An Inconvenient Truth?

My Mum was walking out of the supermarket the other day. She saw a Greenpeace man standing there at the back entrance of the supermarket, handing out leaflets and signing up people up to for membership. Mum walked past and started loading her shopping into the boot of her car. As she loaded the bags into the boot she overheard a snatch of conversation.

“So, you see, climate change has caused these terrible tsunamis,”
the Greenpeace man was earnestly telling a worried young woman, holding out a clipboard and showing her some graphs and pictures.

My dear mother exploded. “That is absolute cr*p!” she exclaimed, turning and confronting the man and the woman. “Tsunamis are caused by tectonic plate movement in the earth’s crust. They happen because of earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and things like that!” (If my mother’s word isn’t good enough for you, you can have a look at Wikipedia’s entry on tsunami).

The Greenpeace man and then young woman turned, surprised, then turned their backs on her and ignored her. The Greenpeace man kept explaining the terrible consequences of climate change, while the woman signed up for membership.

Don’t let inconvenient things like scientific facts get in the way of a good scaremongering story! An inconvenient truth indeed! This is the kind of thing which really gives me the pip about some elements in the Green lobby. I don’t mind people espousing environmental points of view, as long as they have based their view on scientific evidence. I also like it when people have at least considered the other side of the debate, not just rejected it out of hand. Yes, I’m my mother’s daughter, and proud of it. If I had been with her, I would have applauded her loudly.

I remember that when I was studying Geography in Year 9, we had to watch a video where Rob Gell told us that in 10 years time, the sea level would rise by 1 metre. I was horrified! I imagined wading around the house in despair. I note it hasn’t happened yet. I don’t want to give away my age (allow this Legal Eagle some modesty) but I was in Year 9 well over 10 years ago. As a result, I don’t just swallow this stuff whole, no matter how well-intentioned it may be. Could people get totally overwrought and see the apocalypse where there is none…? All I have to say is Y2K.

I have had arguments with members of lobby groups before, who have become very upset when I questioned the facts which formed the basis of their campaign. Once they realise that they haven’t got a leg to stand on (factually speaking), they usually fall back on some pathetic excuse like, “But at least it’s raising awareness of the problem, it doesn’t matter that it’s not quite accurate. The important thing is to promote change.” I’m afraid I don’t agree. If you promote change on a basis which is false, this may promote inappropriate change which is costly, useless, or even harmful to society. I am aware that the notion of “scientific truth” is mutable, but you have to distinguish between a thesis which is highly likely and supported by evidence (ie, tsunami are caused by earthquakes and tectonic plate activity) and a thesis which is not based on empirical evidence (ie, tsunami are caused by “climate change” – what does that mean anyway?).

I guess I’m a follower of Karl Popper’s philosophy of science. The essence of Popper’s theory of “falsibility” is that you can never actually confirm a scientific thesis, but if you disprove your thesis, it is decisive: it shows the thesis to be false. What can a scientist conclude then? A scientist can only conclude that for the time being the facts seem to be consistent with her thesis and thus her thesis has not been disproven. So, if you follow this reasoning, as a scientist, you can never confirm that climate change is definitely happening. If you are a good scientist, all you can say is that for the time being, the facts seem to be consistent with your thesis.

The whole point of science is to question your thesis and test it rigourously, searching for more facts. Given this, there is a worrying trend to shout down people who dare question the thesis of climate change. Recently, in an environmental blog called Grist, a post suggested that people who deny climate change should be subject to Nuremberg style trials as quasi-war criminals. Okay, that’s only one guy, I don’t want to make too big a deal out of it, but it’s still a pretty worrying opinion. He’s a zealot who doesn’t understand the way in which science works. If you use Popper’s theory of “falsibility”, the best way to prove a scientific thesis is to try to disprove it.

I hate the fact that climate change science has become politicised. The “Left” accept climate change, the “Right” deny it. For me, it is not a matter of politics. I don’t think I have enough data to unequivocally accept or deny climate change. What do I mean by this?

Let’s say that it’s a sunny day today. And it’s a really hot day for the next 10 days after. Does this sample of 11 days mean that the Earth is warming up? Don’t be silly, Legal Eagle, you say, it’s coming into summer in Australia now. You really are being facecious. Well, you only know that we’re coming into summer because we know the bigger picture of how the seasons work. But what if we didn’t? We might think the Earth really was warming up. I think climate change science is a bit like this, but instead of days, let’s make it 10 year periods. We have only been keeping detailed records in Australia for 100 years or so. Maybe the last 50 out of 100 years have been getting warmer. Or even the last 100 out of 100 years? But is there some 1000 year cycle of which we are not aware? Or even a 10,000 year cycle? Is it just a statistical anomaly? Now, I’m the first to admit I’m not a statistician, but it seems to me that there is simply not enough information to know whether there is a pattern, or whether any rise in temperature is as a result of man-made causes.

Perhaps if there is a rise in temperature, it is meant to happen? For example, during medieval times in England, temperatures everywhere were a lot warmer, but there was a mini “ice age” around Elizabethan times. This which explains why Elizabethan England had to enact the Poor Laws – beggars and poor people couldn’t sleep out in the open any more, because they’d freeze to death.

I would like all these questions to be discussed openly and debated. I think it is necessary and important for us to question climate change and the science on which it is based if we wish to make a thorough scientific analysis. I hate scaremongering – this is why I don’t like radio “shock jocks”, fire and brimstone preachers and politicians – they all use fear to propel us to make decisions. What a terrible basis for a decision!

All this is not to say that we should just go and trash our environment. I think our government should think about environmental measures which we could take to protect our country and our world (rather than refusing to think about it at all and hoping it will all just go away). Whether climate change is happening or not, of course we should try to minimise our impact on the environment, and of course we should try and look after the world in which we live. I think minimising harmful emissions is a great idea (and, as an asthmatic, I’m happy with any measures reducing car emissions). We should also research and put resources into developing alternative energy sources. However, we should think about it carefully and logically. For example, solar cells may be a great way of harnessing energy in an environmentally friendly manner. But let’s think about the bigger picture. How much energy does it take to make a solar cell? Do we have to put in more energy to make a solar cell than we are likely to get out of it? What kind of pollutants are involved in the making of a solar cell? How long does the solar cell last for? I don’t know the answers to these questions, but we shouldn’t just decide on an emotional basis that solar cells are the way to go, and then find out that we have created a whole new set of problems once we implement them.

I worry about the scaremongering element to discussions on the issue of climate change because it means our responses will be based on fear and emotion, not reason. I think we need to think carefully and logically about what kind of choices and constructive changes we want to make to our society. The choices we make shouldn’t be made on the sole basis of emotion, and they certainly should not be made on the basis of incorrect information.

Advertisements

23 Comments

Filed under climate change, environment, politics

23 responses to “An Inconvenient Truth?

  1. iain

    I am rather like you on global warming but be aware that to many of the green religion that you speak blasphemy I have posted a few times on this topic and have been seen to be the modern equivalent of Attila the Hun. One chap on my previous blog took such offence at my rebuttal of his argument that he accused me of defaming him! Oh the arrogance of the true believers.
    As an aside
    I had this vision of you as a crusty curmudgeon a bit like your avatar but the revelation that you are a person of the female persuasion suggests to me that you need a new avatar :o)

  2. Legal Eagle

    I really hate it when you can’t even discuss a topic without being compared to a monster. There is an element of quasi-religious fervour about this topic which I find unnerving. Climate change is NOT a question of faith, it’s a question of science.

    I am more than happy for anyone to point out to me scientifically and logically if I am wrong on climate change or my view of statistics.

    I just want people to slow down and not make knee-jerk reactions. I refuse to believe that this is a monsterous point of view!

    When people start hurling abuse at me, I am reminded of something one of my old bosses used to say: “If they’re light on the law, they emphasise the facts. If they’re light on the facts, they emphasise the law. If they’re light on both, they just lash out angrily – it means you’ve scored a point.”

  3. Legal Eagle

    On my avatar:
    His name is Justice Kekewich, and the cartoon is from Punch. The subtitle is “A hasty Judge”. I’m quite fond of his mutton chops. (Although if my husband grows whiskers like that, I’ll shave them off in the night.) He suits the kind of curmudgeonly grumping I like to do while standing on my soapbox.

    I’m a bit of a hasty person, but he’s a reminder to me to slow down and think…

  4. iain

    LE Good come back on the avatar which would serve you well in the “about me” box of your blog :o)

  5. missv

    So where does one go to find the scientific facts? Where is the information that isn’t scaremongering or flat-out denial of the issue, that’s what I’d like to know? I tend to think that the real story lies somewhere in between.

    There was an item on Media Watch the other night on an article by Andrew Bolt questioning climate change and he certainly didn’t get his facts right.

  6. Legal Eagle

    I guess that’s what I’m saying – there should be a discussion which is not just a flat out denial, or scaremongering. The real story is probably somewhere in between, but every account is tainted by an agenda. I hate the way the whole thing has been tainted by politics, but I guess that’s life.

    What I was trying to get across is that science doesn’t give the certainty that people want (on either side of the debate). There are no definite facts, it is just that some facts are far less likely than others (eg, climate change causes tsunami). Certain models say that climate change is happening, but it is hard to take into account all of the variables.

    It is very hard for a non-scientist to know which information is correct and which is not. I can’t easily answer your question, and that’s what frustrates me! That’s why I think what Greenpeace was doing in front of the supermarket was bad, and what Bolt has said is bad. They were both driven by an agenda. There are always two sides to the story.

    I think we should look at alternative fuel sources anyway, regardless of climate change. Oil has caused constant problems in world politics, and it’s a good thing to cut down on emissions as a matter of principle.

  7. cherry ripe

    OK I think I’ve got a few points to make on this one (predictably, but perhaps not – I was once a climate change skeptic myself). I’ll put them briefly here, but I will expand on my blog shortly.

    1. the Greenpeace guy was being an idiot. He does not represent Greenpeace as an organisation. It’s one of the perils of doing your marketing by backpackers who get bonuses for the amount of people they sign up.

    2. Nobody is saying the science is exact. If it were, we’d have two earths, one which was subject to the human-made Carbon-based gas emissions that we have churned out for the past century, and one which was not. Then the study would be peer reviewed.

    3. The issue is how to interpret observations. There are facts available. A number of observations are reasonably meaningless in meteorological terms, purely because 100 years is less than a snapshot in meteorological time. So if you hear “the hottest in 100 years” it’s probably a cheap shot. But there are a number of long-term geological observations which point to significant changes in the composition of the atmosphere over millions of years. These are not so easily dismissed, as they include ice ages, hot ages and everything in between.

    4. Y2K is a cheap shot. Again, we don’t know what would have happened if we all hadn’t frantically run around updating our computers. With Y2K, the precautionary principle applied, because the impending consequences were so severe.

    5. Science, as we know, can be manipulated for improper ends. It can also be plainly mistaken. Science is a dialogue, and is highly political, especially when it comes to the funding of studies, and the objectives of elected representatives exploiting its information. Science is not an island.

    5. Politics is also involved exactly because, if we are to follow the precautionary principle, what is required is a political solution. Thus, we have politicking. But it is based on the calls from an increasing number of scientists

  8. cherry ripe

    A couple of extras:

    1. I highly laud Wikipedia on this one for citing dispassionately and openly the science behind the climate change theory…

    2. I was intrigued at Ian’s comments on LE’s gender – how strange to expect softer writing from a female. Perhaps if you read other posts from LE you’ll notice that she’s not just a female but a Mum, which I have to say, brings a clarity to one’s disgust at the legal profession that I had never experienced before…

  9. Legal Eagle

    1. Wiki rocks the casbah. A friend of ours suggested we should call our daughter Wikipedia. Mind you, he also suggested we should call our daughter Yeronna (you’ve got to have an Australian accent to “get it”).
    2. I think the link between looking at my male avatar and assuming I’m male is a natural one. I chose the Hasty Judge because I have a fondness for him (he was hanging up in the corridor at one of my workplaces, and I often looked at him). Also my aim is to remain ambiguous and mysterious.
    3. It is true that being a new mother has made me a lot more curmudgeonly! I blame sleep deprivation. Bah! Glah! Now that tooth no. 6 has come through, we are all sleeping better.

  10. -k.

    I had to giggle at the claim Andrew Bolt got his fact wrong. No! Never! I like to read him to either a) have a laugh or b) get infuriated.

    The environment and climate change has certainly become a hot topic. Yesterday I had 15 year old girls asking me where the water catchment areas were, and why we were doing more to prevent climate change.

    Like cherry ripe, I’m not a huge fan of the backpacker scaremongerers and would much prefer to do my own research – or at least hear it from a more balanced source.

    Nevertheless, I’m glad this has become an election issue. It needs to be addressed, and the sooner the better.

  11. missv

    Hey I know I was stating the obvious about Andrew Bolt but in the context of the discussion I thought it was better not to make a wide sweeping generalisation 🙂

    On the subject of Wikipedia, there is an interesting article in The Chronicle of Higher Education at the moment: Can Wikipedia Ever Make the Grade?

  12. iain

    Well Cherry I am an unrepentant skeptic on AGW and I find the zealotry of the “global warming is our entire fault brigade rather repulsive”. The science on this matter is very far from being definitive despite the loud chorus to the contrary. The thing that riles me is the claim that the science is proven because lots of people say that it is. Of course we all know that matters of science are not decided by a Jury but by the application of empirical facts to a hypothesis in a way that can be replicated for verification. None of the global warming stuff meets that standard of proof.

    I had worked out that LE was a woman some time ago and believe me I can appreciate the desire to have an avatar that means something to you personally. I have a picture of “the dancing Shiva” for mine besides the fact that I practice yoga I like it that Shiva is the Goddess of destruction and chaos because it appeals to the rat-bag in me :o)

  13. Legal Eagle

    I agree with Iain that a scientific thesis is not correct just because the majority of people think that it is. Otherwise our society would never have gotten past the notion that the Earth was the centre of our world.

    I think it’s great that we’re having a debate about climate change because it means that we are questioning and thinking about it. Personally, I shall continue to exercise caution with any information I am given.

    Vis-a-vis Cherryripe’s argument that the Greenpeace fellow was just a misguided backpacker – Mum has confirmed that this was indeed the case (he was Irish). But he must have obtained his information from somewhere and he must have been told that tsunamis are caused by climate change (hence the graphs and the pictures). The inference I would draw is that he was told by Greenpeace that this was the case.

    I am afraid that I do not have much respect for Greenpeace as an organisation, as I think it has a tendency to ignore science and say what it thinks should be right, without much consideration for scientific evidence. I make my judgement based on the interactions that my family and I have had with Greenpeace over the last 15 years. It should be said that most of my family are scientists (hence my scientific bias – perhaps science is my religion?).

  14. Legal Eagle

    Incidentally, Shiva is a great avatar. It is interesting to think of his dance in the current debate – with one footstep creation, with the other destruction. By its very nature, “conservation” is about maintaining and preserving the status quo. Perhaps Shiva tells us that this is impossible? The nature of our world is not stable, but it is always in flux.

  15. You say:

    I think it is necessary and important for us to question climate change and the science on which it is based if we wish to make a thorough scientific analysis.

    I’m a scientist. This is exactly what we do for a living. We train for years to learn what our predecessors learned, the techniques for collecting, analyzing, and interpreting data, how to use the tools. Perhaps most important, as Feynmann said, we must learn how to stop fooling ourselves.

    Then along comes some concerned citizen who decides to investigate the issue of climate change. That’s good!

    This particular concerned citizen reads Michael Crichton’s State of Fear, sees Martin Durkin’s documentary Great Global Warming Swindle, and finds all kinds of web sites denying the reality of global warming. He’s predisposed to dislike Al Gore and greenpeace. He comes to the conclusion that global warming is false. He’s entitled to his opinion.

    But now he starts a personal campaign to discredit global warming science. Of course, he’s never studied thermodynamics or atmospheric physics or chemistry; he’s never even thought about the statistical analysis of time series or radiative transfer functions or infrared absorption spectroscopy. Hell, he doesn’t even know what they are. But he’ll start a blog on which he declares that the thousands of climate scientists who produced the IPCC reports are part of a worldwide conspiracy to swindle us out of research funds, and the temperature change we’ve observed in the last 100 years is all part of a natural cycle.

    He’ll even come over to my blog and tell me that a volcanic eruption like Mt. St. Helens or Mt. Pinatubo puts more CO2 in the atmosphere than all human activity since the beginning of time. He’ll proclaim that some glaciers are shrinking but others are growing, and Al Gore is a big fat liar to put so many pictures of shrinking glaciers in his movie.

    I can tell you’re unhappy with the greenpeace moron who said that global warming is causing tsunamis; he’s mistaken to believe it, and an idiot to state it as fact. But I can tell you, for every greenpeace imbecile who attributes tsunamis to global warming, there are a thousand (or more) so-called “skeptics” who make equally stupid proclamations about global warming science. I deal with them every day. Almost every time I do another blog post on the science of global warming, one of them shows up to comment about how idiotic, or downright evil, I am. They’re all over the net.

    If you want to discuss global warming science, I encourage you. But don’t talk with idiots and call it a stimulating conversation. Don’t think for a moment that hours spent scouring the web will substitute for years studying physics, mathematics, and chemistry, or a lifetime spent studying climate science. And when thousands of genuine bona-fide climate scientists say that global warming is real, it’s caused by human activity, and it’s very very dangerous, pay attention. When the handful of scientists who dispute it call them liars, don’t believe it. When the morons show up at your blog disputing the science, turn your “doubt meter” to ultrahigh sensitivity. And if you’re really confused about a particular question, go toRealClimate (climate science blog by climate scientists), or come to my blog, and ask.

  16. Legal Eagle

    Tamino,

    I agree, Greenpeace doesn’t have a monopoly on schmucks. There are uninformed twits in the environmental camp, and uninformed twits in the skeptics camp. There are also people in each camp who are pushing their own weird political agendas (sometimes with good intentions, but other times, I suspect them of more Machiavellian intentions).

    Personally, I think that both sides should be questioned throughly, because as you state, that’s what science is all about. I don’t take climate change skeptics for granted at all. From what I understand, there are some real whackos amongst them too. If someone suggested I should accept their hypothesis 100% and exclude the hypotheses of those who argue that anthropogenic climate change is occurring, I would refuse to do so. Each side should keep an open mind. It is vital that scientists keep researching, publishing findings and try to find out what is going on.

    I guess part of my problem is the way in which the media presents these issues. I really hate scaremongering, and I think some of the predictions are far-fetched. How can it be said that dengue fever will increase in Australia? This is just a surmise, it’s not certain, but it’s presented as a fact. The problem is that the media doesn’t like reporting that the sky might fall on people’s heads. That’s just not a good by-line. How much better is it if it is reported that the sky will definitely fall on people’s heads at 10am tomorrow!

    The other thing I don’t like about scaremongering is that it can lead to ill-thought out measures which don’t actually fix the problem. For example, there was a recent study in the Environmental Science and Technology Online Journal which said that, contrary to popular opinion, changing cars to ethanol-based fuels could be worse for people’s health, and make no appreciable difference to climate change. From what I understand, previous studies had only looked at tail-pipe emissions, and had failed to take into account the way in which those emissions then reacted with the atmosphere. (I’ve done a post on it here).

    I also worry about the efficacy of carbon credits in addressing the problem. I am concerned that if such measures are not thoughtfully implemented, they may lead to a situation where third world countries and the poor are disadvantaged.

    These are not criticisms of climate change science per se, but of the politics and hype surrounding it, and the way in which climate change is reported. I wish it weren’t so polarized and politicized. But that’s the way life is, I suppose.

    Cheers,

    LE

  17. LE,

    I share your concerns about carbon credits and other schemes, which may be more effective at making people feel good than at doing anything to reduce CO2 emissions into the atmosphere. Frankly I don’t know the best way to go about it; I have my notions, but I’m not an economist, environmental scientist, or sociologist, and I don’t pretend to know better than they do.

    But I caution you not to doubt the fundamental science unless you have real reason to do so. And that begins by at least understanding the fundamental science. I’m not talking about dengue fever outbreaks in Australia; that’s a scientific speculation, and as you rightly point out, the mass media has a very destructive habit of touting every newborn speculation as though it were Einstein’s theory of relativity. I wish they’d quit doing that!

    The fundamental science, however, is quite robust (scientific terminology for “overwhelmingly likely to be dead-balls accurate”). And it is: global warming is really happening. It’s caused by human activity. It’s bad.

    If you want to become a climate scientist, then you may discover some hitherto-unknown flaw in climate science. But up to this point, the few legitimate scientists who claim to have done so, just don’t have a leg to stand on. Their often-ridiculous proclamations have made their careers into a joke. The case being built by thousands of researchers worldwide, researcher who (contrary to what you may have heard) are actually trying to find its flaws, has simply gotten stronger and stronger for decades, until the evidence is overwhelming.

    If you choose to learn climate science, I hope you can shed light on our understanding. But be prepared that it takes years of study just to become a beginner. Until then, rather than spend your time questioning the science, I suggest you turn your thoughts to what can be done about it.

  18. Kay

    I would suggest the following web sites in addition to Real Climate:

    These are:

    http://www.climateaudit.org/
    http://climatesci.colorado.edu/

    The argument that as non-scientists, we should not attempt to understand the issues raised in the science, is simply unsustainable. We are not doctors, but when faced with a serious medical condition, will seek to understand the issues and perhaps seek alternative opinions – doctors will usually seek several opinions before issuing a diagnosis or prognosis. Perhaps medicine is not science.

    Given that anthropogenic climate change has huge implications one way or the other, I think it is incumbent on all of us to understand all the issues beyond the superficial sound bite or catch phrase. This is not the time to surrender your mind – not to the state, not to the IPCC, not to Durkin, not to Al Gore, and not to a group of scientists.

  19. Kay,

    Thank you – you’ve said exactly what I was thinking.

    I am a lawyer, with a highly specialised knowledge of particular areas of the law. But I think it is entirely valid that laypersons want to try to understand the law. They may have a perspective on it which is different to mine, and indeed, they may be mistaken in some aspects of their understanding, but I don’t believe that they should just shut up and listen to the experts on the topic (ie, me). I don’t demand that people go off and get tertiary degrees in law in order to comment on it.

    The IPCC, Al Gore, the Australian governments and different groups advocating response to climate change all want me to make decisions which may change my way of life radically on their “say-so”. Accordingly, I believe that I am entitled to have an opinion on the matter, despite the fact that I am not a scientist.

    I concede that my opinion may be ill-informed or simplistic in some respects, and I am happy to try to understand any scientific papers or journals on the subject. As a reasonably intelligent and scientifically literate person, I believe that I could make a pretty good stab at it.

    Tamino suggests the vast majority of climate change scientists may think climate change is occurring because of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, and that I should just accept that and shut up and do something about it. If such a large number of scientists are of this opinion, one must give credence to their views accordingly. But…I can’t help thinking that at one point in time, 99% of natural philosophers and astronomers probably thought Copernicus and Gallileo were totally wrong.

    The need for “consensus” suggests that the decision is political not scientific. Plus, within a consensus that anthropogenic climate change is occurring, there may be significant variation of specific opinions.

    But I will check out all those websites and see what I can learn.

    Cheers, LE

  20. Kay

    LE,

    Thank you for your post. I used to be a lawyer myself – aeons ago it seems.

    You will find, as you research the area, that there are important nuances and variations in the views of various scientists. As such the use of the term ‘consensus’ is deeply unfortunate, because what it shields is far more interesting than what it reveals. Happy reading!

    Cheers,
    Kay

  21. Kay

    The politics of the blog are mind boggling indeed. I see from other threads that you have been hit by trolls and there are some vicious ones out there. They have no qualms quoting from your blogs and blasting you from theirs.

    Anyhow, there are more links/material I would like to send to you but am wary of posting them lest I become the subject of never ending ad hominem attacks. I have no desire to be quoted in another blog or to engage in an online shouting match. So if you will send me a temporary hotmail/gmail/yahoo address, I will send you the material I have.

    Meanwhile, here is more:

    http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=pb&id=886

    The Fraser Institute is, I think it is fair to say, a relatively right wing Canadian think tank. Ordinarily I would avoid them along with those on the ardent left. However, I was persuaded to read this and was surprised at the absence of shouting in the document.

    http://climatesci.colorado.edu/category/guest-editor-weblogs/

    I have sent you this link before. Check out Hendrik Tennekes’s blog. As a fan of Karl Popper, you will appreciate Henk’s comments.

    You may also appreciate the House of Lord’s report on Climate Change Economics

    Some counterpoint:

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/05/mcintyre_tries_moving_the_goal.php#more

    and of course Real Climate and scores more…

    Rgds

  22. Kay,

    That’s great – I have always wanted to read more on this topic (although I suspect it will be addictive, just producing a need to read on, and on, and on…)

    I think I’ll have to wait until the teaching term finishes to get through all of this (another two weeks or so). I want to give it my proper attention.

    Thank you!

    LE

  23. Pingback: Conservation = Conservatism? « The Legal Soapbox

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s