Imagine it is star date 41315.6. The USS Enterprise has gone into orbit around a remarkably Earth-like planet and Spock is uploading data from the surface which reveals the planet is peopled by sentient beings who do ‘science’. The first actual scientific paper he uploads is Harvey et al, Internet blogs, polar bears, and climate-change denial by proxy. Then imagine the scene on the Bridge, after everyone has read the paper via their console:

twtribbles
The crew of the USS Enterprise’s response to reading Harvey et al, 2017

Spock is the only one not amused. He is shocked at the extreme illogicality of the paper and even more shocked that it was peer-reviewed.

“It is not science as we know or understand it. Yet it is peer-reviewed, it exists”, he says, arms folded, to Kirk, who’s almost falling off his captain’s seat in stitches.

On the planet’s surface, there are some beings who agree with Spock. Richard Tol is one of them. Someone called Mosher is also one of them:

Tol,

Good catch on the single coder

Here is what I find hilarious. And I found the same thing hilarious in one of the Cook papers

These guys have zero clue how to do proper content analysis.

Even Lewandowski sucks ( brandon has done a pretty good job on his methodological blunders)

Knitting,
Stick to it.

or take some fricking lessons.

PS.. some of us like methodological take downs, regardless of the ox gored

 

Steven Mosher and Richard Tol are objecting to the dirt poor ‘scientific analysis’ used to arrive at the paper’s main conclusions. On Vulcan, for instance, demonstration that the methodology is flawed would automatically render the conclusions arrived at using that methodology invalid, unless some independent analysis was performed which otherwise confirmed them. On this planet, that isn’t so, as another scientist Ken Rice explains:

Steven,
I’m not quite [sure] how to make it clearer that I don’t really care. I have no great interest in defending Harvey et al. – the result seems pretty obvious, whether or not their analysis is sound. I have no great interest in criticising Richard’s response – people are free to make them.

In other words, ‘the result is obvious, so how you get there don’t matter, innit’.

Then the ‘climate scientist’ Mosher who’s a stickler for doing things correctly, lays his climate scientist’s cards on the table and reveals that he may not be as emotionally detached from his favourite core subject as Spock might consider necessary or desirable.

Bottom line. If you want to take down the clown Susan C, because she lacks any deep knowledge of Polar bears, its best to not be a content analysis clown.
because THEN even Tol can do a take down.

Jeez
Knitting.
stick to it.

 

Spock and the crew are about to learn a lot more about this weird phenomenon known as ‘climate science’, and the beings who do it, called ‘climate scientists’, on this far off Earth-like planet. They’ll discover that ‘climate science’ and climate scientists (and various hangers on, activists, apologists and other pretenders in academia) seek to rationalise and explain the causes and effects of a 0.9C rise in global average temperatures over 150 years – and some bad weather – as ‘anthropogenic’ which, if the crew ran the atmosphere and surface through their sensors, they would immediately identify the principal cause as being somewhat different to that which ‘climate science’ claims. But it’s the 24th Century and you can’t go warp-driving from one planet to the next with the aim of making the primitive inhabitants suddenly ‘woke’ – it would cause chaos; they have to learn, slowly and painfully, through their own mistakes.

In Part II, we’ll look at another two examples of ‘climate science’ research papers which might make Spock grimace and raise rather more than a wry smile from the rest of the Enterprise crew.

Tags: , ,

61 Comments

  1. As much as I like Mosher, he should ponder, in his Delphic Oracular manner, the proverb regarding pots calling kettles, when he refers to clowns.

    Like

  2. In other words, ‘the result is obvious, so how you get there don’t matter, innit’.

    No, that’s not what I’m suggesting. Broadly speaking, the result seems somewhat obvious. I don’t think one needs to do a content analysis to conclude that there are some blogs that dispute the disappearance of Arctic sea ice and dispute that polar bears are under threat and that use a source who appears to have little in the way of relevant expertise (as, for example, measured by peer-reviewed papers). Given this, I have no great interest in getting involved in a debate about the methodology of a paper that attempts to demonstrate this. The authors are perfectly capable of defending it themselves and if others (Tol and colleagues) would like to publish a response, they should feel free to do so.

    Like

  3. I have no great interest in getting involved in a debate

    And yet here you are. Again. Without interest.

    Liked by 8 people

  4. Ken – it looks very much like you are trying to disown your own words then put spin on the subject – like you always do. Arctic ice is receding but polar bears are not threatened, at least according to IUCN. Relevant expertise is a catch all phrase that seems to mean “believe in consensus” Nothing else matters. Otherwise, how is Lewandowski classified a climate scientist?

    Liked by 2 people

  5. Climate warriors don’t like to be tied down to meanings. They want the option of not being held to account for their claims, though while holding other people — deniers — to account for things they never have said.

    “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”

    Liked by 4 people

  6. Ken,

    “I don’t think one needs to do a content analysis to conclude that there are some blogs that dispute the disappearance of Arctic sea ice . . . . . ”

    As it’s so obvious, perhaps you could list a few of these blogs which dispute the fact that sea-ice has been disappearing/declining.

    Liked by 3 people

  7. “I don’t know what you mean by ‘disappearance,’ ” Jaime said.

    Ken smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t—till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!’ ”

    “But ‘disappearance’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument’,” Jaime objected.

    “When I use a word,” Ken said, in rather a scornful tone, “it simply means just what I simply choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

    “The question is,” said Jaime, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

    “The question is,” said Ken, “which is to be master—that’s all.”

    Liked by 4 people

  8. There is of course the difficult question of distinguishing between peer-reviewed and pal-reviewed scientific papers. If the Enterprise crew were confused and resorted to using the Vulcan mind probe on Lewendowski – that way madness lurks.

    Liked by 4 people

  10. Seems to me that “Susan C’s” commentary and papers on Polar Bears are borne out by no less than WWF, who have been co-operating with a tour company to provide Polar Bear Tours for close on 30 years, not a skinny bear in sight:

    http://churchillpolarbears.org/2017/07/polar-bear-alert-in-churchill/
    “Unofficially these are the first photos of polar bears in the area since last polar bear season in Churchill this past November. These bears are looking very healthy and ready to withstand the summer and early fall prior to the pack ice forming on the Hudson Bay. This is a good sign for the polar bears of the region!”

    https://www.nathab.com/polar-bear-tours/
    http://churchillpolarbears.org/polar-bear-tours/polar-bear-trips/

    With hundreds of bears in a 850,000 hectare area, every behavior and dynamic can be seen throughout the season. Sparring, nursing cubs, polar bears with seal kills on the coast and bears sleeping in the willows all provide unique ways for observation. However, most travelers agree that polar bears approaching the Polar Rovers at close range as well as at times sniffing at the people inside as they press up against the vehicles is more spectacular and thrilling then anything else in Churchill.

    From $6695, with a full program for the coming year, so they must be expecting plenty of bears.

    “See the King of the Arctic in its wild home in the Polar Bear Capital of the World! Our small-group adventures to Churchill, Canada get you closer to more polar bears, in exceptional comfort and safety, than anywhere else. Each fall, the world’s greatest concentration of polar bears convenes at the edge of Hudson Bay, waiting for the ice to form and their winter seal-hunting season to begin. Guided by our naturalist Expedition Leaders, we view them from custom-built Polar Rovers. Polar Rovers are powered by 7.5 litre 240 H.P. DT466 International diesel engines, giving us a top speed of 35 miles per hour. [I expect they buy carbon offsets…]

    https://itstillruns.com/specifications-international-dt-466-engine-7696166.html

    “Or, for the ultimate immersion in the kingdom of the polar bear, stay at our private Tundra Lodge, situated directly in the bears’ realm. Read about what it’s like to spend a season with the bears on our Churchill Polar Bear blog.”

    The descriptions below, which detail typical weather and polar bear migration patterns in and around Churchill, are gleaned from our nearly three decades of operating polar bear trips in the region. The photos in our published materials demonstrate a sampling of different conditions, from bare autumn tundra to full snow cover.

    Churchill is a semi-arid environment with relatively little snowfall for a place associated so closely with the North. We have witnessed years when snow arrives by late September and remains throughout the season, and years when the ground is bare until late December. It is impossible to predict snow cover, but travelers should be aware that the Churchill tundra environment is not always white.”

    Liked by 2 people

  11. My interest in having such a discussion is very similar to my interest in discussing the methodological merits of Harvey et al, and for very similar reasons.

    It’s disinterest, Jaim’, but not as you know it.

    Liked by 4 people

  12. Rice’ position has been consistent: If the result is right, the method doesn’t matter. It is as if the Enlightenment passed by Edinburgh.

    Liked by 9 people

  13. Tol,

    Rice’ position has been consistent: If the result is right, the method doesn’t matter.

    No, that isn’t my view/position. If you really wanted to know my view you could always just ask. I appreciate, though, that that would then make it more obvious when you misrepresented it. Easier just to make it up.

    Like

  14. People have asked. It’s just something you’re apparently not very
    interested in – though the evidence is quite clearly to the contrary.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. ‘Rice’[s] position has been consistent: If the result is right, the method doesn’t matter.’

    +1

    Liked by 1 person

  18. @wottsyflotts
    Denying it does not make it less true. You have argued numerous times in different contexts that all is fine if the result confirms your prejudice.

    I have no problem with that. Religion comforts many.

    Liked by 1 person

  19. My interest in having such a discussion is very similar to my interest in discussing the methodological merits of Harvey et al, and for very similar reasons.

    I am not interested in expressing my disinterest. I am only here to express my disinterest in expressing my disinterest.

    Warped Factor 9!

    Liked by 2 people

  21. Richard,

    Denying it does not make it less true. You have argued numerous times in different contexts that all is fine if the result confirms your prejudice.

    I have never made any such argument. Continuing to claim that I have does not make it true.

    Like

  24. …AND THEN THERE’S PHYSICS (29 Jan 18 at 4:38 pm) is quite right though when he says:

    The authors are perfectly capable of defending it themselves and if others (Tol and colleagues) would like to publish a response, they should feel free to do so.

    They are perfectly capable of defending themselves (though not their paper) because they inhabit an unscalable ivory tower, surrounded by an impenetrable forest of hired penpushers and they just don’t care what intelligent people think of them. As long as their colleagues in related fields like the hunt for exoplanets show solidarity and the unwashed Guardian reading masses stay respectful, why should Ken mind if Harvey et al. are caught making stuff up?

    I don’t think one needs to do a content analysis to conclude that there are some blogs that dispute the disappearance of Arctic sea ice and dispute that polar bears are under threat and that use a source who appears to have little in the way of relevant expertise.

    OK, so name one of those blogs Ken. Or go away.

    Liked by 3 people

  25. Classic Ken

    My interest in having such a discussion is very similar to my interest in discussing the methodological merits of Harvey et al, and for very similar reasons.

    Ken is more interested in pushing the astrology, probably in hopes of getting a grant, than in science. He probably has no interest in science. His work is probably the only way he could think of being employed by any organisation. Let’s own up. Ken gives few signs of being a gifted intellectual

    Like

  26. I imagine ATTP means blogs like WUWT. Whether that blog itself can be said to ‘believe’ that the Arctic is not losing ice is debatable, but it is likely that you’ll find plenty of uncontested comments that imply the same. Paul Homewood certainly writes that ice levels are the same as they were X years ago when he finds a convenient data point. And Heller gives the impression of thinking sea ice is increasing: https://realclimatescience.com/2017/09/massive-expansion-of-arctic-ice-over-the-past-five-years/

    Like

  27. ALAN (29 Jan 18 at 10:09 pm) seems to be replying to my challenge to …ANDKENTHEREWASPHYSICS to name a blog which disputes the disappearance of Arctic sea ice and disputes that polar bears are under threat, when he says that at WUWT “you’ll find plenty of uncontested comments that imply the same.” Not contesting every comment is not the same as approving it.

    Paul Homewood certainly writes that ice levels are the same as they were X years ago, and so they are, for some value of X. Heller shows the increase in ice extent 2012-2017. Is he wrong? His point is that you won’t see his data in the media.

    So we haven’t yet had an example to support Ken’s point. Arctic ice disappears every summer. The trend has been downwards for the small number of years for which measurements exist. Does any blog dispute that, or is Ken making stuff up again?

    Liked by 1 person

  28. There are at least two separate threads to untangle here. One is bogus/wrong inquiry methods, per Tol. The other is ad hominem intent a la Lew, per several posts here. There are probably more. The Harvey proponents are badly losing on both. I recommend for Harvey proponentsnthe Army’s first rule of holes. If in one wanting out, first stop digging.

    Liked by 1 person

  29. They may be capable of defending themselves. As yet they have not exercised that capability.

    As with all climate alarmist horror shows, the paper conflates loss of sea ice and polar bear vulnerability into a secret password to enter the world of conferred credibility.

    Crockford (and the huge majority of contrarian blogs) do not dispute sea ice loss in the Arctic. Indeed, that sea ice loss is the starting point for Crockford’s assertion, ably written and clear enough for anyone but an alarmist to understand.

    1. Arctic sea ice has retreated faster than anticipated.
    2. Despite this accelerated sea ice loss, several sub populations of polar bear have increased and only two out of 21 measured sub populations have decreased, and those only slightly.
    3. This hints that polar bear adaptability might be greater than previously anticipated.
    4. Discuss

    Funny how that brings her into such disrepute. Funny how the attacks on her resemble the same spurious attacks that have been launched on other contrarian scientists.

    Why, if I were feeling a bit more conspiratorial, I would venture to suggest they were following a playbook.

    Liked by 6 people

  30. The next suggestion would be that if Ken wants to argue on your behalf, gag him. I strongly believe that Ken is not capable of writing a meaningful argument, let alone a convincing one. He is one of those people who are unable to form opinions. And it is not at all clear whether that is good or bad…. But you do get to feel flattened

    Like

  31. As a former university student, I am not happy that I might have been taught by pygmy sized intellects as Ken. When I was an undergrad, AJP Taylor, and Foucault, and Trevor – Roper and PE Russell held the stages. All our kids can hope for are Michael Mann, that floppy haired fool and Ken

    Liked by 1 person

  32. ATTP,
    Have you decided just what your position on the Harvey ( and the other attack/propaganda) paper(s) is/are yet?
    That you deny something that your own words say yo the contrary it may take a while but come on….

    Like

  33. The way I see it, people who accept that Arctic ice is in secular decline don’t go to the bother of searching for and blogging about short interruptions in that trend.

    Whether or not daft posts remain uncontested is, to me, an indication of the credibility of the blog. To you not?

    Like

  34. Indeed, Alan. In fact, I don’t recall seeing blogs that do that. Certainly none that were labeled ‘denier’ blogs, including Dr. Crockford’s.

    Like

  35. Alan -as you are so concerned that some people on some blogs reckon Arctic see ice isn’t diminishing, I gather you are also critical of all those climate scientists who said the Arctic would be ice free some years ago. in fact, as they are supposed to be experts, you should be a lot more opposed.
    Or are you like Ken, with very loose scruples if they are on your side?

    Like

  36. @ristvan
    The attempt on Crockford’s reputation is a legal matter, and only she has standing.

    Like

  37. Is Len being recharged? He is noticeably absent from this discussion – one that I would have predicted would have been right up his mudtrack.
    I absolutely refuse to be lured into making some juvenile wittie about Klingons.

    Liked by 1 person

  38. Alan,

    “The way I see it, people who accept that Arctic ice is in secular decline don’t go to the bother of searching for and blogging about short interruptions in that trend.”

    There are two issues here: people who accept that sea-ice has declined since 1979 and those who project forward that decline to inevitable summer sea-ice extinction. Alarmists envisage no recovery. Sceptics generally are of the opinion that some or all of the decline in sea-ice is due to natural variability (as it was in the 1930s), therefore a full or at least partial recovery might be expected. Naturally, this means that sceptics are on the look out for potential reversals of the long term trend. None so far has emerged.

    Like

  39. Thomas, perhaps we differ in what we consider to be daft. I think you’ll find plenty of opportunity for making uncontested claims of a continuing pause in warming or that satellite indices are superior because land/ocean indices are adjusted or that sensitivity has a specific value or even that acidification isn’t happening because the ocean pH is >7. Each of of these and many more would not raise an eyebrow at skeptic blogs, maybe here too, despite being, in my view, daft.

    Jaime, I clearly can’t know what sites really believe, but I don’t think it is unreasonable to form the impression from comments I mentioned that these people/sites dispute the apparent sea ice loss trends.

    Like

  40. If history and evidence mattered to the true believers, they would agree that sea ice has been highly dynamic over the period of time polar bears and seals have existed.
    From entirely absent in summer to at least the extents of the pre-1979 era.
    But that admission allows for voices of climate skeptics to be heard, so the inconvenient bits of history and evidence need to be skipped over.

    Like

  42. Alan, I can’t think of a single sceptic blog which disputes the fact that sea-ice has declined since satellite measurements began. You seem to think that if any commenters dispute that documented decline and their comments are not removed, this is evidence that the blog proprietor(s) is(are) sea-ice decline deniers! Furthermore, you haven’t given any examples of these commenters who have been disputing sea-ice decline and not being challenged; for your theory to be even slightly credible, there would have to be hundreds of such comments from sea-ice decline deniers left intact, unchallenged on said blog(s).

    Like

  44. Ron,

    “As women and scientists, we refuse to separate science from everyday life.”

    Doesn’t she realise that she is reinforcing the stereotypical, sexist image that certain men have of women, i.e. that they are incapable of functioning rationally and impartially for any sustained period without being interrupted by emotions or being distracted by everyday trivialities like what dress they are going to wear for dinner tonight, etc. etc.? She’s making herself a laughing stock and damaging the cause she purports to represent. Women are more than capable of maintaining the detachment necessary in order to do excellent, unbiased scientific research. She seems to think that they shouldn’t be doing that, that the new ‘feminist’ science should be touchy-feely.

    Liked by 1 person

  45. Jaime, i suggested the blogs of Heller and Homewood and gave a reason. If I cared I’d look for more examples, but two will suffice. I take protestations of I accept X (AGW, sea ice loss, GHE, etc) accompanied by writings that imply the opposite to be insincere, but that’s just my opinion.

    BTW, I said nothing about deleting comments. You made that up.

    Like

  47. Or they just can’t stomach Bill Nye the science “guy” who is on their side but doesn’t have the right “identity”. Interesting that Bill is going in order to support space exploration and separates that from the climate issue.

    Like

  48. Alan,

    “BTW, I said nothing about deleting comments. You made that up.”

    I said nothing about deleting comments. I merely mentioned that they would “remain intact” in their hundreds as testament to your theory that not challenging such comments is sea-ice decline denial by proxy. So you made that up.

    “If I cared I’d look for more examples . . . . ”

    Not one of the examples you give proves that there are sceptic bloggers out there who deny that sea-ice extent has declined, but you don’t care to provide any more evidence, so we’ll leave it there.

    Like

  49. dpy6629 says: “Alan sounds a lot like ATTP. Coincidence?”

    Probably, but not random. As William F. Buckley said on an interview long ago, which my memory of it might be slightly imperfect, it is that you can have the appearance of a conspiracy when journalists (in his example) all went to the same schools, received the same curriculum, and entered the field of nosing around in other people’s business for similar reasons. The result will be people that speak and think in similar ways; they have been aligned to a standard but not to each other.

    In defense of ATTP, I sense conflict. He works in astronomy, which is grounded in good hard science BUT is nearly impossible (or for now actually impossible) to test many theories. Climatology is similar in that regard; everything that happens is “physical” and ought to be deterministic but it is also impossible to test and complex.

    So he knows that climate science has a ways to go before it can even be claimed to be mature; but the politics of it are such that you’d better wave your virtue flags and be “on board” 100 percent; because a mere 97 percent agreement with the consensus is “denier” territory.

    Liked by 1 person

  50. Well I’m no language Nazi, hell I even give the blog the benefit of the doubt and assume at least some here know the real meaning of ‘disinterested’ upthread but are too shy to say, but your ‘removed’ is awfully similar to my ‘deleted’.

    Like

  51. You’re correct Alan. Apologies. I did use the word removed. You only said ‘unchallenged’. The fact remains, if these comments exist, intact and unchallenged on said blogs, they need to be in sufficient number to prove your theory that the blog supports sea-ice decline denial by proxy.

    Like

  52. man in a barrel says:
    29 Jan 18 at 10:08 pm

    Classic Ken

    My interest in having such a discussion is very similar to my interest in discussing the methodological merits of Harvey et al, and for very similar reasons.

    Ken is more interested in pushing the astrology, probably in hopes of getting a grant, than in science. He probably has no interest in science. His work is probably the only way he could think of being employed by any organisation. Let’s own up. Ken gives few signs of being a gifted intellectual

    That reminds me. Whatever became of “Raff”(?)?

    Liked by 1 person

  54. I see Alan cannot resist doing ad homs without detailing examples. He names Paul Homewood as one of the sites putting out false information on sea ice decline. On the web site, there is no label sea ice on the word map. However, there is “Arctic” and “Greenland”. Typing sea ice into the search brings up the Arctic ones. On the articles I looked at, Paul seems to lead with some statement made by a climate scientist, politician or newspaper, then shows the actual data from a site like dmi. There are links to all the information.
    Alan disagrees with the opinions, but won’t articulate what is wrong with the the facts. Alan actually states “The way I see it, people who accept that Arctic ice is in secular decline ( CM comment: What is non-religious about sea ice? ) don’t go to the bother of searching for and blogging about short interruptions in that trend.”
    In one I noted, Paul wrote:
    “”No honest scientist could look at the last decade and claim that ice extent is anything but stable, albeit at lower average levels than we were used to seeing in the 1980s.
    While we’re at it, isn’t it time DMI and NSIDC dropped their misleading trend line? After all, ice extent could remain unchanged for another 100 years, but the trend would still show as downwards.
    The simple reality is that ice extent shrank during a short period up to 2007, but was there was little change either prior or since.
    As such, that short period tells us nothing at all about what may happen in future.”
    That contradicts what Alan wrote. The eyeball indicates that there has been little change since 2007 for summer sea ice in the dmi graphs. So on those graphs, there is a decline is from 1980 to 2007 and near flat from 2007 to 2017. Paul says 27 years is short. Alan thinks this is long and 11 is short. It is stupid of Alan to argue it is a credibility issue, other than his own or for those who made the original statements. Most people would see Paul’s articles as fact-checking.

    Liked by 2 people

  56. Scientists, in fact, do have to separate science from every day life.
    It is called objectivity.
    Sarah, and those backing her anti-science sexist nonsense, are the true deniers.

    Liked by 1 person

  57. Let’s see how this thought police process works on the opinion that:
    Historic evudence, supported by physical evidence, supports the idea that Arctic sea ice has declined to smaller extents than are currently measured.
    Additionally, the change in ice extent, past and present, has not been correlated by data to weather changes, extinctions, or ither disasters.
    In other words Arctic ice is an interesting but pointless distraction from a serious discussion of climate ir energy.

    Like

  58. Arctic sea-ice. What is certain is that it has declined considerably since 1979, even exceeding that which was projected by climate models built upon GHG forcings.

    What’s far from certain is that the observed decline is primarily caused by GHGs. It is also not certain that the decline will continue indefinitely – the so-called Arctic Death Spiral.

    Sea-ice alarmists may find that they are, paradoxically, not on such thin ice as they imagined, but they still end up falling through because they became so fat on government grants and subsidies.

    Like

  59. Jaime,
    You are correct about the ice and the predicted loss vs. actual.
    But what has been the impact of this loss?
    That question is at the heart if why the climate police attacked Crickford, I believe.

    Like

  60. Absolutely Hunter. The second plank of the sea-ice climate alarmists, in addition to claiming that the decline in sea-ice is anthropogenic in origin, is to claim that it has dire consequences for the iconic polar bear species. Susan Crockford has been busying herself refuting this unsubstantiated claim which was based, it seems, entirely on projections and not on observations. They’re not happy about this so they cooked up a peer-reviewed transparently obvious attempt to smear her academic reputation using very shoddy analysis. That’s called not winning.

    Like

  61. Interesting that you use Grant Foster to support your case Alan. Under the blog name Tamino, he is a serial liar and dissembler.
    https://judithcurry.com/2014/01/27/early-20th-century-arctic-warming/
    https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2015/07/21/tamino-grant-foster-is-back-at-his-old-tricksthat-everyone-but-his-followers-can-see-through/
    https://climateaudit.org/2010/07/27/taminos-trick-mann-bites-bulldog/
    Using him is the kiss of death for any credibility you might have had.

    Liked by 3 people

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.