing to an unquantified natural variation, when we have a cause with all the relevant physical and direct observational evidence to support it (no I'm not talking about heatwaves or floods) seems irrational to me. Many natural variations are quantified - they are just smaller/show no trend w.r.t. GHGs.

In the news today - the Telegraph has for a second time in recent months had to print an apology for printing denialist misinformation, this time about Rajendra Pachauri:

http://www.guardian....l-relationships

http://climateprogre...aph-apologizes/

Pachauri was accused by various people, including usual suspects Booker and North of the Telegraph, of financially abusing his position as head of the IPCC. To clear his name, an audit of accounts was done by KPMG, which not only found Pachauri to have not gained from his position, he's refused financial rewards entitled to him! And he receives nothing for being head of IPCC either.

And yet the lying journalist North who started the whole fuss continues to make the same false statements after being shown to be wrong (see Monbiot's article)...

Once again, the trouble is that the initial lies have spread further and will be read and believed by many more people than the subsequent retraction and apology. And once again, the deniers show that they haven't the skill to attack the science, so they attack the messengers...

Edited August 27, 2010 by sunny starry skies

[Gray-Wolf]

In some ways ,S.S.S., it's a good sign when they are having to play foul tricks or just plain lie. If there was any chance of showing that AGW were not responsible for our current warming it would ,of course ,be being driven home at every opportunity. With the impacts of AGW becoming more and more obvious as time rolls on (and temps showing a continued upwards trend) and every attempt to discredit the science appearing to leave the science stronger (Arctic Ice melt being my fave with this years WUWT shenanigans this spring..... LOL ) the denialists have nothing else to do than call people names and throw hissy fits.

All in all if the science were not settled we'd be hearing about it much louder than we'd expect to hear any confirmation (100% surety) of AGW's presence and impacts.

Sadly , as many commentators observe, it may take a climatic disaster that cannot be anything other than AGW driven to settle the debate once and for all?

[Guest mycroft]

Every variation has to have a cause - whether 'natural' or not. Appealing to an unquantified natural variation, when we have a cause with all the relevant physical and direct observational evidence to support it (no I'm not talking about heatwaves or floods) seems irrational to me. Many natural variations are quantified - they are just smaller/show no trend w.r.t. GHGs.

In the news today - the Telegraph has for a second time in recent months had to print an apology for printing denialist misinformation, this time about Rajendra Pachauri:

http://www.guardian....l-relationships

http://climateprogre...aph-apologizes/

Pachauri was accused by various people, including usual suspects Booker and North of the Telegraph, of financially abusing his position as head of the IPCC. To clear his name, an audit of accounts was done by KPMG, which not only found Pachauri to have not gained from his position, he's refused financial rewards entitled to him! And he receives nothing for being head of IPCC either.

And yet the lying journalist North who started the whole fuss continues to make the same false statements after being shown to be wrong (see Monbiot's article)...

Once again, the trouble is that the initial lies have spread further and will be read and believed by many more people than the subsequent retraction and apology. And once again, the deniers show that they haven't the skill to attack the science, so they attack the messengers...

I find it very strange that North and his paper stand by the accusation, strange when you consider the libel

laws of this country

"the article was sound, all the substantive facts are correct and the paper stands by them."

He goes on to suggest that Pachauri was indeed "corrupt or abusing his position as head of the IPCC" and maintains that the accusation that Pachauri has made millions of dollars "stands uncorrected".

Would of thought Pachauri has grounds for libel before and now?

[Devonian]

I find it very strange that North and his paper stand by the accusation, strange when you consider the libel

laws of this country

"the article was sound, all the substantive facts are correct and the paper stands by them."

Actually North says 'his paper stand by the accusation' and 'the article was sound, all the substantive facts are correct and the paper stands by them.'. The Telegraph has said no such thing. That North feels the need to suggest say the Telegraph has said something it hasn't adds to the suspicion that you can't believe a word North says.

He goes on to suggest that Pachauri was indeed "corrupt or abusing his position as head of the IPCC" and maintains that the accusation that Pachauri has made millions of dollars "stands uncorrected".

No, North makes the accusation again. Since this accusation has been refuted (by the apology for The Telegraph and the KPMG work) it adds further weight to the idea you simply cannot trust North.

Would of thought Pachauri has grounds for libel before and now?

He could. But do you think anything would shut up North? He is, clearly, a man who's mind is made up. A man who's mind is closed to the idea Dr Pachauri might be innocent of the changes he scatters about.

[Yorkshiresnows]

I find it very strange that North and his paper stand by the accusation, strange when you consider the libel

laws of this country

"the article was sound, all the substantive facts are correct and the paper stands by them."

He goes on to suggest that Pachauri was indeed "corrupt or abusing his position as head of the IPCC" and maintains that the accusation that Pachauri has made millions of dollars "stands uncorrected".

Would of thought Pachauri has grounds for libel before and now?

Hi Mycroft,

I have to say I have been enjoying your recent posts.

However, I would refrain from indulging the usual suspects in continuous debate (save yourself the hassle). There are those who will never move from their entrenched view !!

Keep posting

Y.S