Thread: A Convenient Fiction

Originally Posted by Clippo

Poptech wrote:-

There are at least a dozen variations of the hockey stick graph using different proxies and published by completely different researchers with no connection to Mann.

AND THEY ALL REACH THE SAME CONCLUSION AS THE MANN 'HOCKEY STICK' I.E THE LATE 20TH CENTURY WARMING IS ANOMALOUS OVER THE AT LEAST THE LAST THOUSAND YEARS

(SOME SOURCES SUGGEST, IN THE EXTREME, OVER THE LAST FEW MILLION YEARS)

No they don't, all the NAS report concluded was that the current temperatures are warmer than the little ice age. All those proxy reconstructions have to artificially attach modern temperature records to get the sharp end inflection - which is propaganda. All the proxy reconstructions besides Mann's that go back far enough show a clear MWP and LIA.

Originally Posted by Poptech

When using Mann's computer program that creates his temperature graph and entering made up data, it always produces a hockey stick shaped graph.

OK. Noise, by its nature is random. Now, if you used a random function to replicate that, you would generally get different results every time you ran that simulation. Not the same result every time.
Perhaps you can demonstrate a computer simulation that would produce always the same output with random input data as one of the factors.

Poptech wrote:-

No they don't, all the NAS report concluded was that the current temperatures are warmer than the little ice age. All those proxy reconstructions have to artificially attach modern temperature records to get the sharp end inflection - which is propaganda. All the proxy reconstructions besides Mann's that go back far enough show a clear MWP and LIA.

You are deluding yourself and trying to change the emphasis of the debate.

The original 'hockey stick' was constructed in an attempt to answer the scientific concern at the time whether the earth was indeed warming. It did so - in such certain terms it became the 'poster child' of GW.

Since this completely undermined the sceptic's case that either the world wasn't warming, or if it was it was due to natural variation, it was attacked to try to show that it was unreliable (and therefore by implication the whole was worthless), by questioning why it didn't show the MWP or LIA. An officially appointed committee of the US congress concluded that Mann had analysed the proxy data in a way that could be criticised but that Von Storch* (who had criticised Mann's method) stated that by doing the analysis in an 'acceptable way, endorsed also by the American Statistical Association I believe it made not difference to the main conclusion that scientists were seeking an answer to e.g
The late 20th century global temperature rise was anomalous since about 1000 AD.
* I believe there is archive video footage of this somewhere.

Subsequent studies, using different proxies but the 'correct' analysis, show sometimes greater, sometimes smaller rises in the MWP and similar falls in the LIA - but they also conclude that the late 20th c rise is anomalous and can't be justified on natural variation alone.
These MWP & LIA inconsistencies have suggested to the consensus that they may have been ‘regional’ and/or Northern Hemisphere effects, not Global.

You might like to read this:-
http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

Come back to the real world Poptech – the vast consensus of scientists around the world, and governments and many if not most ordinary citizens, agree that GW is real, and is mostly caused by mankinds acticities of which the greatest is burning fossil fuels.
More relevantly, those experts in statistics, biology speliology glaciology etc etc on which the proxies are based agree that current warming is anomalous and thus the Hockey stick was largely correct.

Finally from:-
Climate Stewardship Act: Spring 2004 | Union of Concerned Scientists

One short & relevant passage:-

Although the McIntyre-McKitrick study was quickly discredited in scientific circles, the op-ed in USA Today was clearly timed to influence the CSA debate in the Senate and was mentioned during the debate several times by those senators looking for an excuse to oppose the CSA.

G hall wrote:-

But you have stated time and time again how important "peer review" is therefore I can only conclude you are only supportive when it is the favour of your position

On the contrary, if I could find some properly peer-reviewed papers which cast doubt on the consensus view of AGW I would be happy to refer to them.

By making this accusation, you really are showing you do not understand peer-review and the subsequent ‘validation’ of published theories.

& re Environment & Energy, you wrote:-

because you happen to disagree, so you pick and choose rather a lot don't you

You are incorrect again. My views of E & E are the result of many criticisms of it throughout the scientific literature.

‘As a starting point’, perhaps you would like to read the Wiki page on it:-
Energy and Environment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(This is quite polite in many ways)

Or perhaps what the real climate scientists think:-

Nexus 6: Bottom of the barrel

Originally Posted by Besoeker

OK. Noise, by its nature is random. Now, if you used a random function to replicate that, you would generally get different results every time you ran that simulation. Not the same result every time.

I am not really sure you are understanding.

It is possible to force a common generalized outcome even with random input data like Mann did through mathematical tricks. Even when M&M fed his program random data the output was never perfectly the same but the generalized shape was. Thus his program was written to produce a hockey stick shape. He had effectively concluded that this should happen and wrote his program to make sure it did, that is scientific fraud.

Perhaps you can demonstrate a computer simulation that would produce always the same output with random input data as one of the factors.

Easy, just ignore all the data. For simplicity you can have the program look only for a dataset that is valued = 1 and if it does not find that create one that = 1. Then write the program to create the output you want on the dataset = 1. You can do whatever you want with a computer program. But Mann was not this obvious, he simply averaged all older temperature values near 0 and gradually increased the average values that got closer to modern times = Hockey Stick Shape. He specifically choose to highly value certain tree ring proxies that do not meet scientifically accepted standards. These proxy sets were from a limited number of trees and did not match the higher standards of other proxy sets, he was also caught duplicating or making up some data sets. Mann is a fraud and the those that defend him are nothing less than computer illiterate.

Originally Posted by Clippo

The original 'hockey stick' was constructed in an attempt to answer the scientific concern at the time whether the earth was indeed warming. It did so - in such certain terms it became the 'poster child' of GW.

Clippo you are correct but worded this wrong, here let me help you....

"The original 'hockey stick' was constructed in an attempt to conclude the scientific propaganda at the time that the earth was indeed warming and caused by man(n). It did so - in such certain terms it became the 'poster child' of GW propaganda.

Originally Posted by Clippo

An officially appointed committee of the US congress concluded that Mann had analysed the proxy data in a way that could be criticised but that Von Storch* (who had criticised Mann's method) stated that by doing the analysis in an 'acceptable way, endorsed also by the American Statistical Association I believe it made not difference to the main conclusion that scientists were seeking an answer to e.g
The late 20th century global temperature rise was anomalous since about 1000 AD.

Yes the NAS concluded:

Originally Posted by NAS

Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that "the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium" [...]

Prior to about 1600, ...periods of medieval warmth are seen in a number of diverse records, including historical information from Europe and Asia; cave deposits; marine and lake sediments; and ice cores from Greenland, Ellesmere Island, Tibet, and the equatorial Andes. [...]

Using proxies sensitive to hydrologic variables (including moisture-sensitive trees...) to take advantage of observed correlations with surface temperature could lead to problems [...]

For tree ring chronologies, the process of removing biological trends from ringwidth data potentially obscures information on long-term changes in climate. [...]

Large-scale surface temperature reconstructions yield a generally consistent picture of temperature trends during the preceding millennium, including relatively warm conditions centered around A.D. 1000 (identified by some as the “Medieval Warm Period”) and a relatively cold period (or “Little Ice Age”) centered around 1700. The existence and extent of a Little Ice Age from roughly 1500 to 1850 is supported by a wide variety of evidence including ice cores, tree rings, borehole temperatures, glacier length records, and historical documents. Evidence for regional warmth during medieval times can be found in a diverse ...set of records including ice cores, tree rings, marine sediments, and historical sources from Europe and Asia

All the NAS report concluded was that modern temperatures are warmed than the LIA!

Originally Posted by Clippo

Subsequent studies, using different proxies but the 'correct' analysis, show sometimes greater, sometimes smaller rises in the MWP and similar falls in the LIA - but they also conclude that the late 20th c rise is anomalous and can't be justified on natural variation alone.

The report does no such thing! The NAS report only features two proxy series that goes back as far as Mann's (Moberg and Esper) both proxy reconstructions CLEARLY show a MWP warmer than today and a LIA colder than today. They included Mann's reconstruction in red (god knows why), modern instrument values (no bearing on reconstructions) in black that only go back 150 years, Borehole temperatures and glacier lengths which only go back to the LIA and Hegert's reconstruction which only goes back to 1250 (the end of the MWP)!!! Anyone can clearly see this:



EVERYONE LOOK CLOSELY AT WHAT I JUST WROTE AND THE GRAPH TO SEE CLIPPO IS LYING AGAIN!

Better do your homework better next time Clippo.

Come back to the real world Poptech – the vast consensus of scientists around the world, and governments and many if not most ordinary citizens, agree that GW is real, and is mostly caused by mankinds acticities of which the greatest is burning fossil fuels.

This is a lie as there is no Consensus.

Originally Posted by Clippo

if I could find some properly peer-reviewed papers which cast doubt on the consensus view of AGW

There is extensive Peer-Reviewed papers skeptical of AGW...

A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions
(International Journal of Climatology, 5 Dec 2007)
- David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer

180 years of atmospheric CO2 gas analysis by chemical methods
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 2, pp. 259-282(24), March 2007)
- Beck, Ernst-Georg

Altitude dependence of atmospheric temperature trends: Climate models versus observation
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 31, L13208, 2004)
- David H. Douglass, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer

An assessment of validation experiments conducted on computer models of global climate using the general circulation model of the UK's Hadley Centre
(Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 491-502, September 1999)
- R. S. Courtney

Are observed changes in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere really dangerous?
(Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology,v. 50, no. 2, p. 297-327, June 2002)
- C. R. de Freitas

Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climate change?
(Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 94, pp. 8335-8342, August 1997)
- Richard S. Lindzen

Climate Change - A Natural Hazard
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 215-232(18), May 1, 2003)
- W. Kininmonth

Climate change and the world bank: Opportunity for global governance?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 27-50(24), January 1, 1999)
- S. A. Boehmer-Christiansen

Climate change: Conflict of observational science, theory, and politics
(AAPG Bulletin, Vol. 88, no9, pp. 1211-1220, 2004)
- Lee C. Gerhard

- Climate change: Conflict of observational science, theory, and politics: Reply
(AAPG Bulletin, v. 90, no. 3, p. 409-412, March 2006)
- Lee C. Gerhard

Climate change in the Arctic and its empirical diagnostics
(Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 469-482, September 1999)
- V.V. Adamenko, K.Y. Kondratyev, C.A. Varotsos

Climate Change is Nothing New!
(New Concepts In Global Tectonics, No. 42, March, 2007)
- Lance Endersbee

Climate Change Re-examined
(Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 723–749, 2007)
- Joel M. Kauffman

Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered
(Physics & Society, Volume 37, Number 3, July 2008)
- Christopher Monckton

- Letter from Lord Monckton to APS President, Paper was Peer-Reviewed (PDF)
- Statement by The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (PDF)

CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic’s view of potential climate change
(Climate Research, Vol. 10: 69–82, 1998)
- Sherwood B. Idso

Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2 Emission
(Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects, Volume 30, Issue 1, pages 1 - 9, January 2008)
- G. V. Chilingar, L. F. Khilyuk, O. G. Sorokhtin

Crystal balls, virtual realities and 'storylines'
(Energy & Environment, Volume 12, Number 4, pp. 343-349, July 2001)
- R.S. Courtney

Dangerous global warming remains unproven
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 1, pp. 167-169, January 2007)
- R.M. Carter

Does CO2 really drive global warming?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 12, Number 4, pp. 351-355, July 2001)
- R.H. Essenhigh

Does human activity widen the tropics?
(arXiv:0803.1959v1, Mar 13 2008)
- Katya Georgieva, Boian Kirov

Earth's rising atmospheric CO2 concentration: Impacts on the biosphere
(Energy & Environment, Volume 12, Number 4, pp. 287-310, July 2001)
- C.D. Idso

Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
(Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Volume 12, Number 3, 2007)
- Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, Willie Soon

Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
(Climate Research, Vol. 13, Pg. 149–164, October 26 1999)
- Arthur B. Robinson, Zachary W. Robinson, Willie Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas

Evidence for "publication Bias" Concerning Global Warming in Science and Nature
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 2, pp. 287-301, March 2008)
- Patrick J. Michaels

Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
(Physics, arXiv:0707.1161)
- Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner

Free speech about climate change
(Society, Volume 44, Number 4, May, 2007)
- Christopher Monckton

Global Climate Models Violate Scaling of the Observed Atmospheric Variability
(Physical Review Letters, Vol. 89, No. 2, July 8, 2002)
- R. B. Govindan, Dmitry Vyushin, Armin Bunde, Stephen Brenner, Shlomo Havlin, Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber

Global Warming
(Progress in Physical Geography, 27, 448-455, 2003)
- W. Soon, S. L. Baliunas

Global Warming: The Social Construction of A Quasi-Reality?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 6, pp. 805-813, November 2007)
- Dennis Ambler

Global warming and the mining of oceanic methane hydrate
(Topics in Catalysis, Volume 32, Numbers 3-4, pp. 95-99, March 2005)
- Chung-Chieng Lai, David Dietrich, Malcolm Bowman

Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists Versus Scientific Forecasts
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 997-1021, December 2007)
- Keston C. Green, J. Scott Armstrong

Global Warming: Myth or Reality? The Actual Evolution of the Weather Dynamics
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 297-322, May 2003)
- M. Leroux

Global Warming: the Sacrificial Temptation
(arXiv:0803.1239v1, Mar 10 2008)
- Serge Galam

Global warming: What does the data tell us?
(arXivhysics/0210095v1, Oct 23 2002)
- E. X. Alban, B. Hoeneisen

Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres
(IdŰjárás, vol. 111, no1, pp. 1-40, 2007)
- Ferenc M. Miskolczi

Human Contribution to Climate Change Remains Questionable
(Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, Volume 80, Issue 16, p. 183-183, April 20, 1999)
- S. Fred Singer

Industrial CO2 emissions as a proxy for anthropogenic influence on lower tropospheric temperature trends
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 31, L05204, 2004)
- A. T. J. de Laat, A. N. Maurellis

Implications of the Secondary Role of Carbon Dioxide and Methane Forcing in Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
(Physical Geography, Volume 28, Number 2, pp. 97-125(29), March 2007)
- Soon, Willie

Is a Richer-but-warmer World Better than Poorer-but-cooler Worlds?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1023-1048, December 2007)
- Indur M. Goklany

Key Aspects of Global Climate Change
(Energy & Environment, Volume 15, Number 3, pp. 469-503(35), July 1, 2004)
- Ya. K. Kondratyev

Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth
(Energy & Environment, 2008)
- David H. Douglass, John R. Christy

Methodology and Results of Calculating Central California Surface Temperature Trends: Evidence of Human-Induced Climate Change?
(Journal of Climate, Volume: 19 Issue: 4, February 2006)
- Christy, J.R., W.B. Norris, K. Redmond, K. Gallo

Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties
(Climate Research, Vol. 18: 259–275, 2001)
- Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier

- Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties. Reply to Risbey (2002)
(Climate Research, Vol. 22: 187–188, 2002)
- Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier

- Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties. Reply to Karoly et al.
(Climate Research, Vol. 24: 93–94, 2003)
- Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier

Multi-scale analysis of global temperature changes and trend of a drop in temperature in the next 20 years
(Springer Wien, Volume 95, January, 2007)
- Lin Zhen-Shan, Sun Xian

New Little Ice Age Instead of Global Warming?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 327-350, 1 May 2003)
- Landscheidt T.

Oceanic influences on recent continental warming
(Climate Dynamics, 2008)
- G.P. Compo, P.D. Sardeshmukh

On a possibility of estimating the feedback sign of the Earth climate system
(Proceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences: Engineering. Vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 260-268. Sept. 2007)
- Olavi Kamer

On global forces of nature driving the Earth's climate. Are humans involved?
(Environmental Geology, Volume 50, Number 6, August 2006)
- L. F. Khilyuk and G. V. Chilingar

On the credibility of climate predictions
(Hydrological Sciences Journal, 53 (4), 671-684, 2008)
- D. Koutsoyiannis, A. Efstratiadis, N. Mamassis, and A. Christofides

Phanerozoic Climatic Zones and Paleogeography with a Consideration of Atmospheric CO2 Levels
(Paleontological Journal, 2: 3-11, 2003)
- A. J. Boucot, Chen Xu, C. R. Scotese

Potential Biases in Feedback Diagnosis from Observational Data: A Simple Model Demonstration
(Journal of Climate, 2008)
- Roy W. Spencer, William D. Braswell

Quantifying the influence of anthropogenic surface processes and inhomogeneities on gridded global climate data
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 112, D24S09, 2007)
- Ross R. McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels

Quantitative implications of the secondary role of carbon dioxide climate forcing in the past glacial-interglacial cycles for the likely future climatic impacts of anthropogenic greenhouse-gas forcings
(arXiv:0707.1276, July 2007)
- Soon, Willie

Scientific Consensus on Climate Change?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 2, pp. 281-286, March 2008)
- Klaus-Martin Schulte

Seductive Simulations? Uncertainty Distribution Around Climate Models
(Social Studies of Science, Vol. 35, No. 6, 895-922, 2005)
- Myanna Lahsen

Some Coolness Concerning Global Warming
(Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 71, Issue 3, pp. 288–299, March 1990)
- Richard S. Lindzen

Some examples of negative feedback in the Earth climate system
(Central European Journal of Physics, Volume 3, Number 2, June 2005)
- Olavi Kärner

Statistical analysis does not support a human influence on climate
(Energy & Environment, Volume 13, Number 3, pp. 329-331, July 2002)
- S. Fred Singer

Taking GreenHouse Warming Seriously
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 937-950, December 2007)
- Richard S. Lindzen

Temperature trends in the lower atmosphere
(Energy & Environment, Volume 17, Number 5, pp. 707-714, September 2006)
- Vincent Gray

Temporal Variability in Local Air Temperature Series Shows Negative Feedback
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1059-1072, December 2007)
- Olavi Kärner

The carbon dioxide thermometer and the cause of global warming
(Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 1-18(18), January 1, 1999)
- N. Calder

The cause of global warming
(Energy & Environment, Volume 11, Number 6, pp. 613-629, November 1, 2000)
- Vincent Gray

The Fraud Allegation Against Some Climatic Research of Wei-Chyung Wang
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 985-995, December 2007)
- Douglas J. Keenan

The continuing search for an anthropogenic climate change signal: Limitations of correlation-based approaches
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 24, No. 18, Pages 2319–2322, 1997)
- David R. Legates, Robert E. Davis

The "Greenhouse Effect" as a Function of Atmospheric Mass
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 351-356, 1 May 2003)
- H. Jelbring

The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 2, pp. 217-238, March 2005)
- A. Rörsch, R. Courtney, D. Thoenes

The IPCC Emission Scenarios: An Economic-Statistical Critique
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 159-185(27), May 1, 2003)
- I. Castles, D. Henderson

The IPCC future projections: are they plausible?
(Climate Research, Vol. 10: 155–162, August 1998)
- Vincent Gray

The IPCC: Structure, Processes and Politics Climate Change - the Failure of Science
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1073-1078, December 2007)
- William J.R. Alexander

The UN IPCC's Artful Bias: Summary of Findings: Glaring Omissions, False Confidence and Misleading Statistics in the Summary for Policymakers
(Energy & Environment, Volume 13, Number 3, pp. 311-328, July 2002)
- Wojick D. E.

"The Wernerian syndrome"; aspects of global climate change; an analysis of assumptions, data, and conclusions
(Environmental Geosciences, v. 3, no. 4, p. 204-210, December 1996)
- Lee C. Gerhard

Uncertainties in assessing global warming during the 20th century: disagreement between key data sources
(Energy & Environment, Volume 17, Number 5, pp. 685-706, September 2006)
- Maxim Ogurtsov, Markus Lindholm

Why Is Climate Sensitivity So Unpredictable?
(Science, Vol. 318, no. 5850, pp. 629 - 632, October 2007)
- Gerard H. Roe, Marcia B. Baker

As usual Clippo resorts to Wikipedia.

Originally Posted by Poptech

I am not really sure you are understanding.

It is possible to force a common generalized outcome even with random input data like Mann did through mathematical tricks.

OK. Perhaps you could expand on your understanding of the mathematical tricks?

Originally Posted by Poptech

Easy, just ignore all the data. For simplicity you can have the program look only for a dataset that is valued = 1 and if it does not find that create one that = 1. Then write the program to create the output you want on the dataset = 1. You can do whatever you want with a computer program. But Mann was not this obvious, he simply averaged all older temperature values near 0 and gradually increased the average values that got closer to modern times = Hockey Stick Shape. He specifically choose to highly value certain tree ring proxies that do not meet scientifically accepted standards. These proxy sets were from a limited number of trees and did not match the higher standards of other proxy sets, he was also caught duplicating or making up some data sets.

So Mann averaged out older temperatures. Hardly a random input.
Specifically choosing to highly value certain tree ring proxies is not random.
Duplication or making up data sets is not random.

For the avoidance of doubt, I am not defending Mann.
He may or may not be guilty of what you claim he did.
His detractors may have exposed some flaws in his methodology.

I'm not really sure you understand, old bean.
To conclude anything, I'd rather have the real data than some third hand opinion from a hack producing copy for a popular daily/weekly. But that seems to be the kind of source you use for the plethora of links you submit. That's fine as long as you factor in that such writers' main objective is to sell copy rather than necessarily be scientifically accurate or objective. The stories running up the start of the LHC operation are examples of that.

Where did you suddenly spring from Besoeker?

Why do you or Akria always seem to jump in to save Clippo?

You really must stop doing this coverup for Clippo,let him face up to the fact that not many on here believe a word he has to say on this GW/CC,and furthermore let him answer the questions that are asked of him.

You cant be around him for ever you know.