Doomed Planet

Climate Elfs Cheer Santer Pause

santa sweats IIOn December 14, 2007, a curious event took place in the climate space. Some folks at the US National Center for Atmospheric Research Christmas party wrote a song in adoration of themselves, Our First Nobel. The last line was a question: “Can an Oscar be far away?” After another decade of high-wire acts they deserve one, especially for the latest attempt to keep a dodgy global scare alive.

The song did not enter the public domain until November 2009. It was found in a large cache of emails (item 0462.txt) hacked from the UK University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit. There were accusations of data manipulation to make global warming appear more threatening. Several enquiries found no evidence of crimes or even misdemeanours, yet a bad smell still lingers around the Climategate saga.

But to begin at the beginning. Two months earlier, on 12 October, 2007, the Norwegian Nobel Committee announced the joint winners of its annual Peace Prize: the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr. It was awarded “for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change”.

Convinced that Gaia’s elusive thermostat could be manipulated by somehow turning down the atmospheric carbon dioxide knob, the Committee wanted

 to contribute to a sharper focus on the processes and decisions that appear to be necessary to protect the world’s future climate, and thereby to reduce the threat to the security of mankind. Action is necessary now, before climate change moves beyond man’s control.

Alfred Bernhard Nobel, a Swedish chemist, the inventor of dynamite and an armaments manufacturer, would have reached for the nitroglycerin; surprised as others were – and still are – by the choice. For there is no link between “climate change” and his three qualifying criteria.

Had Al Gore done anything to reduce the US military’s—or his personal carbon (dioxide)—footprint, in or out of office? Has the IPCC encouraged fraternity between nations, or the spread of peace—not climate change—congresses? Would UN insistence on “climate reparations” from the developed world—and less coal-fired power for the developing world—contribute to international harmony? And what is “peace”? How did Nobel’s conception of it become mixed up with environmental evangelism?

Our First Nobel was written to be sung to the tune of The First Noel. On 14 December, 2007, Kevin Trenberth, a distinguished senior scientist in the NCAR Climate Analysis Section and lead author of the 1995, 2001 and 2007 Scientific Assessment of Climate Change reports, emailed it to his colleagues.

“Season’s greetings to all my fellow Nobel Laureates,” he wrote. “Even if we did not get to go to Oslo. I just want to wish you and your families all the best for the holiday season, and Merry Christmas to those of you who celebrate that festival.

As part of the IPCC we have achieved something to be proud of. Thank you for being a part of it with me. At NCAR at the Christmas party a group made up a song that mentions by name all the NCAR LAs [Lead Authors] in AR4. The song is below. You may appreciate it (or not). All the best for 2008.”

Our First Nobel
Our First Nobel for the IPCC
Goes to Beth, Bette, Bill, Jerry, Kathy and Guy.
Kevin, Linda, Paty, Re-to and so many more,
And we’re sharing the honor with Mister Al Gore.
Nobel, Nobel, a story to tell,
We hope our co-workers’ egos don’t swell.

The First Working Group said to sound the alarm,
Rising CO2 levels are causing great harm.
Temperatures and greenhouse gases are racing up neck and neck,
Soon the whole Earth will be hotter than heck.
Nobel, Nobel, the planet’s unwell,
This is the future the models foretell.


The Second Working Group said that change is assured,
From the melting of glaciers to migration of birds.
From loss of land and crops to habitats,
How can they make it much clearer than that?
Nobel, Nobel, the oceans swell,
Polar bears search for new places to dwell.


We must work to mitigate, tells us Working Group Three,
Change from fossil consumption to clean energy.
If we all do our share in reversing the trend,
Our children might have a clean Earth in the end.
Nobel, Nobel, sound the warning bell,
Let’s make a future where all can live well.
Nobel, Nobel, we are stars for a day,
Can an Oscar be far away?


Spot the word peace anywhere? The NCAR folk were celebrating as if they had just a won a Nobel Prize for science. To have mentioned it in this context would have spoiled the party.

For sceptics, it was no surprise. The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change had put the ideological cart before the scientific horse from the beginning. Its collective mind was made up two and a half decades ago, when “dangerous” climate change, “climate debt” and “precautionary” action were codified at the 1992 Rio Summit. And the rest is history.

How many scientists, with or without Oscars, does it take to change a planet’s climate? Judging from a paper published online on  June 19 this year – “Causes of differences in model and satellite tropospheric warming rates” – by Benjamin Santer, Matthew England, Michael Mann and others – at least sixteen, being the number of authors; not counting the 25,000+ delegates who attended UNFCCC’s twenty-third annual Conference of the Parties. And party they did. The climate circus held last month in Bonn cost over $120 million.

The Santer et al. paper is revealing, both in content and timing. It tries to explain (in six pages) the divergence between actual global temperatures and those projected by climate models during the past two decades. A stunning admission, one confirming what sceptics had been suggesting for years: the models were not infallible.

The divergence arose, the paper concluded, because one could not predict correctly the magnitude of certain so-called natural forcings, including solar intensity, volcanic activity and internal variability. As for model “sensitivity” to atmospheric carbon dioxide, it apparently was correct.

 “We conclude that model overestimation of tropospheric warming in the early twenty-first century is partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations.”

It was a cheeky, fallacious argument. For if model projections (aka “predictions”) could be explained away on this occasion by evoking “systematic deficiencies”, nebulous phenomena such as “internal variability”, or the poor quality of real-world data, presumably they could be explained away in future by the gatekeepers of climate-truth and their masters. In other words, the hypotheses hard-wired into the models were unfalsifiable. Heads we win, tails you lose.

“What started as simply a relationship between carbon dioxide levels in our atmosphere and the temperature of our planet has morphed into pseudoscience, primarily because it is no longer falsifiable.” (M Bharadwaj 12 October 2017)  Reference

To anyone still in doubt, the Santer et al. paper showed yet again the tenacity with which disciples of dangerous climate change will go – like bees protecting the queen of a hive – to put a cordon sanitaire around the orthodoxy’s most cherished belief, namely global warming and its alleged primary cause, anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. However compromised climate models might be in other ways, this relationship was and had to remain sacrosanct. For without it there was no warming ideology, no rationale to persuade the developed world to “decarbonise” economies, and certainly no rush for them to deposit billions of dollars of “climate reparations” in the UN’s Green Climate Fund.

To reassure alarmists the “carbon” scare was still alive and well, the paper declared:

“None of our findings call into question the reality of long-term warming of Earth’s troposphere and surface, or cast doubt on prevailing estimates of the amount of warming we can expect from future increases in (greenhouse gas) concentrations.”

“I’m going to call this the Santer Clause, because the last half of it is about as real,” John McLean commented in a post here. “Talk about climate denial.”(See also here.)

It was a surprising conclusion, especially given the uncertainties mentioned in the paper’s supplementary information here. For example:

The credibility of these overall significance estimates rests on another key assumption – that the model control runs analysed here provide reliable estimates of the true (but uncertain) statistical properties of “real world” natural internal variability on 30- to 40-year timescales. (page 6)

Observed temperature records are simultaneously influenced by both internal variability (operating on a wide range of different space and timescales) and multiple external forcings. Unambiguous partitioning of observational temperature records into internally generated and externally forced components is an aspirational goal, but not attainable in practice. All model-versus-observed internal variability comparisons are affected by the large inherent uncertainty in isolating multi-decadal internal variability from observational climate records. (page 6)

So how did the authors conjure up the following paragraph, given the shadow cast by “large inherent uncertainty” over the whole ugly business? Surely not by a show of hands or “seat-of-the-pants statistics over a good beer”?

“The probability that multi-decadal internal variability fully explains the asymmetry between the late twentieth and early twenty-first century results is low (between zero and about 9%). It is also unlikely that this asymmetry is due to the combined effects of internal variability and a model error in climate sensitivity.”

As for the practice of running climate models with and without greenhouse gases, that too was a furphy. It tells us nothing about what is happening in the real world.

“It’s a completely specious argument unless it can be proven that climate models are one hundred per cent accurate when it comes to including algorithmically every climate forcing, which of course they are not. The comparison study in fact shows nothing more than the sensitivity of the models to the inclusion of greenhouse gases.” McLean, 2017

Nevertheless, the Santer Clause brought great relief to many, presumably including cognitive psychologist Professor Stephan Lewandowsky. He was lead author of this paper quoted in Santer et al.:  “The “Pause” in Global Warming: Turning a Routine Fluctuation into a Problem for Science”.

Co-authored with Naomi Oreskes and James Risbey, a CSIRO scientist, it concluded: “…scientists have long recognized that the climate fluctuates, that linear increases in CO2 do not produce linear trends in global warming, and that 15-yr (or shorter) periods are not diagnostic of long-term trends.” How convenient.

But maybe not. For Lewandowsky et al. the “pause” is a mischievous “contrarian meme” created by sceptics to mess with the minds of climate scientists; a “linguistic frame” introduced solely to “keep the [global warming] controversy alive”, and help “maintain the fiction that the science is still too uncertain to form a reliable basis for public policy.”

Unless something was done, there was a risk of contagious confirmation bias. Imagine how devastating that would be for the alarmist orthodoxy.

Simply by being exposed to the pause meme for over a decade, and by explaining short-term fluctuations from a longer-term trend in the terms posed to them, scientists have accepted a contrarian frame, and this acceptance may in turn have subtly changed scientists’ way of thinking (Lewandowsky et al. 2015).

Climate scientists allegedly had fallen for a Machiavellian semantic ruse. For “by accepting the framing of a recent fluctuation as a pause or hiatus, research has, ironically and unwittingly, entrenched the notion of a pause (with all the connotations of that term) in the literature as well as in the public’s mind.”

And what are we to make of Lewandowsky’s other claim that the “pause” controversy “ultimately reaffirmed the overall reliability of climate models for projecting temperature trends”? Ironically, even the Santer et al. paper discussed above admits there was an “asymmetry”, a “model overestimation in the early twenty-first century”.

Meanwhile, University of Alabama-Huntsville climate scientists, John Christy and Richard McNider, have found the satellite temperature record since the early 1990s show virtually no change in the warming rate. Unlike Santer et al., however, their recent paper suggests the atmosphere’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide assumed in climate models was much too high.

“They need to be retooled to better reflect conditions in the actual climate; while policies based on previous climate model output and predictions might need to be reconsidered.”

We live in strange times. How fortunate we are to have Lew’s Law – “the future is certainly uncertain” – to guide us through the mess. But, dear reader, do not jump to conclusions. Remarkably, greater uncertainty about climate change apparently does not support “arguments that mitigation is unnecessary or too costly.” That would be heresy of the worst kind.

“Such arguments are flawed because, if anything, greater uncertainty about the future evolution of the climate should compel us to act with even greater urgency than if there were no (or less) uncertainty” (8 May, 2017).

How would we choose sensibly between alternative courses of action in such a world? The guiding principle, presumably, would not be truth or knowledge, but that the squeakiest wheel must get the oil; and they sure know how to squeak – and shriek – about “climate change”.

Christmas is coming. So The First Noel has the last word on this multi-billion dollar boondoggle. If you see three camel-riding persons bearing gifts of gold (or bitcoin), frank nonsense and mire, shield your eyes. Gaze instead upon the star beyond them far, the one giving great light day and night free of charge; shining on all, regardless of age, gender, race, religion, class, colour or orientation; be they harassed or haughty, nice or naughty, mad or melancholic, young and foolish, clever and clueless, fruitless or fulsome. We should be singing praises to Old Sol, not kowtowing before the haruspices of a new religion, climate-craft.

Hallelujah. Joy to the world, be it hot, cold or lukewarm.

28 thoughts on “Climate Elfs Cheer Santer Pause

  • Homer Sapien says:

    500 years after Martin Luther, CO2-the new indulgences.

  • says:

    Reading some of the quotations from CAGW “experts” makes one wonder whether they are simply being extravagant with words in order to confuse the uninitiated or merely obfuscating because they have no idea what they are talking about.

    • Keith Kennelly says:

      The coldest November ever

      • en passant says:

        I was certainly cold for the first half of November in Melbourne, but then we had a warm week and did the MSM go on-and-on. Just before I left I saw a newsflash that we had the hottest November day ‘on record at 35 degrees’ (not true), the warmest November week on record and one of the warmest Novembers on record.

        I fled the country just ahead of an projected extreme weather event (extreme and continuous rain for three days – that turned out to be a bit of a fizzer. But the real point was alread achieved: the proles were kept in a state of fear and alarm unless they sacrificed $Bn’s in grants to the climate cult priesthood to protect us.

  • says:

    Rupert Darwall’s latest paper also mentions the “veneer of certainty stoking climate alarm”.

    “In private, climate scientists are much less certain than they tell the public”.



  • ian.macdougall says:

    It was a cheeky, fallacious argument. For if model projections (aka “predictions”) could be explained away on this occasion by evoking “systematic deficiencies”, nebulous phenomena such as “internal variability”, or the poor quality of real-world data, presumably they could be explained away in future by the gatekeepers of climate-truth and their masters. In other words, the hypotheses hard-wired into the models were unfalsifiable. Heads we win, tails you lose.
    “What started as simply a relationship between carbon dioxide levels in our atmosphere and the temperature of our planet has morphed into pseudoscience, primarily because it is no longer falsifiable.” (M Bharadwaj 12 October 2017) Reference [?]

    The subtext here: let the coal industry and coal-fired power get back into top gear. Oh, and while we are at it, let’s join Tony Abbott’s call for defunding renewable research, so we can get the planet’s one-off and irreplaceable fossil carbon deposits into the furnaces, up the flues, into the air and the proceeds deposited into our bank accounts.
    Of course the CAGW hypothesis is a falsifiable proposition. All we have to do is keep raising the GHG concentration of the atmosphere for long enough, (Venus, here we come!) and see what happens. It just might be that enough positive feedback kick in to make it impossible to lower again, but let’s see anyway. The Totten Glacier in Antarctica, holding an estimated 11 feet of sea-level rise, is melting from below, and might do what the mountain glaciers are doing, and make its way rather rapidly into the sea. But the Totten is not the only one melting: just the biggest: in which event, it might be advisable the secure your submarine before the last one is sold. You will need it if you want to take in a future performance of say The Pearl Fishers at Sydney Opera House. Along with scuba gear.
    So best get in early, and beat the rush.
    Links next.

  • ianl says:

    The trollster’s uninformed missives on this topic are mostly without point or substance and so to be ignored.

    The Venus meme is a repetitive piece of low-level, hammed-up, clumsy sarcasm. Earth’s current atmospheric CO2 concentration is 400ppmv (+/- 10ppmv), ie. 0.04%. Venus registers as > 96%. Why anyone regards this as a valid comparison for scarey-bear is beyond loopiness.

    Now here’s a fun map … all about geoid earth’s gravity troughs and bulges:

    Will you have sea levels with that, sir ?

    • ianl says:

      On a more interesting note, a few years ago the American Physical Society held a workshop comprising 3 pro-AGW scientists and 3 sceptical scientists. All 6 are very well credentialled in the climate field. A panel of highly placed APS physicists then proceeded to cross-examine all 6 of them after they had put their various cases. This procedure was in response to an alarmist screed put out earlier by the Executive of the APS and strongly objected to by many distinguished APS members after the event on the grounds that there had been no poll of members’ views (golly, that sounds familiar).

      The transcript of this seminal event is here:

      Highly recommended for honest scientific procedure and objective results.

    • ian.macdougall says:

      So you deny, ianl or whatever your real name is, the CO2 is a heat trapping gas at whatever atmospheric concentration? With heat trapped in a mathematical relationship of whatever sort to concentration?
      A simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ will do, in both cases.

    • en passant says:

      You are spreading dastardly (or is that Dastiyari?) misinformation to discredit the Ian MacBot Troll (who is invulnerable to mockery, facts, real science, truth or Kryptonite).

      Venus is 97% CO2 and the surface is furnace hot. It is Mars that has 96% CO2 and it is freezingly cold – cold enough to freeze CO2 in fact. There is a song in here somewhere: “What a difference 1% makes ….”

      One day, someday, over the rainbow and from a galaxy far, far away, the voices in his head will settle it all and finally tells the believers that the answer is …. “42”. No, only kidding, but the great Guru will tell us:
      1. What is the ideal average global temperature – and why? and
      2. What is the ideal average global concentration of CO2 – and why?

      Oh, look there goes the Archangel Gabriel on his way to MacBot’s back paddock with the answer ….

      It will never happen because Ian MacBot has no idea what objective he wants to achieve, but would destroy Oz and its economy to achieve it. In the meantime he will just remain an endlessly boring irritation, like tinea.

      “The Totten Glacier in Antarctica, holding an estimated 11 feet of sea-level rise, is melting from below”. Nope, ain’t happening. Measured the seal level 47 years ago, measured it 4-years ago (no change), started building two years ago, finished this year – and strike me lucky – no change! Am I just lucky or what?

  • says:

    “In context, the field of astrology — the study of the divine effect of the positions of celestial bodies on our lives — is pseudoscience because it violates this rule. No matter what patterns the stars and planets might be exhibiting on any given day, those movements are interpreted to be influencing what is happening in our lives. There is no course of events that could transpire that would lead astrologists to believe that their horoscope predictions were incorrect. As a result, astrology, numerology and other pseudo-scientific fields are considered to be non-Popperian.

    Similarly, it seems like any and all atmospheric occurrences are attributed to climate change — in part because its definition has become so broad. There is no combination of weather patterns that would cause climate change devotees to doubt their gospel. By contrast, even theories that are deeply ingrained in the fabric of our society, such as gravitation or evolution, are still capable of being disproven with counterexamples. It is for this reason that they are regarded as theories and not axioms. Climate change, on the other hand, has no counterexamples since every weather pattern is seen as a byproduct, therefore making it essentially pseudoscience.”

    (M Bharadwaj 12 October 2017)

    • ianl says:

      > ” … any and all atmospheric occurrences are attributed to climate change …”

      Not only the atmosphere, but also the lithosphere, cryosphere and hydrosphere. I agree with your comment – human-caused catastrophe is regarded now as axiomatic – but please be precise: Anthropogenic Climate Change (AGW) is now the axiom; glacial epochs, having occurred before Ferdinand Porsche designed the Peoples Wagon and used coked steel to build it, cannot be ascribed to AGW so the causes of these epochs are to be ignored as dangerous and irrelevant nonsense (amazingly, I have had an activist employed by the CSIRO say so to my face).

      The Enlightenment is now lost to us. I fear it was a brief spark in human history, albeit quite spectacular.

    • ian.macdougall says:

      Alice: And with all due respect:

      Climate change, on the other hand, has no counterexamples since every weather pattern is seen as a byproduct, therefore making it essentially pseudoscience.

      Because we are unable to perform a controlled experiment. We only have one planet, and it is at present the experimental one. We do not have a twin Earth to leave with its fossil carbon deposits in the ground, and to thereby serve as a control.
      The best we can do is to study Venus, which appears to have a fair whack of carbon, but not as fossil carbon deposits in the ground. Instead, Venusian carbon exists mainly as the heat-trapping gas CO2 in its atmosphere, which consists of 96.5% carbon dioxide, 3.5% nitrogen, and traces of other gases, notably sulfur dioxide. And its surface temperature is at around the melting point of lead; hotter even than the surface of Mercury, closest planet to the Sun.
      That is one reason why the AGW proposition is endorsed by the CSIRO, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Royal Society; and around 200 national scientific organisations in all.
      They are opposed mainly by shills of the coal industry, coal industry magnates, wishful thinkers, contrarian denialists and ‘conservatives’, who are in no short supply around this site. Except that there is far more nostalgia and wishful thinking in their stance on this issue than anything else.

      • en passant says:

        Ian MacBot,
        Oh Guru, can you explain the temperature of Mars to us all as it has 97% CO2 and is as cold as …?

        I await your explanation, but won’t hold my breath as you are very selective in your cultish choices.

  • Keith Kennelly says:

    Ian the denier is referring to Shills like me who read the actual data.
    That data is showing falling sea levels, increasing ice caps and surface temperatures which seem to have been roughly the same for the past 20 years. Ie no increase.

    All this despite massive increases in the amount of co2 released into the atmosphere by China and India.

    Yep I’m a shrill … but not as much as Ian is a denier. .. and I know he’s read the same data as me

  • ian.macdougall says:

    Yep I’m a shrill [sic]… but not as much as Ian is a denier. .. and I know he’s read the same data as me

    So Alice, there you have it. Choose your pick.
    I have no idea what Keith was smoking or drinking at the time he consulted, but whatever it was, it can make wishes come true.
    In one’s head.
    Well, in Keith’s head, anyway.

  • says:

    Attention all Venusians:

    The so-called “precautionary principle”, alas, has little to do with science.

    Precautionary principle: 1. A concept or tactic evoked by a person or agency to justify a preferred course of action, esp. in the absence of evidence or a law concerning a natural phenomenon. 2. Climate-craft: a deliberate strategy to exaggerate possible risks of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide to entrench a global “decarbonisation” agenda.

    “The precautionary principle might well be seen as a plea for a kind of regulatory insurance. Certainly the principle might do some real-world good, spurring us to attend to neglected problems. Nonetheless, the principle cannot be fully defended in those ways, simply because risks are on all sides of social situations. Any effort to be universally precautionary will be paralysing, forbidding every imaginable step, including no step at all.” (C R Sunstein, 2003) Reference

    • ian.macdougall says:

      “The so-called ‘precautionary principle’, alas, has little to do with science.”
      The so-called ‘precautionary principle’, alas and alack and all together now, has a helluva lot to do with science.
      It is the reason chemists wear goggles and use fume cupboards, why physicists shield themselves from high-energy radiation, why microbiologists protect themselves from inhaling dangerous spores, and geologists when in the field, like the celebrated climate ‘sceptic’ Ian Plimer, commonly wear helmets. It is expectation of the unexpected: knowledge based on their own and also historical experience.
      Science, after all, is just systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. In other words, science is a branch of knowledge, including such knowledge that allows us to anticipate what might happen, without having to go through the experience of letting it happen.

      It was agreed on 16 September 1987, and entered into force on 1 January 1989, followed by a first meeting in Helsinki, May 1989.

      That refers to the Montreal Protocol, which banned the use of chlorofluorocarbons as propellants in spray cans: because there was strong evidence, but of course, no final proof, that those substances could likely destroy the planet’s ozone layer and bring most life forms on Earth to a stinking and rotting end. What just might happen was enough.

  • says:

    Attention all Venusians: argument by analogy, alas, doesn’t cut it.

    For inferences from analogy, valid arguments are those in which essential similarities are greater than essential differences.

    Is the Earth’s troposphere similar to a fume cupboard?

    Analogy, n., 1. An inference based on alleged resemblances: things that are alike in most respects are probably alike in the respect in question. 2. See bicycle, chemists wearing goggles, geologists wearing helmets, emperors wearing no clothes, etc.

    As “a paradigm of an act that is morally reprehensible”, Jamieson discussed this example: “Jack intentionally steals Jill’s bike.” “We can argue about how relevant this analogy is to the climate change problem.”

    We can indeed…..

    • ian.macdougall says:

      Or if you like, a five-step syllogism:

      1. CO2 traps heat.
      2. The coal-fired power industry produces increasing amounts CO2 and vents it to the atmosphere.
      3. The atmosphere will therefore trap increasing heat.
      4. And therefore the planet’s heat content will trend upwards.
      I know, I know. Three steps would have been enough. But
      5. Fossil carbon shills will pooh pooh this.

      • en passant says:

        Ian MacBot,
        Rubbish, oh guru.

        Point 1: Partially true. CO2 traps some heat, but how much exactly can 0.04% retain. Explain the temperature of Mars with 97% heat trapping CO2.

        Point 2: Not true as 0.04% cannot trap very much at all. Just the other day I caught a passing CO2 molecule and it was the same temperature as the Nitrogen & Oxygen Molecules surrounding it. Shocking!

        Point 3: Twaddle and totally unproven. Why would the warmer CO2 molecule not pass its excess heat to a cooler O2 molecule? Selfish is what I call it, or the idiocy principle.

        Point 4. On a cool day I got into my hot car, because the car was an enclosed heat trapping vessel. The Earth is not and radiates heat into very cold space. Have you heard of the Sun?

        Point 5: Ah, the Ad Hom argument from one who talks to cattle and Archangels. What does your wife think of you rabbiting on like this? Surely she cannot renew your subscription to QoL when it could be put to better uses?

  • en passant says:


    Everyone else 17 comments (mostly answering the MacBot (who never answers the great questions.

    The Guru MacBot 9 comments

Leave a Reply