2011-08-31 15:08:31Andrew Dessler has a new rebuttal paper coming out next week - who wants to do an SkS post about it?
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
123.211.208.191

I have a copy of Andrew Dessler's rebuttal of both Lindzen and Spencer's low climate sensitivity papers. It's getting published sometime around next Tuesday, I think. An ideal situation would be if SkS could publish a blog post at the moment the paper goes live - along with updating our rebuttals of Lindzen and Spencer's low sensitivity arguments (do we have answers to both?)

So my question - is anyone interested in receiving a copy of Dessler's paper for the purpose of writing a blog post plus possibly integrate into rebuttals? Only say yes if you actually would like to write the post as Andy is keen to keep dissemination of the paper to a minimum before next week's release. It depends on the contents of the paper and what we already have in our rebuttals but it would be fantastic if we could do a basic and intermediate version so that the blog post could be a plain English version with links to the intermediate version. Anyway, let me know if you're interested and I can also pass on Andy Dessler's email if you need to ask him questions.

2011-08-31 15:41:24
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125
I take it he's not up for doing a guest post for us? That would be ideal. We've got a rebuttal to Lindzen and Choi, and we re-posted an RC post on Spencer's paper, from Trenberth I think. But we don't have a specific rebuttal to Spencer's paper, just the blog post. I'm out on vacation until mid-next week so not sure I could take this one.
2011-08-31 20:53:49Hmm, never thought of that
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
123.211.208.191

I'll ask Andy if he's interested and suggest one of us write a basic version.

2011-09-01 01:30:45
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

I remember back when Spencer's paper came out and all the climate scientists were doing interviews talking about the fundamental flaws in the paper, Dessler was one to be interviewed.  So I asked him if he would be willing to do a blog post on the subject for us, but he said he wanted to focus on his response paper.  I think I suggested the possibility that once the paper is published, maybe he could write a post for us at that point.  So it would be good to revisit that discussion.

2011-09-01 17:58:11Andrew Dessler is unavailable
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
123.211.208.191

Heard back from Andy - he won't have time to write a guest post for SkS so any SkSer who wants to write a blog post summarising his paper, let me know and I'll email you the paper.

The paper will go online next Tuesday 6 Sep so that's the deadline for getting the blog post done - and if appropriate, we'll integrate it into one or more rebuttals (as it seems the paper rebuts both Lindzen AND Spencer - a tour de force).

I imagine the paper will make a big splash and SkS can be at the forefront riding the wave - so this is a good opportunity for an SkSer to make an impact and also add to the chorus. Let me know asap if you want to read the paper.

2011-09-02 00:39:18
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125

I'd take it, but I'm going on vacation tomorrow.  Wouldn't have time to read and digest the paper and write a post about it.

2011-09-02 00:45:54Comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
142.162.9.162

John if you could send me it in an email I might have a look, no promises though, anyone else who wants to take it should

2011-09-02 15:51:04Emailing you the file now
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
123.211.208.191

Let me know if you're able to do it. I'll read the paper also so if you want to coauthor it or collaborate, let me know. This should make a big splash on Tuesday so we need to be part of the chorus and also providing the SkS usual service of having a plain English version in our rebuttals.

2011-09-03 01:27:04
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
173.69.6.13

wow!!!!!!

 

EDITOR FOR SPENCER PAPER RESIGNS!!!!!!

 

The authors revised their paper according to the comments made by the reviewers and,consequently, the editorial board member who handled this paper accepted the paper (and could in factnot have done otherwise). Therefore, from a purely formal point of view, there were no errors with thereview process. But, as the case presents itself now, the editorial team unintentionally selected threereviewers who probably share some climate sceptic notions of the authors.

 

Boom

2011-09-03 02:21:20Boom goes the dynamite!
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
142.163.190.233

Hilarious!!!

PS Don't know if I can get the post done in time for Tuesday so I suggest someone else takes the lead on it. I can probably help somewhat but I have a busy weekend and won't be able to be the lead author.

2011-09-03 02:21:21
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

This is very sad for the editor, but it also speaks greatly to his integrity and ethics...kudos to Dr. Wagner, I hope this does not affect his career, if anything it should bolster his credibility.

2011-09-03 09:44:28
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.126.237

The topic of this paper was, arguably, out of the scope of the journal, which seems to be focused on tools & techniques, not on conclusions about the resulting conclusions.

Aims

Remote Sensing (ISSN 2072-4292) publishes regular research papers, reviews, letters and communications covering all aspects of the remote sensing process, from instrument design and signal processing to the retrieval of geophysical parameters and their application in geosciences. Concepts of novel remote sensors as well as comprehensive reviews (including comprehensive reviews on complete sensors products) may also be published in another MDPI journal Sensors (ISSN 1424-8220). Our aim is to encourage scientists to publish experimental, theoretical and computational results in as much detail as possible so that results can be easily reproduced. There is no restriction on the length of the papers. The full experimental details must be provided so that the results can be reproduced. There are, in addition, three unique features of this Journal:

  • Manuscripts regarding research proposals and research ideas are welcome
  • Electronic files and software regarding the full details of the calculation and experimental procedure, if unable to be published in a normal way, can be deposited as supplementary material
  • Manuscripts concerning summaries and surveys on research cooperation and projects (that are founded by national governments) to give information for a broad field of users

Scope

  • Multi-spectral and hyperspectral remote sensing
  • Active and passive microwave remote sensing
  • Lidar and laser scanning
  • Geometric reconstruction
  • Physical modeling and signatures
  • Change detection
  • Image processing and pattern recognition
  • Data fusion and data assimilation
  • Dedicated satellite missions
  • Operational processing facilities
  • Spaceborne, airborne and terrestrial platforms
  • Remote sensing applications

 

Perhaps that should have been a warning bell?

2011-09-03 15:55:34
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.92.40.185

JC, can you e-mail me the paper? If I can understand it, I'll write up a basic version. 

2011-09-03 17:24:27Sent
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
123.211.208.191
Sent the paper to a few SkSers so I suggest we all collaborate on this thread to ensure no duplication of efforts. I'll read the paper over the weekend & post some thoughts here on how to proceed with blog posts and updates to existing rebuttals.
2011-09-04 03:12:39
Andy S

skucea@telus...
66.183.179.249

There is a public confirmation of the Dessler paper here on his own site.

It's not yet on the GRL "Papers in Press" list

2011-09-04 06:14:47
Andy S

skucea@telus...
66.183.179.249

An opinion piece by Trenberth, Abraham and Gleick

Again, confirming that Dessler's GRL article will come out on Tuesday, presumably as "in press".

2011-09-04 06:53:59Op-ed by Andrew Dressler
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
50.15.143.172

Perry shoots the messenger on climate change by Andrew Dressler, Houston Chronicle, Sep 3, 2011

2011-09-04 07:53:21
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
68.6.117.21
Very good article by Dessler there in response to Gov. Perry's climate denial comments. It's a big week for Dessler.
2011-09-04 11:11:29The paper is definitely coming out this week
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
123.211.208.191
Andrew Dessler emailed me the paper (and I asked if he could write an SkS guest post but he said he didn't have time).
2011-09-04 13:08:07Comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
142.162.25.228

Well we should organize something. I'll have some thoughts tomorrow (my time, it is 12:38 am here now).

2011-09-04 15:34:36
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
91.154.106.251

Send it to me too, John, so I'll participate at least in this thread.

2011-09-04 20:32:25Initial thoughts
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
123.211.208.191
Still haven't read the whole paper but initial thoughts - I believe this paper addresses THREE SkS myths - "clouds cause global warming", "Lindzen finds low sensitivity" and "Spencer finds low sensitivity". Ultimately, SkS is about providing peer review responses to climate myths and Dessler's paper helps us do this - as there were no peer review responses to Lindzen's 2011 paper (just the 2009 paper) and no peer review response to Spencer's paper (just the RC blog response which we reposted here).

So big emphasis should be that this is a peer reviewed response to the two myths but also avoid a he said/she said impression. Hopefully a clear narrative will emerge from the paper. I'm not sure whether to do one post for Lindzen, one post for Spencer or one big post. We'll discuss that over the following 2 days. One snag is I'm going down to Sydney for the Eureka awards on Tuesday and that takes me out of commission for two days - over the period that Dessler's paper comes out. So it may fall on another to shepherd this to publication but I'll try to contribute as much as possible before I head off.

Ari, am emailing it to you now.

2011-09-04 20:40:57
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.92.33.116

I'm still chuckling about the energy budget calculation Spencer and Lindzen use - where ocean warming causes ocean warming. Ironic that they violate the 1st law, whilst we get a continual stream of skeptics claiming that climate science violates the 2nd law. 

2011-09-05 02:06:46publishing
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
68.6.117.21

If you guys get a post drafted up, I can publish it Tuesday morning.  That's the day we're headed back home, but I'll be online a bit in the morning before we leave.  Otherwise I can do it in the evening, or maybe Daniel can do it, depending on when you want it published.

I rather like the idea of three seperate posts.  Maybe do the real whammy the first day - how it refutes Spencer's paper.  Then the next two days maybe add posts on how it refutes LC11 (which is really no different than LC09), and how it shows clouds don't cause global warming.

There's probably a fourth rebuttal in there too, to "it's internal variability."  John, if you email me the paper, I can probably help with some of these when I get back, if we space them out.  We can have a whole week devoted to Dessler kicking the "skeptics" butts.

2011-09-05 04:28:39
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Hi all,

Once something appears here, I'll help where I can.  I would offer to read the paper, but I do not know how secure my computer is....yes, a little paranoid, but I'd rather wait to see the paper rather than risk it getting into the wrong hands.

 

2011-09-05 05:48:22
rustneversleeps
George Morrison
george.morrison2@sympatico...
65.95.187.30

I am hard-pressed to see how we would get three separate posts out of this.

The paper essentially makes three basic points:

There is a general discussion how LC11 and SB11 make assumptions about the relative magnitude of "ocean forcing" versus "cloud forcing" that are shown by the observational data (Mar 2000 to Feb 2010) to be far, far off. (LC11 estimate ~ 2x, SB11 estimate ~ 0.5x. Dessler says the observations yield ~ 20x). This in turn means that the "cloud forcing" term (∆R(cloud)) in their shared energy balance equations ( C * ∂Ts/∂t = ∆R(cloud) + ∆F(ocean) - λ∆Ts ) must be quite small. This also has implications as to whether we can use observations to derive a good estimate of climate sensitivity ( λ ) and/or the cloud feedback term implicit in that sensitivity.

Assuming - as I do - that Dessler has all his ducks aligned - it is quite a short point to make (I have written it up a little bit further), and it is quite elegant.

Then, for the second part of the discussion, he looks at the correlation of ∆R and ∆Ts as function of the number of months that ∆R is lagged or leads. Dessler basically derives the same plot as LC11, but concludes that since the best models already have a coupling from SST to clouds, this doesn't matter. (I really need to read this part more, but again, the point seems very direct.)

Finally, he shows that SB11 in their comparison against models are using the most supportive models only, and that using a more representative selection their analysis is not inconsistent with existing models. And then there is a bridge from this to the fact that since ENSO was the dominant source of variability in the measurement period, that what is really being measured is model skill at detecting ENSO. 

I am not doing a great job of making this any more accessible here. It's just that from my reading it seems as though it would be hard to make this into three standalone posts. I think we might want to just highlight the three key points, discuss them quite briefly, and then summarize maybe even using Dessler's "Conclusion" verbatim.

In a long ago "presentation" class, the guideline was "1. Tell them what you are going to tell them. 2. Tell them. 3. Tell them what you told them."

Essentially, what I am saying is "Keep it simple" so that we get something out for Tuesday, rather than trying to expand the discussion when I am not sure it is warranted.

(P.S. although I also found the point Rob Painting highlighted amusing, I would either not mention the conservation of energy discussion, or just mention it (as Dessler does) as an (amusing) aside. Just my opinion...)

2011-09-05 06:13:10
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.194.184.102

The last point is essentially what was made in the RC post.  The second seems to be related to the third as well, I would assume that the best models that do have a coupling are the ones that can replicate ENSO well(?)

Yeah, three posts would be very excessive.

2011-09-05 07:27:28
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.113.8

You know, if the mistakes are really that egregious, maybe we should get a little edgier. "Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT: Don't we expect a bit more from someone like that?"

I would think he would take a little more pride in his work.

I have fewer expectations of Spencer: He's an observer/experimentalist, rather than a theoretician.

Just sayin' ...

2011-09-05 07:38:11
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.92.43.171

Rust, I disagree about the conservation of energy howler, remember these two repeatedly insinuate the mainstream scientific community are either dummies or fraudulent. In fact, I've put that 'error' centrestage in my post- even if the rest of the post isn't understood by a casual reader, they'll recognize the impossibility of the oceans causing the oceans to warm. Ergo; Spencer & Lindzen= Epic Fail!

2011-09-05 08:06:58Trenberth et al. speak out about bas science of Spencer
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

This is a good read.

The Pielkes are not happy...yawn.  Perhaps they should actually be truly skeptical of Roy et al's crappy science for once.

2011-09-05 08:18:24
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.113.8

Wasn't there this 10-year period for which the UAH measurements gave the wrong trend for temperature data than the ground thermometers did? Why doesn't anybody mention that?

2011-09-05 08:24:32
rustneversleeps
George Morrison
george.morrison2@sympatico...
65.95.187.30

Actually, I am going to have less time than I'd hoped this weekend for this, so I am going to just go wherever the group effort goes and where I can help. So, take anything I said with that grain of salt.

I know that Dessler put the caveat there that you could define the other LHS terms (ΔR and λTs) in such a way (somehow linking them back to ΔF???) that conservation of energy would be met. But the weird thing is that they (especially Spencer) want to make ΔR(clouds) a significant forcing responsible for the global temperature rise. If that is the case then to offset that and maintain conservation of energy then the third term would have to be large (negative) as well. But that would argue that λ (climate sensitivity) has to be large. And... D'oh!!!!

So, yes, it's a bit farcical, but my recollection of the Dessler/Spencer online back-and-forth was so bizarre and Roy kept throwing out all kind of non sequitur fog, and I suspect Dessler wanted to leave that for another time. If you want to focus on, great.

2011-09-05 09:56:39Comments on rusty's comments
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
130.102.158.12
Rusty, thanx for the summary of Dessler's paper. I'm stuck at GCI today working without a computer so this is all from the iPad, I'm a little limited in what I can do. But here are some further comments on the discussion so far:

Dana, have just emailed you the paper but from my iPad so not sure if I did it right (let me know). Not 100% sure about publishing on Tuesday morning - it's important that we don't preempt the actual online publishing of the paper. I assume Dessler will email the google group I'm part of to announce when the paper is live. So the ideal will be to have a blog post in the holster ready to go Tuesday morning. As soon as the paper is officially live, we publish. Problem is Tuesday morning USA time, I'll be asleep and on the road in Sydney. So I would suggest if others with admin access see the news go viral online on Tuesday, that they publish the blog post. Otherwise, I'll probably publish it when I check my email Wed morning (which is early Tue afternoon USa time). That is assuming I get wifi access at the hotel. Argh, too complicated!

I agree with rusty's treatment of the Dessler paper. Dessler doesn't make a big deal out of the conservation of energy problem so we shouldn't. Out of Dessler's 3 points, two points are fairly straightforward to explain (points 1 and 3) while point 2 is more advanced and his figures illustrating point 2 are quite opaque.

Point 1 essentially compares ocean forcing to cloud forcing. Lindzen and Spencer both assume ocean forcing is roughly the same as cloud forcing (Lindzen assumes ocean forcing is double the cloud forcing, Spencer assumes ocean forcing is half the cloud forcing). But Dessler uses observations to calculate that ocean forcing is TWENTY times cloud forcing. So cloud forcing only contributes a few percent of temperature changes. This is a pretty devastating result - Dessler uses empirical data to show clouds are a non-player in the energy budget.

Point 3 is very interesting. Dessler shows that Spencer's cherry picked which model results to show - Spencer only picked the examples where models got it wrong and failed to show where models got accurate results. Would love if Dessler actually showed this visually - all 14 model results, with green ticks or red crosses to show model accuracy and also show which ones Spencer used. Eg - visually demonstrate how Spencer carefully selected only the models giving e desired outcome and ignore the others. I'll ask Dessler if such a visual graphic exists but it's a long shot.

Need to reread the paper to see if I can boil point 2 down into something plain English. Bummer that this is the only point with pics in Dessler's paper. :-(

At this stage, probably rusty's suggestion of a single post summarizing Dessler's paper and his 3 points is the most practical approach given the time permitted and everyone's unavailability at the moment.

2011-09-05 10:13:00
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.113.8

Is it going to be an issue that Dessler will have obviously provided certain people with the text, before making it public? Not including the main targets, Lindzen and Spencer? Can they claim foul?

2011-09-05 10:37:10
rustneversleeps
George Morrison
george.morrison2@sympatico...
99.233.38.61
The copy I got did have a visual for point 3 basically as you describe John, or so I thought?
2011-09-05 10:58:26
rustneversleeps
George Morrison
george.morrison2@sympatico...
99.233.38.61
No, I am mistaken - that graph is not in this paper, but such a graph exists. I was looking at it today somewhere. Will track down when I am not on an iPod.
2011-09-05 11:00:16
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.92.34.146

I'm not intending to make a big deal out of the conservation of energy thing, but it is the subject of the first page of Dessler's paper and it is good 'sticky' messaging and a nice way to end the intro. I'm sure Dessler is aware of the persuasive power of pointing this out to a general audience.   

I'm pretty much onboard with Rusty's take. 

2011-09-05 11:51:29
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

Post the link to the blog post & I can publish it, if it happens on my watch.

I'm 3 hours before dana, from a time zone standpoint.

2011-09-05 12:23:56Rob P, can you confirm whether you can draft up a post?
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
130.102.158.12
And either Daniel (if online events make it clear Dessler's paper is live online) or I will publish it on Tuesday (which will be Wed morning my time).
2011-09-05 12:30:00John
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

Could you perhaps get Trenberth to weigh in on the post, either before the SkS post is published or in the discussion thread after?

2011-09-05 12:42:52
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
68.6.117.21
I think it might be good to have two posts on this. One published Tuesday morning [drafted by Rob P?] giving the general overlook of the paper. Then a bit later in the week I can modify the various relevant rebuttals with Dessler's results, and do a follow-up post discussing how the rebuttals have been modified. Potentially there will be 4 modified rebuttals - one on Lindzen finds low sensitivity, one on Spencer, one on internal variability, and one on clouds causing warming.
2011-09-05 13:17:01
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.241.195

JC, yup no worries, I'm halfway through it.   

2011-09-05 14:30:13You da man, Rob
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
130.102.158.12
Note: I've upgraded your SkS account to 'Full Author' which now gives you the ability to go live with your own blog posts whenever you like. I do this so it gives us more flexibility to publish your post once it's clear that the Dessler paper is officially live. So when it starts going viral on Tuesday, either you or me or one of the SkS admins can set the blog post to published.
2011-09-05 14:36:31
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Hi all,

Re "Would love if Dessler actually showed this visually - all 14 model results, with green ticks or red crosses to show model accuracy and also show which ones Spencer used. Eg - visually demonstrate how Spencer carefully selected only the models giving e desired outcome and ignore the others. I'll ask Dessler if such a visual graphic exists but it's a long shot."

and Re 

"that graph is not in this paper, but such a graph exists. I was looking at it today somewhere. Will track down when I am not on an iPod."

This woudl be devastating, but before making any loud claims we should be sure that this is actually what most likely transpired.   It is my understanding that Spencer and Braswell (2011) chose 3 models with high sensitivity and those three with the lowest sensitivity (whweras there are about 20 models in all some of which deal better with simulating ENSO than others, a point ignored by Spencer, given the importance of ENSO on the GAT one has to wonder why)-- anyhow, doing that that may not necessarily translate into "Spencer carefully selected only the models giving [th]e desired outcome and ignore the others".

It might not be possible to prepare such an image by Tuesday, but at some point later in the week such a hi-res graphic must be made avaialble and placed front and centre.  Really, if "Spencer carefully selected only the models giving [th]e desired outcome and ignore the others" is true, then it is scientific misconduct IMHO.  Remember, Lindzen and Choi also cherry picked-- do I see a pattern here ;) ?

With that said, whoever writes this I urge them to try and be as non-partisan as possible, just present the facts, call a spade a spade if need be, but avoid making ad hominem attacks on Spencer and Braswell and Lindzen.  

Spencer has made a big deal about lagged correlations, inlcusding in his most recent blog post:"As I have challenged Dessler to do, if he really believes that is happening, then he should do LAGGED regression to estimate feedback…that is, adjust for the time lag in his regression analysis.

And when he does that, his weak positive cloud feedback diagnosis will suddenly turn into a negative feedback diagnosis. I’ve done it, and it is what Lindzen and Choi did in their recently published paper, which resulted in a diagnosis of strongly negative feedback."

It seems that lagged correlations were calculated in this paper. If so, that myth by Spencer needs to be highlighted and refuted.

Spencer has also made this cliam in his post:

"At the end of the day, the dirty little secret is that there is still no way to test the IPCC climate models for their feedback behavior, which means there is no way to know which (if any of them) is even close to being correct in its predictions for the future."

Does Dessler's new paper address this allegation at all?

If it will help I will make some time to proof read/critique the draft post (Dana, Daniel, Rob and John know how to get hold of me), but I relaise that people far more knowledgeable than I are working on this.

PS:  Andy is obviously busy, but is there any chance that he (or one of his co-authors, if any) could sign off on the SkS post as some of this stuff sounds pretty tricky.

2011-09-05 14:55:09
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Neal,

"Can they claim foul?"

I do not know for sure, it is an unfortunate situation when one has to behave this way.  But two thoughts:

1) You know as I do what we areup against here, it is a war of sorts, and we know that they will do anything to refute a 'warmist' paper.  Recall how Spencer tried to Sabotage Dessler (2010) in Cancun-- he held a pres release timed at the very minute that the paper was no longer under emargo.  How did he know the content of the paper that he was spealking to and attacking?  it seems that he got hold of a copy somehow-- so IMO he has burnt that bridge or destroyed any good faith and respsect that may have been left.

2) I could be wrong, but I hardly think that Chip, Pat, John, Roy and Dick share their papers with 'warmists' before going to press with the likes of Santer or Trenberth.  Do they share the papers amongst themselves before it is available online?  Probably.  AGU does not emargo papers, so there should be no problem with Andy sharing his paper once it has been officially accepted.

Anyways, I agree that this is an issue that John Cook et al. should be cognicent of.

2011-09-05 16:05:19
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
192.100.112.211

After brief peek to the paper, I agree with rustneversleeps in that there doesn't seem to be much content for more than one post.

2011-09-06 01:32:11
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
68.6.117.21
Rob's post is up for review. Hopefully I'll be able to get the follow-up post up for review today too.