Its a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World

[Guest]

3 hours ago, tmcom said:

So 100 years of observations prove that global cooling in the 70's was correct, because of the jet stream?

Well, that makes perfect sense,....backing away slowly!

How many years of records we have depends on where those records were collected.  Some European cities go back 400 years.  The US started collecting weather records in the early 1820s - 200 years of records.  Might have some almost that old from Albuquerque.  The US Weather Bureau started keeping records in 1880.  It organized a nation-wide system of observers and was collecting ten or more daily observations from each state by 1892.  Those records continue to this day - 127 years of records.  I think we now have something like 134 automated stations in Oklahoma.  Then there are over 9400 published tree ring chronologies.  The oldest tree-ring chronologies go back to the Last Glacial Maximum - 19,000 years of records.  If you want to know which year the Younger Dryas Impactor hit Greenland, we should be able to tell you, at least to the decade (12,933 YBP - I think.).

So was there global; cooling in the 1970s?  Nope.  It was in the 1960s.  By 1970 it was already warming up again.  And you don't really need 100 years of records to prove it.  Was it because of the jet stream?  I don't know that anybody has tried to make that determination, but they probably have.  At any rate, it should be possible to take tree ring chronologies, cross-date them with jet stream records and tell you, or just use instrumental data.  We should be able to tell as far back as we can find two North American records that go that far,  So that would seem, at least 1500 years.  Could do the same thing in Europe.

Doug

 

 

[Guest]

On 10/25/2019 at 5:10 PM, Desertrat56 said:

I am number 7 on that list.  @tortugabob I think it is hilarious that you and @tmcom argue with someone who does this for a living.

That cuts both directions:  my grandmother always told me that the only thing dumber than an idiot was someone who argues with an idiot.  Guess I'm guilty.

Doug

[tmcom]

8 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

I've noticed that tmcom uses the laughing smiley as a way to admit he doesn't know and can't refute a statement.

Doug

 

8 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

That cuts both directions:  my grandmother always told me that the only thing dumber than an idiot was someone who argues with an idiot.  Guess I'm guilty.

Doug

Yes, you give insane crap about sea levels around Australia being different to the rest of the world, ignore overwhelming visual evidence that the earth is not warming or sea levels are not increasing or accelerating, then tell me l am the crazy one, lol.

You have been brainwashed for so long, you just canned see, that you are wrong, and l and a growing army are right. Real evidence is the deciding factor, not comfort, or wanting it to be true or your ego, cannot left go, or some other reason.

You need to see a psychiatrist, who is impartial to this cult membership, and spill your guts about all of this, (including the hard visual evidence) then see what happens!

Gore gets it wrong, big time, you warp his failures around so it sounds like he was right, ignore the fort Denisen, California, Hawaii and others before and after images, crapping on about angles, even though the fort one is the same piece of unchanged land!

And the Sydney Opera House, (that l have been to) showing a frickin flat rendered concrete wall, over 50 years with on change!

I was always suspicious that you where fanatical in this subject, now l know, Climate Change and impending doom, is a Flat Earth Club on Steroids, but similar.

 

For me when l see solid evidence for something l believe it, and have had to do an about face in the past, which wasn't fun, but evidence is evidene, and ignoring or dismissing such evidence, would make me insane or brainwashed to the hilt.

 

Unfortunately l cannot relate to individuals like that, or ignoring the obvious in any way possible is beyond my comprehension.

 

I guess you and possibly others here will keep believing in this, and the evidence that will sway the masses, will keep building, and investment and voting in greenies will decrease, (investment in wind/solar in AU, is slowing or stopping, - Australian Financial Review) until most of the power and control is lost, and you can bleat to us how insane the majority is, and how the majority want to get over the tipping point.

Exactly what Flat earthers are doing how, eventhough this didn't really lose any power to start with!

Edited October 28, 2019 by tmcom

[Doug1029]

9 hours ago, tmcom said:

Yes, you give insane crap about sea levels around Australia being different to the rest of the world,

Just about every place on earth is different from every other place.  Gravity varies from place to place.  That would make a difference in sea level rise.  So Sydney Harbor having relatively little sea level rise should not be a surprise to anyone.

9 hours ago, tmcom said:

Gore gets it wrong, big time, you warp his failures around so it sounds like he was right, ignore the fort Denisen, California, Hawaii and others before and after images, crapping on about angles, even though the fort one is the same piece of unchanged land!

I am no supporter of Gore.  For a layman, he's not too bad, but he does not get into the details of climate change which is where the interesting stuff is.  But I'm glad he gives you a boogeyman to rail against.  Keeps you occupied.

The only predictions of Gore's that I have checked are those he made in the original "An Inconvenient Truth."  There, out of ten predictions, he had one wrong.  There were several for which results could not be determined.  And two or three that were right.  If he made some more in the update, I don't know what they were.  Gore is not important enough to keep track of.

9 hours ago, tmcom said:

For me when l see solid evidence for something l believe it, and have had to do an about face in the past, which wasn't fun, but evidence is evidene, and ignoring or dismissing such evidence, would make me insane or brainwashed to the hilt.

Your pictures are not measurements and at least one of those photos fails to match up with the others by a good six inches.  Whoever photoshopped them wasn't very good at it.  You present none of the metadata needed to verify your claims.  Do you wonder why scientists are not listening to your rants?  You have proved nothing.

9 hours ago, tmcom said:

I guess you and possibly others here will keep believing in this, and the evidence that will sway the masses, will keep building, and investment and voting in greenies will decrease, (investment in wind/solar in AU, is slowing or stopping, - Australian Financial Review) until most of the power and control is lost, and you can bleat to us how insane the majority is, and how the majority want to get over the tipping point.

I have never known a financial rag to get climate change right.  They're not even good fiction.  Try quoting some scientific publications.  By that I mean peer-reviewed.

Doug

[tmcom]

23 minutes ago, Doug1029 said:

Just about every place on earth is different from every other place.  Gravity varies from place to place.  That would make a difference in sea level rise.  So Sydney Harbor having relatively little sea level rise should not be a surprise to anyone.

I am no supporter of Gore.  For a layman, he's not too bad, but he does not get into the details of climate change which is where the interesting stuff is.  But I'm glad he gives you a boogeyman to rail against.  Keeps you occupied.

The only predictions of Gore's that I have checked are those he made in the original "An Inconvenient Truth."  There, out of ten predictions, he had one wrong.  There were several for which results could not be determined.  And two or three that were right.  If he made some more in the update, I don't know what they were.  Gore is not important enough to keep track of.

Your pictures are not measurements and at least one of those photos fails to match up with the others by a good six inches.  Whoever photoshopped them wasn't very good at it.  You present none of the metadata needed to verify your claims.  Do you wonder why scientists are not listening to your rants?  You have proved nothing.

I have never known a financial rag to get climate change right.  They're not even good fiction.  Try quoting some scientific publications.  By that I mean peer-reviewed.

Doug

 

Quote

Sea level rise along the NSW coast can be more accurately determined since the installation in mid-2012 of Continuously Operating Reference Stations at Newcastle and at Fort Denison in Sydney Harbour. These reference stations are funded by us to measure any ground movement which could affect the sea level recordings. This will complement the similar sea level monitoring station at Port Kembla operated by the Bureau of Meteorology. These three stations will provide useful data on sea level trends in the medium-long term.

https://climatechange.environment.nsw.gov.au/Impacts-of-climate-change/Coasts-and-sea-level-rise/Measurement-of-sea-level-rise

http://www.ga.gov.au/scientific-topics/disciplines/geophysics/gravity

Gravity is different, but overall stays the same in each area, unless considerable changes have occured, (major earthquake). So Sydney harbour has had no major changes over the last couple of hundred years, and gravity changes are negligible.

 

Or in other words your cult religion will always be greater than any evidence shown, (funny how you havn't mentioned the Sydney Opera House, can't BS your way past the flat wall example).

 

You have just shown me that human...never mind, but l have great respect for Einstein, and discussing this with you is a waste of my time, since you will always be right, eventhough the evidence says otherwise,

 

As l said, the evidence or temporary annoyance to you, will keep building and sane individuals will continue to realize what a crock this all is, and the Global Warming Cult will merge with the Flat earth one,....a perfect match in my opinion!

[Doug1029]

tmcom:  To prove your point:  that there is no sea level rise in Sydney Harbor, you need to produce a record of water levels.  The best source would be an Australian govt-kept archive.  Then you simply run a regression using the dates and levels.  The easiest to use would be yearly averages because they allow changing tides to average out.  Otherwise, your model will need to include a tidal function.  It's really nothing more than arithmetic.  If you cannot do the analysis, I will be glad to help, or just do it for you, but you need to obtain the tide records.  Otherwise, you will be charging me with cherry-picking the data.

No matter what claim you make, there should be a dataset somewhere to back you up.  All I am asking you to do is name that dataset.

Doug

[Essan]

"Even though the oceans are all connected, sea level does not rise or fall uniformly over the planet. This map  shows where average sea level in 2011 was above or below the long-term average. Places where sea level rose up to 8 inches higher than the 1993-2011 average are dark blue, average levels are white, and places where sea level fell below average are brown. Courtesy of NOAA".

https://www.earthobservatory.sg/faq-on-earth-sciences/why-will-sea-level-rise-not-be-same-everywhere

In other words, even though the global average sea level is rising - and continues to rise on account of the whole world not fitting into Sydney Harbour - some places can - and do - actually experience a fall in sea level ....

Just as, even though the world as a whole is warming, it doesn't mean everywhere is and some place could even get colder.
 

[Doug1029]

8 minutes ago, tmcom said:

 

https://climatechange.environment.nsw.gov.au/Impacts-of-climate-change/Coasts-and-sea-level-rise/Measurement-of-sea-level-rise

http://www.ga.gov.au/scientific-topics/disciplines/geophysics/gravity

Gravity is different, but overall stays the same in each area, unless considerable changes have occured, (major earthquake). So Sydney harbour has had no major changes over the last couple of hundred years, and gravity changes are negligible.

Now we're getting somewhere.  Those are both good posts for general background.  Unfortunately, they aren't very specific.  What we need are the actual readings from the tidal gauge(s) in Sydney Harbor.

Right:  gravity, for our purposes, is a constant at any given location.  My point was that sea levels are different in different places on earth and gravity is one reason.

 

Let's refrain from the name-calling.  It's a pretty good indication that you have nothing but that to argue with.  How about posting something that might actually refute sea level rise?

Doug

[Doug1029]

This paper may be just what you need.

Watson, P.  2011.  Is there evidence yet of acceleration in mean sea level rise around mainland Australia?  Journal of Coastal Research 27(2) 368-377.  https://www.jcronline.org/doi/abs/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00141.1  28 October 2019

Note that it shows 100cm sea level rise is expected for the 21st century.  It names Fremantle, Aucklnad, Fort Denison and Newcastle as extremely-valuable records.  So we now know that there is a record for Sydney Harbor.  Let's see if we can find it.

And here it is:  http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO70000/IDO70000_60370_SLD.shtml

A quick glance shows a lot more readings above 1.000 at the bottom of the chart than at the top.  Doesn't look too good for your side.

It will take some time to run the analysis.  Be back.

Doug

Edited October 28, 2019 by Doug1029

[tmcom]

41 minutes ago, Doug1029 said:

Now we're getting somewhere.  Those are both good posts for general background.  Unfortunately, they aren't very specific.  What we need are the actual readings from the tidal gauge(s) in Sydney Harbor.

Right:  gravity, for our purposes, is a constant at any given location.  My point was that sea levels are different in different places on earth and gravity is one reason.

 

Let's refrain from the name-calling.  It's a pretty good indication that you have nothing but that to argue with.  How about posting something that might actually refute sea level rise?

Doug

And last time l did that in fort Denisen you crapped on about him lying, ...... .........! Must be great to be right all of the time or delude yourself that is the case! The video and associated link to said data.................

43 minutes ago, Essan said:

"Even though the oceans are all connected, sea level does not rise or fall uniformly over the planet. This map  shows where average sea level in 2011 was above or below the long-term average. Places where sea level rose up to 8 inches higher than the 1993-2011 average are dark blue, average levels are white, and places where sea level fell below average are brown. Courtesy of NOAA".

https://www.earthobservatory.sg/faq-on-earth-sciences/why-will-sea-level-rise-not-be-same-everywhere

In other words, even though the global average sea level is rising - and continues to rise on account of the whole world not fitting into Sydney Harbour - some places can - and do - actually experience a fall in sea level ....

Just as, even though the world as a whole is warming, it doesn't mean everywhere is and some place could even get colder.
 

Lol, yes ignore the last link and quote showing that isn't the case, or land sinking or growing was taken  into accoumt!

But of course we can ignore Sydney they have so many unicorns to change the ocean levels, we can just ignore that part of the world.

This thread is about how ....ing mad this s**** is becoming so if you want to post this crap, it will be seen as crap, your choice!

Edited October 28, 2019 by tmcom
finding the ignore button, had enough discussing this with ............

[Doug1029]

9 minutes ago, tmcom said:

And last time l did that in fort Denisen you crapped on about him lying,

All I asked you to do was to post the evidence.  You never posted any.  At long last, I had to:   http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO70000/IDO70000_60370_SLD.shtml

Your claims (and mine) will live or die by this dataset.  I am in the process of transcribing it.  I have reached 1922.  Will run the regressions on it as soon as I finish the transcriptions.  This is put up or shut up time for both of us.

Doug

[Doug1029]

The problem with the ignore button is that the other guy can still see and respond to your posts.  But you can't see his reply.  That's like trying to fight a boxing match while blindfolded.  I tried that - didn't work for me, either.

Doug

[Doug1029]

1 hour ago, Doug1029 said:

All I asked you to do was to post the evidence.  You never posted any.  At long last, I had to:   http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO70000/IDO70000_60370_SLD.shtml

Your claims (and mine) will live or die by this dataset.  I am in the process of transcribing it.  I have reached 1922.  Will run the regressions on it as soon as I finish the transcriptions.  This is put up or shut up time for both of us.

Doug

Not done entering the data yet, but I noticed something interesting:  the water level in Sydney Harbor is higher during April through September than it is in October through March.  I'm guessing that is due to water temperature.  Cold water is heavier, so its surface is lower than when the water is warmer.  The average is about 0.15cm - about 3.75 inches.  So it makes a difference when those pix were taken.

Doug

[+Desertrat56]

33 minutes ago, Doug1029 said:

Not done entering the data yet, but I noticed something interesting:  the water level in Sydney Harbor is higher during April through September than it is in October through March.  I'm guessing that is due to water temperature.  Cold water is heavier, so its surface is lower than when the water is warmer.  The average is about 0.15cm - about 3.75 inches.  So it makes a difference when those pix were taken.

Doug

But April through September includes winter in Sydney.  (down under seasons are opposite)

[Doug1029]

43 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

But April through September includes winter in Sydney.  (down under seasons are opposite)

My mistake.  In April through September the water level is lower.

Doug

[Doug1029]

Finished loading the data and ran the analysis.

The dataset is the record of tides in Sydney Harbor as recorded on the gauge at Ft. Denison.    http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO70000/IDO70000_60370_SLD.shtml, published by the Australian government.

The records begin in May 1914 and runs through August 2019.  The year 1930 is missing - no records - and there are two months missing - January and February, 1941.  The values are monthly average readings.  This is long enough that the result should not be biased by tides.

The data fits a straight-line model.

The starting water level on the gauge was:  0.8798m.  The average increase was 0.00103m per year.  That's about one millimeter.  Note that this includes only the period 1914 to 2019 - 105 years.  Sea level in Sydney Harbor is about 0.10815m higher than it was in 1914 when the record begins, about 4 inches.  There is a 0.14 skew in the data.  That could mean acceleration or deceleration, or just scattering of observations with more occurring on the low side of the average than above it.  The model explains 20.5% of the variation.  The probability of a better fit occurring by chance is less than 1/10,000.

There could be more hidden in this data, like seasonal fluctuations in water level.  The rate of increase is not constant.  The data conform to a logarithmic function with an acceleration of 0.001m per year.  This is only a slight improvement on the straight line, but it is still significant (a=0.95):  Sea level rise is accelerating.

Sorry, but Sydney Harbor is gradually getting deeper.

 

A note:  a ship, the "Success" was once scuttled in Sydney Harbor.  It was a prison ship that was no longer in use.  It was raised, refitted and toured the world.  In April 1914, just before this record begins, it sailed out of Southampton, England, the oldest ship afloat.  It sailed the same day as the Titanic, the newest ship afloat.  Four days later the Titanic sunk and the Success was just starting on a 93-day epic voyage.  To make a long story short, the Success now lies on the bottom of Lake Erie near the Port of Sandusky, not far from my hometown.  Built in 1789, she sunk in 1946 at the age of 157 years.  A load of Indian marble, placed in her hull as ballast in Mulmein, Burma, is still there.

Doug

[tmcom]

Read today in the Financial Review, that AU, VIC has had no solar or wind added to the grid for the last two months, eventhough we have a fanatical nutter running our state, but before then we did, and our electricity has gone up 35% over the last year as a result, (causing people to suffer will really save us, lol).

Also if we don't repair two coal fired generators, by December then we can expect a power blackout affecting 1.3 million homes on a hot day, or 1/5 of our entire states population.

A few of those and this twit will be gone in a few years time,......finally!

So sanity is slowing sinking in, although Labor is crapping on about jobs, and of course saying that heavy industry and solar/wind/batterys are the way to go, which is pretty funny, considering that they don't mix well.

Or if we spend a trillion on a Tesla battery farm then we could produce steel for about 45 minutes, then what? The steel plant has to close down, even if it is gas powered it still needs electricity and requires several days to power up again, or loss of viability and jobs, or Labor is getting better but is still in Unicorn territory.

Which is good since they will keep losing!

Edited October 29, 2019 by tmcom

[tmcom]

Yes, Labor has no idea, and will keep losing elections, and 99% of scientists agree, lol, so do Unicorns!

[Doug1029]

3 hours ago, tmcom said:

Read today in the Financial Review, that AU, VIC has had no solar or wind added to the grid for the last two months, eventhough we have a fanatical nutter running our state, but before then we did, and our electricity has gone up 35% over the last year as a result, (causing people to suffer will really save us, lol).

Also if we don't repair two coal fired generators, by December then we can expect a power blackout affecting 1.3 million homes on a hot day, or 1/5 of our entire states population.

A few of those and this twit will be gone in a few years time,......finally!

So sanity is slowing sinking in, although Labor is crapping on about jobs, and of course saying that heavy industry and solar/wind/batterys are the way to go, which is pretty funny, considering that they don't mix well.

Or if we spend a trillion on a Tesla battery farm then we could produce steel for about 45 minutes, then what? The steel plant has to close down, even if it is gas powered it still needs electricity and requires several days to power up again, or loss of viability and jobs, or Labor is getting better but is still in Unicorn territory.

Which is good since they will keep losing!

Congratulations!  You have successfully demonstarted that your government doesn't know how to convert to clean energy OR that you don't know what you're talking about.  Maybe, both.  I am not up to snuff on Australia's conversion program; I'm having enough trouble with the American one.

Doug

[Doug1029]

1 hour ago, tmcom said:

Yes, Labor has no idea, and will keep losing elections, and 99% of scientists agree, lol, so do Unicorns!

Conversion will create lots of jobs.  There are hundreds of miles of power lines to build and tens of thousands of wind turbines.  There's a new power dam proposed.  And once all that gets done, there will be new trunk lines needed to carry the extra heating load as you move away from gas and oil.  And then there are the railroads and new catenaries with new all-electric engines.  You're just getting started on a 20-year project.

Doug

[tortugabob]

Quoting Doug  "To put it simply:  your conclusions are so garbled it would take whole books to straighten them out.  I simply don't have that much time."

Sure you do Doug.  You got paid by the USFS for 5 years to write a paper on how to plant a tree. You have plenty of time to waste on fighting a lost cause so do some research.

Edited October 29, 2019 by tortugabob

[tmcom]

6 hours ago, tortugabob said:

Quoting Doug  "To put it simply:  your conclusions are so garbled it would take whole books to straighten them out.  I simply don't have that much time."

Sure you do Doug.  You got paid by the USFS for 5 years to write a paper on how to plant a tree. You have plenty of time to waste on fighting a lost cause so do some research.

Yes, Andrew Bolt hitting his head on the desk when she says, 99% of the scientists agree wasn't staged, Labor in AU, is predominantly run by leftist, green nutters, with the Green party now joining ranks with them, to really make sure they lose elections for the foreseeable future!

They keep trying to spin this wind/solar will save us, BS, and heavy industry loves that intermittent crap, to 24/7 coal, but as we have seen, these nutjobs, are always right, will ignore the blatenly obvious evidence that nothing is happening, then tell us we are the crazy ones here, lol.

Our electricity is more expensive than SA, at the moment, mainly due to two generators being repaired, and our country has disconnected over 100,000 homes in the last three years becuase of this lefist, nutcases w/s handjob bender.

Dougs, remark is of no surprize, he wants datasets for fort Denisen and then says, that he is lying, then l show no sea level rises from AU to the US, and doesn't accept that eaither, since gravity or the vibe or how many unicorns are on standby, (and how much angel dust they have access to) will determine if sea levels are rising for that area?

 

So basically anywhere on the planet showing no sea level rise cannot be accepted,.....l know l won't say it!

Or l cannot discuss this with nutcases, that ignore the evidence!

 

Sanity is slowly creeping back into our country with ScoMo, building a dam in NSW and increasing another, for the drought, and w/s investment slowing or stopping in our state. But it is ineviatable that l will have to endure being without power on a stinkin hot day this summer, for who knows how many hours, (l may get lucky or have a 80% chance of doding a bullet, but time will tell).

All we need is one power blackout, and that turd is flushed!

Edited October 30, 2019 by tmcom

[Doug1029]

17 hours ago, tortugabob said:

Quoting Doug  "To put it simply:  your conclusions are so garbled it would take whole books to straighten them out.  I simply don't have that much time."

Sure you do Doug.  You got paid by the USFS for 5 years to write a paper on how to plant a tree. You have plenty of time to waste on fighting a lost cause so do some research.

Did you look up the paper?  It compares ten different site treatments over a 26-year period.  Do you think I might have done something else, too, during those 26 years? 

I think that a popular press book on global warming is needed.  One that explains the science and lays out a road-map to get out of this mess.  It will have to be scientifically sound, which means looking up a lot of research papers and reading them - probably hundreds of them.  It needs to be referenced just like a scientific paper so that people can double-check it.  And I am doing other papers just now.  Here's a list:

"Carbon storage in the litter layer beneath natural even-aged Pinus echinata on the Ouachita and Ozark National Forests, Oklahoma and Arkansas, USA."  All it really does is determine how much carbon is stored in the litter layer in these forests (5.34 Mg/hec) and correlate that with basal area, site index and stand age,  Paper is in review (Not peer review, but that's coming.).

"Forest Inventory on the Edge"  Paper has already been accepted.  Preliminary publication in November.  Deals with the problem of inventory plots overlapping the population boundary.   To be included in a proceedings which will probably be published in about two years.

An as-yet unnamed paper on climate change in Oklahoma.  It is intended as a precursor to an eastern red-cedar invasion paper.  Oklahoma is getting both warmer and wetter.  Where is the moisture coming from?  Not evaporation from reservoirs.  Maybe evaporation from irrigated fields?  Maybe increased precip from the Gulf?  It does not correlate with Arctic sea ice.  The eastern red-cedar invasion began about 1965, the same as a lot of other climate-change indicators.  There is a high likelihood that one of them is driving the invasion.

An as-yet unnamed paper on the area correction process for edge plots.  Due for submission in the spring.

There are several follow-ups on the eastern red-cedar invasion, a study of the spread of western gall-rust through the stems of lodgepole pines and a study of ice storm damage in shortleaf pine - this will require two preliminary papers on a new system for measuring defect in standing trees and an improved method for calculating net volume after breakage.

And then, sometime in there, I get to retire and write books on climate change.

Doug

[Doug1029]

11 hours ago, tmcom said:

Dougs, remark is of no surprize, he wants datasets for fort Denisen and then says, that he is lying, then l show no sea level rises from AU to the US, and doesn't accept that eaither, since gravity or the vibe or how many unicorns are on standby, (and how much angel dust they have access to) will determine if sea levels are rising for that area?

See Post 691.  The Australian government published the dataset for Ft. Denison which you couldn't find.  I like Australia:  their datasets are easy to find, unlike NOAA and East Anglia.

At any rate, the gauge at Ft, Denison shows a four-inch rise in water level since record keeping began in 1914.  And up against that record, you are trying to put a bunch of misaligned, photo-shopped pictures.  Some evidence!

Doug

[tmcom]

That is what we need to do, burn witches on mass, and torture them first, goes without saying.