AGW- Please ease me in.

[Undesired Walrus]

So, like most people, I understand there is something called Climate Change, but I really don't know the first thing about it.

Ever since I studied Venus at school, I always took it as a given that an excess amount of C02 could destroy a planet. But asked to defend the case for AGW, and I wouldn't be able to do it.

So please scramble my ignorance. Is there really a huge scientific consensus that Humanity is to blame for the rise in the Earth's temperature? Is the scientific opinion in line with media hype, or will this be a case when we look back and realise the effects were still there, but milder than we initially thought?

Other than An Inconvient Truth (Which I didn't think was all that powerful), could you recommend any youtube/videogoogle videos, docs to break me in on the issue?

[BenBurch]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...05/start-here/

[Pipirr]

I recommend The Discovery of Global Warming, especially in book form. Or you can read it online:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/

The book isn't that long, but it thoroughly covers the development of the scientific idea of global warming. I would recommend this book over any other that I have read on the subject.

[lomiller]

both of the above are very good places to start

[Pixel42]

As always I recommend the two free Open University courses on the subject.

Introductory level (5 hours study): http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/course/view.php?id=1526

Intermediate level (18 hours study): http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/course/view.php?id=2805

[Aussie Thinker]

Walrus,

Good luck. I’ve spent hours and hours reading everything.

I’m still not enlightened.

If you read the stuff in the links attached you will come to the following conclusions.

The earth is Warming
A lot of things, natural and unnatural, cause climate changes.
Scientists cannot find natural causes for the current warming trend
CO2 causes warming, man produces a lot of CO2.
CO2 is the cause of current warming.
Man is the cause of current warming

So logically you would ask yourself how much warming can CO2 cause.

Please study the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, its % effect in terms of warming and the % of it that is there because of man.

It may redefine the conclusions you initially reached.

[BenBurch]

What Aussie Thinker never seems to be able to understand is that the earth would be an iceball without CO2.

It has an amazingly large effect on heat retention of the planet in spite of the small percentage of the air it makes up.

Correspondingly, a change in the amount in air that seems to be small has a fairly large effect.

We've explained that to him before.

[macdoc]

Quote:

Good luck. I’ve spent hours and hours reading everything.

We've seen no evidence of that....unless echoes of the deniosphere count.

Quote:

I’m still not enlightened.

we've seen undeniable evidence of that

GHG physics has been understood for over 100 years.....some really ARE behind the times...

This a bit of an omnibus of resources and always expanding
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/network

and this a bit more on the tech side
http://www.nature.com/climate/index.html

[Poptech]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...05/start-here/

The Truth about RealClimate.org

Quote:

RealClimate.org is assumed by those who do not know any better to be an "objective" source on climate change. It features activist scientists with degrees in Geology, Geosciences, Mathematics, Oceanography and Physics who are all self proclaimed "climatologists". Yet skeptical scientists with equivalent credentials are not (probably because they have not proclaimed it). Essentially the site exists to promote global warming alarm-ism and attack anyone who does not agree with their declaration of doomsday (proven of course by their own computer climate models) and the need for government intervention against the life supporting, atmospheric trace gas, carbon dioxide. Standard operating procedure is to post "rebuttals" to everything they disagree with and then declare victory, making sure to censor comments challenging their position. It doesn't matter if they actual rebutted any of the science or facts just so long as they provide the existence of a criticism. This gives their fanboys "ammunition" to further promote alarmist propaganda across the Internet (and of course declare victory). Their resident propagandist William Connolley's job is to edit dissent and smear skeptical scientists on Wikipedia. In the world of global warming alarmist "science" pretending you win is apparently all that matters because in real debates they lose. The truth is that RealClimate.org is an environmentalist shill site directly connected to an eco-activist group, Environmental Media Services and Al Gore but they don't want you to know that.

[Poptech]

Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus

Is there really a huge scientific consensus that Humanity is to blame for the rise in the Earth's temperature?

No.

31,478 Scientists Reject 'Global Warming' Agenda (Petition Project)

Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus

Other than An Inconvient Truth (Which I didn't think was all that powerful)...

An Inconvenient Truth is a science fiction fantasy movie that has been debunked in a UK Court.

Proof: 'An Inconvenient Truth' is Science Fiction (Video) (1min)

Judge attacks nine errors in Al Gore's 'alarmist' climate change film (Daily Mail, UK)

35 Inconvenient Truths: The errors in Al Gore’s movie (Science & Public Policy Institute)

A Skeptic's Guide to An Inconvenient Truth (PDF) (Marlo Lewis Jr. Ph.D.)

Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus

...could you recommend any youtube/videogoogle videos, docs to break me in on the issue?

How many do you want?

20/20: Give Me a Break: Global Warming (Video) (8min)
Apocalypse? No! (Video) (1hr 26min)
BS! - Environmental Hysteria (Video) (29min)
BS! - Being Green (Video) (29min)
CBC: Doomsday Called Off (Video) (44min)
Climate Catastrophe Cancelled (Video) (25min)
CNN: Exposed: Climate of Fear (Video) (42min)
The Great Global Warming Swindle (Video) (1hr 14min)
Unstoppable Solar Cycles (Video) (10min)

The Skeptics Handbook (PDF) (Joanne Nova, Ph.D. Meteorology)

Don't Believe the Hype (Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT)

[Aussie Thinker]

Ben,

I wasn’t trying to influence Walrus, just asked him to look it up himself.

It seems very clear when you look it up yourself that CO2 is a mild GHG.

It seems when you look it up yourself most of the CO2 is NOT put there by man.

But you are right about 1 thing it is helpful for making a more habitable planet.

I know you have told me about CO2 helpfulness before and I did understand it, what you have struggled to explain is the harm it causes and how much of that is man made.

[BenBurch]

I don't know why you think it is mild. Its the primary one.

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by Poptech

The Truth about RealClimate.org

Nothing substantial to say then? Just some badmouthing?

[Aussie Thinker]

Mac,

Your links are almost exactly like Poptechs (and completely countered by them).

Pretend you know nothing about GW or AGW and go into your linked pages.

They tell you NOTHING.. except that it is warming and we are doomed.. link to something specific about WHY CO2 is the problem and HOW much of it is attributable to man.

Your links are completely irrelevant.. I’ve trolled through them and wasted hours before.

How do you even think they are relevant. Here is a full list of headings from the opening page of one of them

The climate change game
Climate change will devastate Africa, top UK scientist warns
Keeping prediction in perspective
Must-reads for Copenhagen
Wrangle over how to pay greenhouse gas bill
Green and greedy
Sealing climate treaty 'impossible': UN
All creatures small
Refining the future

None of them explain GW or mans role in it.. they are all political banter or doomsaying !

GHG Physics are know..

WE KNOW C02 HAS A WARMING EFFECT. GREAT !

And you know, unless you have NO comprehension the effect is mild and a small % is produced by man.

[BenBurch]

Again, its not a mild effect at all. This is your primary error.

[Poptech]

Originally Posted by CapelDodger

Nothing substantial to say then? Just some badmouthing?

Nothing substantial?

RealClimate.org

Hosted by - Environmental Media Services

Environmental Media Services (EMS) (Discover the Networks)

Quote:

EMS's founder and President was Arlie Schardt, who also served as the National Press Secretary for Al Gore's 1988 presidential campaign, and as Gore's Communications Director during his 2000 bid for the White House. [...]

EMS officially served as the "scientific" branch of the leftist public-relations firm Fenton Communications; both companies shared the same Washington, D.C. address and office space. For more than a decade, David Fenton (CEO of Fenton Communications) used EMS to run negative media campaigns against a wide variety of targets, including biogenetic foods, America's dairy industry, and President George W. Bush. [...]

EMS also produced many stories condemning the Bush administration's environmental policies. Among these titles were: "Bush Administration Obscures Truth About Toxic Cleanups"; "President Bush Signs Fatally Flawed Wildfire Bill"; "Earth Day Event To Highlight Bush Administration Assault On Environment, Public Health"; "Bush Administration Report Card: 'F' on Protecting Children"; and "National Environmental Groups Launch Campaign to Defeat President Bush." EMS claimed that the data contained in its press releases constituted "the latest and most credible information" provided by "top scientists, physicians, and other experts." These "experts" included officials of Greenpeace, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the World Wildlife Fund, and the Union of Concerned Scientists.

RealClimate.org is an environmental shill site directly connected to Al Gore. There is nothing else you need to know.

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus

Ever since I studied Venus at school, I always took it as a given that an excess amount of C02 could destroy a planet. But asked to defend the case for AGW, and I wouldn't be able to do it.

You must have missed the part about Venus still being there, thoroughly undestroyed.

Quote:

So please scramble my ignorance. Is there really a huge scientific consensus that Humanity is to blame for the rise in the Earth's temperature? Is the scientific opinion in line with media hype, or will this be a case when we look back and realise the effects were still there, but milder than we initially thought?

Which media hype, the kind that says some cities will flood by 2050 due to AGW or the kind that says AGW is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated?

The importance of the subject is evident in the upcoming Copenhagen Conference. Humanity (in a sense) meeting to discuss rescuing the situation it has created. I doubt it'll show humanity at its best, but there it actually is.

The quick story is that CO2 is what has kept the world warm enough for liquid water, and we've increased the amount by over a third in little more than a century. That has to make a difference.

[DogB]

I second Pixels recommendation of the Open University courses. Do both those and you'll be more than up to speed.

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by Poptech

Nothing substantial?

RealClimate.org

Hosted by - Environmental Media Services

Environmental Media Services (EMS) (Discover the Networks)

Nothing substantial then?

Quote:

RealClimate.org is an environmental shill site directly connected to Al Gore.

A lie.

By the way, doe Al Gore run this thing that's not a conspiracy but they're all in it?

[Poptech]

Originally Posted by CapelDodger

Nothing substantial then?

Plenty more...

Environmental Media Services (EMS) (Activist Cash)

Quote:

EMS is the communications arm of leftist public relations firm Fenton Communications. Based in Washington, in the same office suite as Fenton, EMS claims to be "providing journalists with the most current information on environmental issues." A more accurate assessment might be that it spoon-feeds the news media sensationalized stories, based on questionable science, and featuring activist "experts," all designed to promote and enrich David Fenton's paying clients, and build credibility for the nonprofit ones. It's a clever racket, and EMS & Fenton have been running it since 1994. [...]

It's called "black marketing," and Environmental Media Services has become the principal reason Fenton Communications is so good at it. EMS lends an air of legitimacy to what might otherwise be dismissed (and rightly so) as fear-mongering from the lunatic fringe. In addition to pre-packaged "story ideas" for the mass media, EMS provides commentaries, briefing papers, and even a stable of experts, all carefully calculated to win points for paying clients. These "experts," though, are also part of the ruse. Over 70% of them earn their paychecks from current or past Fenton clients, all of which have a financial stake in seeing to it that the scare tactics prevail. It's a clever deception perpetrated on journalists who generally don't consider do-gooder environmentalists to be capable of such blatant and duplicitous "spin."

An EMS hosted site engaged in fear mongering? Say it ain't so!

Originally Posted by CapelDodger

A lie.

I just proved it. Who hosts Realclimate.org Dodger?

[Aussie Thinker]

Ben,

I get the feeling we are not helping Walrus but just pushing our own opinion now

Quote:

I don't know why you think it is mild. Its the primary one.

Water vapour accounts for 95 % of the greenhouse effect on earth. Its origin is 99.99 % natural
CO2 (and Methane etc) pretty much accounts for the other 5%
Man accounts for about 5-6 % of CO2 etc
Simple maths shows man is responsible for about 0.25 – 0.30 % of global warming.

The IPCC predicts temperature rise from 1.1 – 6 degrees over the next 100 years.

Non doomsaying global temperature increase is expected to be 1-2 degrees over the next 100 years.

Man is responsible for a massive .006 of a degree !!!!

Simple maths.

[athon]

Originally Posted by CapelDodger

You must have missed the part about Venus still being there, thoroughly undestroyed.

Yup.

Having spent months working with scientists on this very topic (developing educational resources on climate change), I can say that the science is often poorly reflected by both sides of the 'agenda'.

Terms like 'save the planet' are bandied around in an effort to slap people in the face and make them care. Unfortunately, it not only reduces people's desire to do something, it's perfect fodder for denialists. Because, ultimately, the planet isn't doomed. It doesn't need saving. Civilisation won't end and life will continue to flourish.

What WILL happen is that our way of doing things will have to change on a relatively short time scale. Those with access to resources will survive, but will have their way of life changed. Those without will suffer adverse consequences as varied as having to move entirely, to facing depletion of certain resources such as food and water.

Occasional freak weather events will become less than occasional, demanding an increase in disaster funds and/or an improvement in technology to deal with it. Again, civilisation won't crumble away, but it will have a cost.

Quote:

The importance of the subject is evident in the upcoming Copenhagen Conference. Humanity (in a sense) meeting to discuss rescuing the situation it has created. I doubt it'll show humanity at its best, but there it actually is.

This is another issue I have with the portrayal of the science versus the reality.

There is no 'rescuing' of a situation. If you imagine climate change like a slow river. It's moving, and we can't do a lot to stop that with modern technology. AGW has added water to the torrent, so to speak, increasing its speed. We can try to limit the water we're adding to reduce the potential severity of climate change events, but I fear AGW is often portrayed as something that, if stopped, will in turn stop climate change.

Quote:

The quick story is that CO2 is what has kept the world warm enough for liquid water, and we've increased the amount by over a third in little more than a century. That has to make a difference.

Indeed.

Athon

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by Aussie Thinker

It seems very clear when you look it up yourself that CO2 is a mild GHG.

It' a GHG, at least you got that much.

Quote:

It seems when you look it up yourself most of the CO2 is NOT put there by man.

A quarter of it is. A century and half ago none of it was.

Quote:

But you are right about 1 thing it is helpful for making a more habitable planet.

That's a significant effect for a GHG. This planet's good for 6.3 billion or more as it is, heading upwards. It'll take major changes to improve on that.

But you don't believe in major changes from AGW. How does that work?

Quote:

I know you have told me about CO2 helpfulness before and I did understand it, what you have struggled to explain is the harm it causes and how much of that is man made.

The harm is in the climate change. As is the benefit. Of course harm and benefit are never given in equal measure to everybody. Unless you have some scheme for sequestering the benefits and using them to balance things up, on a global scale. That would take more World Governance than we've any prospect of in the near-term.

[athon]

Originally Posted by Aussie Thinker

The IPCC predicts temperature rise from 1.1 – 6 degrees over the next 100 years.

Non doomsaying global temperature increase is expected to be 1-2 degrees over the next 100 years.

Man is responsible for a massive .006 of a degree !!!!

Simple maths.

Simple enough to evade me. Can you explain how you arrived at that?

Athon

[macdoc]

I think you will find that indicative of the mindset....

••

Lets put the GHG aspect to bed....this is MEASURED...

Quote:

Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate
W.F.J. Evans, North West Research Associates, Bellevue, WA; and E. Puckrin
The earth's climate system is warmed by 35 C due to the emission of downward infrared radiation by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (surface radiative forcing) or by the absorption of upward infrared radiation (radiative trapping). Increases in this emission/absorption are the driving force behind global warming. Climate models predict that the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere has altered the radiative energy balance at the earth's surface by several percent by increasing the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere.

With measurements at high spectral resolution, this increase can be quantitatively attributed to each of several anthropogenic gases. Radiance spectra of the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere have been measured at ground level from several Canadian sites using FTIR spectroscopy at high resolution. The forcing radiative fluxes from CFC11, CFC12, CCl4, HNO3, O3, N2O, CH4, CO and CO2 have been quantitatively determined over a range of seasons.

The contributions from stratospheric ozone and tropospheric ozone are separated by our measurement techniques. A comparison between our measurements of surface forcing emission and measurements of radiative trapping absorption from the IMG satellite instrument shows reasonable agreement.

The experimental fluxes are simulated well by the FASCOD3 radiation code. This code has been used to calculate the model predicted increase in surface radiative forcing since 1850 to be 2.55 W/m2. In comparison, an ensemble summary of our measurements indicates that an energy flux imbalance of 3.5 W/m2 has been created by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases since 1850.

This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.

http://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006...per_100737.htm

Some don't understand cumulative.
CO2 does not reset each year...it climbs thanks to us so each year builds on the energy gain of the last 100 or 300..

If we stopped all C02 fossil emissions now it would continue to warm for 50-60 years to reach close to a radiative balance and then in minor way for thousands of years beyond at.

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by athon

Yup.

Back at ya . "Destroy the planet" makes my teeth grind, and of course denialists present that as the only message. Ironically their "Destroy the economy" message is the only one they've got.

Quote:

What WILL happen is that our way of doing things will have to change on a relatively short time scale. Those with access to resources will survive, but will have their way of life changed. Those without will suffer adverse consequences as varied as having to move entirely, to facing depletion of certain resources such as food and water.

It was ever thus. By the Parable of the Unsavoury Sandwich, the more bread you've got the less filling you have to eat.

AGW is another event in history, like the Industrial Revolution or the Mongol invasions. It just happens to be the one we're living through.

Quote:

There is no 'rescuing' of a situation. If you imagine climate change like a slow river. It's moving, and we can't do a lot to stop that with modern technology. AGW has added water to the torrent, so to speak, increasing its speed. We can try to limit the water we're adding to reduce the potential severity of climate change events, but I fear AGW is often portrayed as something that, if stopped, will in turn stop climate change.

Non-anthropogenic climate change isn't a problem. It doesn't have the pace or persistence of AGW. It's taking us to a new norm about which natural variation occurs. And to an unprecedented state of knowledge of how the climate works. A better experiment could not have been asked for.

For myself, I think the response to AGW will be regional at best, managing adjustment retroactively - firefighting, in effect. As a history buff I find the whole process fascinating, having covered my own arse reasonably well.

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by Poptech

An EMS hosted site engaged in fear mongering? Say it ain't so!

It ain't so.

Quote:

I just proved it. Who hosts Realclimate.org Dodger?

You have a strange concept of proof.

RealClimate is exactly what it purports to be. It presents the actual science of climate and the science of events, such as Arctic sea-ice loss. I know you won't look for yourself because it's on your Proscribed List but I'm sure the Walrus will. Which leaves you preaching to yourself.

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by macdoc

Some don't understand cumulative.
CO2 does not reset each year...it climbs thanks to us so each year builds on the energy gain of the last 100 or 300..

We've certainly put our stamp on the atmosphere. CO2 up by over a third in a century or so, and on a rising curve. So much for "feeble" humanity. Yay for us!

Shame about the blowback, but what doesn't kill us only makes us stronger.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by CapelDodger

....A better experiment could not have been asked for....

Personally, I might have preferred an experiment in which we were in the control group rather than the treatment group.

[athon]

Originally Posted by CapelDodger

Non-anthropogenic climate change isn't a problem. It doesn't have the pace or persistence of AGW. It's taking us to a new norm about which natural variation occurs. And to an unprecedented state of knowledge of how the climate works. A better experiment could not have been asked for.

I'm not sure I agree there. There are ample examples throughout history where climate events that have had no or little influence from humans have had a significant impact. Even short-term periods of climate change, such as the little ice age, have had an effect.

In the future we should aim to cope with anything nature throws our way. Sure, AGW increases the pace, frequency and severity of such events, but even if it's slowed it doesn't make it all go away. I don't think there is a degree of drought I'd be happy to ignore, for example. And sometimes I feel the message is that climate change is something that can be made to go away if we work hard enough, ignoring the fact climate change is always something that humanity will need to adapt to, at least in some way.

Athon

[Poptech]

Originally Posted by CapelDodger

It ain't so.

Really?

Originally Posted by CapelDodger

RealClimate is exactly what it purports to be. It presents the actual science of climate and the science of events, such as Arctic sea-ice loss. I know you won't look for yourself because it's on your Proscribed List but I'm sure the Walrus will. Which leaves you preaching to yourself.

The propaganda is it is presenting the science, the reality is it is presenting the alarmist position as "science".

Originally Posted by CapelDodger

You have a strange concept of proof.

Who is the Registrant Organization of RealClimate.org?

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by Poptech

Really?

Yes..

Quote:

The propaganda is it is presenting the science, the reality is it is presenting the alarmist position as "science".

That is not the reality, as anybody can see for themselves.

Quote:

Who is the Registrant Organization of RealClimate.org?

Very big and hence even more emphatic capitals. It doesn't change the fact that anyone can go to RealClimate themselves and see it for what it is. People are sooooooooo influenced by their own lying eyes, don't you find?

Of course you could always present some examples from RealClimate that you find objectionable.

Or just one?

[Praktik]

You know I never really agreed with global warming skeptics but the size of Poptech's font is strangely convincing...

Perhaps there is something to their arguments after all??

[macdoc]

You mean like loud and juvenile...

[DogB]

Yes I alway find myself compelled by barely coherant shouting.

[Aussie Thinker]

Athon,

If 5 % of GHG is CO2 and 6 % of that is man made then .05 x .06 = 0.003.

0.003 x 2 degrees = .006 of a degree !

BTW : I like your less doomsday take on GW or AGW.

And I am not adverse to cutting CO2 regardless of what I think is its limited effect on warming.

Also.. you beat me too it.. NON AGW has contributed to MASSIVE changes in Earths climatic history.

[Poptech]

Dodger...

Who is the Registrant Organization of RealClimate.org?

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by athon

I'm not sure I agree there. There are ample examples throughout history where climate events that have had no or little influence from humans have had a significant impact. Even short-term periods of climate change, such as the little ice age, have had an effect.

Not a significant one. History is perfectly explicable without reference to climate change, and the effort to read climate into history is a relatively recent one.

Depletion of resources and over-exploitation of environments, they have featured regularly. A few years of bad weather can bring on crises, and as we know weather ain't climate.

The depth of post-Medieval cooling, and greatest persistence, was in the 19thCE, yet nowhere in there does it leave a significant mark.

Quote:

In the future we should aim to cope with anything nature throws our way.

I expect that when things settle down sustainability is going to be up there with patriotism and a mother's love, not the party-pooper it is these days.

Quote:

... ignoring the fact climate change is always something that humanity will need to adapt to, at least in some way.

Athon

I expect a little more of humanity. The next few generations will accumulate a deep understanding of how the climate works and will be left with a much simpler one (no perennial ice outside Greenland and Antarctica, for instance. Get over it or be dead already) so I don't see another glaciation coming up. We know how to prevent it, and where's the upside for us?

When CO2 and climate stabilise it will become a matter of public policy to keep it that way, even if it means digging up coal simply to burn it.

[Praktik]

Originally Posted by DogB

Yes I alway find myself compelled by barely coherant shouting.

Definitely compelling.

I just looked up Environmental Media Services and found an interesting article written by somebody who sure doesn't like them.

I'm not entirely sure that identifying people as "left" or "environmentalists" necessarily amounts to a valuable criticism, given its the content of the evidence they provide that matters. People with an axe to grind - or to put it more charitably - people who believe deeply about a given issue can still be used as a valid source of information. So we acknowledge their bias, adjust for it where necessary and evaluate what they put before us.

There really is something in there for everyone in the list of contributors to the entity:

• People wanting to tarnish it with the brush of partisanship or to invoke the spectre of the polarizing Al Gore will love the fact it was organized by a Gore associate.
• People who respond to the bogeyman of "leftist" or consider the term "environmentalist" derogatory will be happy as pigs in mud.
• And there's even something for the tinfoil crew since there are no less than two groups with "Rockefeller" in the name. AGW treaties as the gateway to an NWO GLOBAL TAKEOVER!?!?!?!

Now we really have some room to manoeuver. When confronted with anything sourced to realclimate.org there are plenty of angles you can use to discredit the source.

Dealing with "evidence" can be time consuming - why bother going through all the hassle when you can say "leftist/NWO/Al Gore" and have done with it??

[Praktik]

Now Poptech, did our razor wit and mocking of your large font not chasten you at all?

Surely there must be some part of you that realizes that size doesn't matter?