Tom Fuller has posted “Examiner.com’s First Annual Survey on Global Warming”. Of course no web based poll is scientific, but they are worth answering anyway. So, here are 5 reasons you should take the survey:
- It’s organized to put climate change in perspective. It includes questions about economics, health care and foreign policy.
- It includes text boxes to let you amplify on your answer.
- Asks how we should respond to global warming. (I answered “Prevent it–make all needed changes to reduce CO2 emissions and reverse what’s been happening”.)
- Ask who you trust on topics about global warming. You can vote for me!!! 🙂 (Or not 🙁 )
- Surveys are fun!
To take the survey, visit: “Examiner.com’s First Annual Survey on Global Warming”.
Well conceived survey .
3) I didn’t answer the same thing as you Lucia because reversibility is a joke .
Just for information .
To what value we should go to “reverse” and are you supposing that it “stops” there ?
After all in the orthodox AGW theory reversing CO2 concentrations leads to cooling .
So if one takes it seriously (what I don’t) then it could trigger an ocean answer which plays at scales order of magnitude above what human do .
The cooler oceans absorb more and more CO2 and a serious cooling sets in .
Now according to Murphy’s law PDO switches also cold and we get several 1998 but in the other direction 🙂
What then ?
Tom–
Well…. precisely speaking one can’t reverse what’s happened. But out of the five choices, it was the closest to what I would do.
I let my love of academics shine through. I think we need more study. Of course, it would need to be funded. 😉
I’ve been reading the comments at RJP jrs site, and Sharon F made a comment bemoaning the fact that you were the only female on the list. My first thought was “typical feminist whining”, since what other female blogger is out ther… and then, holy crap, it dawned on me that I completely forgot to write-in Jennifer Morohasy!
So as a dim but honest and well-meaning knuckle-dragging male pig, I’d like to make amends and urge anyone who has not yet taken the survey to add Jennifer Morohasy to the “other” entry field for climate sites read regularly.
Perhaps the reason the blog list is male dominated is explained by the first 198 responses to the survey:
Are you
Male 96.4%
Female: 3.6%
Prefer not to say: 0
In other news that may be of interest to you and your readers…
Name recognition for Lucia Liljegren: 66.7% (you beat me…)
‘Trustability’ for Lucia Liljegren: 50% (you beat me…)
Try to read every day for LL: 40% (am I alone in wishing you posted more frequently?)
Most trusted source: LL 5% (beat me, Bjorn Lomborg, Andrew Revkin…)
Your figures are biased of course by being one of the link sources to the survey… but I’ll echo those who voted for you–I think you’re a treasure.
Tom–
I usually post more frequently. But October was a tough month. It started with having to get Dad from Florida to Highland Park (with a mini-disaster by way of Albuquerque and assorted inefficiencies associated with that. ) Then my father-in-law as diagnosed with cancer. So, he’s on chemo.
Then, on Tuesday, Dad was back in the hospital– although he was out right away.
So… I put some posting on hold for a bit.
But, oddly, during the pause, I have knit a lot. (It’s a great thing to do on airplanes, in hospitals, in assisted living facilities etc. I’ll have to show pictures of the 3/4th finished sweater. )
Is any of your knitting for sale in the Lukewarmer shop?
Tom–
I never sell my knits. I sell patterns, and make some money from google ads at my knitting site.
I am going to teach some knitting design lessons soon though. In case you want to learn how to write your own pattern for simple things. 🙂
Here’s what I’ve been knitting most recently:
(The green sweater is the knitting project.)
I added these “missing questions”:
.
It is said that competing economic and political interests will make it impossible to have any effective anti-CO2 policy. Agree or Disagree? (Agree)
.
Do the political and economic conflicts affect what you believe should be done about GHGs? (Yes – mitigation will always be a political non-starter and is therefore a waste of time and energy).
.
That is why I completely disagree with Lucia’s choice of ‘prevent it’. ‘prepare for it’ is the only plausible option.
Raven–
Roger Pielke Jr. has been posting news that does suggest enforcing any emissions controls and mitigation will be very difficult.
I said, more or less “lose the ‘we'”-the idea of “what policy actions could/should be taken” is ill posed in my view because proper course is, as always, for individuals to make the choices that are right for them.
Andrew_FL–
But “we” does make sense if one contemplates government funded research. Sure, individuals could in principle fund research into carbon capture, but in practice, it’s going to take a collection of individuals acting together. So… plural! 🙂
I keep getting an error page.
In regard to action, I like the idea of reducing CO2 output just for general purposes starting slowly with a goal of keeping the atmosphere under 1,000-ppmv. Why? I don’t know, just a geologic swag.
I also appreciate all of the knitting that Lucia is doing and trying to spread around to more people. In the coming glacial advance, sweaters will be gold!
Howard–
Yes. I’ve been getting both 403 and 500 error pages recently. I’m trying to figure out why they are occurring.
Lucia,
.
Roger Jr. reports on the regional conflicts in the US and the EU, but similar issues exist everywhere. For example, a recent report by two AGW alarmist groups came out in Canada and said that Canada could meet a 20% emission reductions target but it would require that the bulk of the costs would have to be paid by the western provinces. It would take a while to explain the historical context but it does mean that no political party with any hope of forming government can support an effective anti-CO2 policy in Canada. Expect nothing but symbolism.
.
That is why I suggested that we need to move beyond opinions on the science and the hypothetical merits of impossible-to-implement policies and instead focus on what can be done: R&D, efficiency regulation and adaptation.
lucia (Comment#22893),
Wow, that is a ‘plus size’ cat!
For end of survey Q & A:
Q: Do you personally know of any changes in your environment you can attribute to global warming? (Not something you have read about.)
A: No, I’ve not noticed anything.
SteveF–
Yes. ‘Mo is fat, fat, fat! We adopted him from a shelter about 3 years ago. He immediately began to gain weight; we estimate he gained 3/4 lb a week until he reached a plateau. His weight has been stable for at least 2 years.
We thought about trying to make him diet…. but if we don’t feed him, he misbehaves rather badly. Otherwise, he is a very good cat.
Wow, dat’s a Fat Cat! IMO, there’s not nearly enough in-depth discussion (anywhere) of the cost-benefit of CO2 mitigation efforts. It should be taking up as much ‘space’ as the science side of the equation. That way, one could give a more informed answer to #3.
Lucia is sequestering carbon in that cat. Way to go!
Boris–
Yep. ‘Mo barely moves; I’m sure his carbon footprint is very low!
On the other hand, I’m not sure about Grizelda who we adopted. You would not believe how much food she eats (and is staying slender so far. I think it’s the sneaking out at night and hunting.)
Lucia,
“I think it’s the sneaking out at night and hunting.”
Or worms… which come from hunting.
SteveF–
Well.. yes. Could be worms.
and in case you all forget I found lucia first. so there. and bender and I both approve of her and think she’s a tiger. so there. You go girl. What I want to see is Dr. Curry and Lucia in thunderdome. Man i could earn hella quatloos on that cage match. I like when Lucia makes the silly climate boys cry. especially Tammy.
lucia (Comment#22920) November 1st, 2009 at 4:44 am
hmm. he sounds like a climate proxy
I found the survey to below average quality on the way it was constructed. Some questions were too vague; some supplied answer sets that weren’t inclusive of all reasonable choices. At least the open-ended answer boxes remedied the latter problem somewhat. I also found it biased toward accepting AGW and the need for governmental actions. To be most useful a survey needs to admit biases up front so that the answers can be put into context. These things are hard to create and the questions need to be tested before releasing the survey. Maybe this sounds too critical for what’s supposed to be a “fun” survey, but somebody is sure to take the results and extrapolate beyond their validity so take the results with the usual grain of salt.
mosher says:
“I like when Lucia makes the silly climate boys cry.”
My favorite lucia line is “time to get your big-boy pants on.”
bender–
Well, some do sometimes whine about the equivalent of water running downhill.
bender:
October 3rd, 2006
“I’ve dared to classify myself as an uncertain luke-warmer.â€
David Smith:
November 26th, 2006
“It appeals to my lukewarmer, we’re-gonna-be-OK inclination.â€
Around this time – this was during post-Katrina analysis – I had asked CA commenters to answer this poll question: “How much of 20th century warming do you think is attributable to human-caused greenhouse effects?†We called it the “A in AGW†question (using Gerry North’s words).
Two groups emerged*. The 14 “skeptics†turned out to be “warmersâ€, attributing a mean of 23% to A in AGW. The “alarmists†(only two willing to go the record) had A in AGW averaging 60%.
Conclusions:
1. What the “deniers†were denying was not what the “alarmists†said they were denying.
2. The two sides were not as far apart as I thought they would be (and, I suspect, not as far apart as they thought they were).
3. There was a middle ground that nobody seemed to want to occupy.
4. Do blog polls yield a biased sample? Are people of moderate opinion not drawn to blogs? (As noted above, no females responded.) Is the silent majority of the population “lukewarm�
I didn’t invent the category. It fell naturally out of the data. What else would you call people who believe in the greenhouse hypothesis because of what they’ve read in the papers, but could be swayed by new data either way on the potential magnitude of the effect?
*NB: lucia, mosher, bender and McIntyre did not take the survey.
Lord Monckton should surely have featured? Also, they should have had marks for the tone of the blog. I would characterise yours as relaxed, warm, purposeful, but probably too nice to draw the sometimes possibly disagreeable conclusions appropriate following the anaysis done.
It would seem Lucias’s cats are temperature proxies. Any guesses as to how to regress a cat and which will be chosen as Team mascot?
Thanks bender,
Going back and researching some of the terms we now throw around has been an instructive exercise for me. I knew you were one of the first to use the term, and I like the way you characterize the middle ground.
Lucia, Did you give up on your Knitting IPhone App?
bender (Comment#22957)
I think your CA poll has a preponderance of technically inclined people in it, and the physics lends itself to lukewarming so the results aren’t surprising. After that the science is not agreed upon in terms of the interrelationships of the physical processes.
I think there is a philosophical chasm between, “it’s warming but nothing to get hysterical about” and “we’re all going to drown unless we give up all our modernity”. There doesn’t seem to be a middle ground because both sides will claim a middlegrounder belongs to the other side.
BarryW–
Yes. I looked into it and decided that writing apps was just an extra thing I would be better off skipping.
I think that you are correct that both sides consider the true middle ground to be on the “other” side. This is evidenced by the fact that there are people who are considered to be on the “other” side by both sides, while no one is accepted as being “in” both sides.
I thought the meaning of “lukewarmer/lukewarmist” was clear:
1) The physics of CO2 doubling says there has to be some additional heat energy in the atmosphere.
2) It is unlikely that the sum of all other forcing factors will act in a manner to significantly amplify this warming (and may even respond to significantly counteract it).
3) The result of CO2 doubling should ultimately be detectable but the net effect on temperature will not be significant and certainly not Gore-like in its net effect.
4) It is unscientific to equate the “settled” status of the physics of CO2’s optical properties with that of speculation about positive feedbacks or scenarios of catastrophic warming.
“I thought the meaning of “lukewarmer/lukewarmist†was clear:”
Not to me. Lucia tried to explain that the difference between a Lukewarmer and a Warmer was a difference of degrees.
How many?
Andrew
Andrew_KY–
Let’s just use water: Do you know the precise boundary between:
scalding, hot, warm, lukewarm, room temperature, cool, chilly, cold, frigid?
Lucia,
How about we be a little more scientific and put some numbers on these descriptions? or is that what you are trying to avoid? 😉
Climatic Lukewarm is supposed to be where the science is right? Let’s see some numeric thresholds then.
Andrew
Andrew_KY–
The example is supposed to show you can’t put numbers on the descriptions. There is nothing unscientific about qualitative descriptions. You just need to recognize that science includes both qualitative and quantitative aspects and recognize which are which.
I’m a wee bit puzzled by the ‘lukewarmer’ term, since it suggest to me a degree of certainty, a marked restraint upon the range of considered outcomes. It seems to be accepting George Tobin’s (Comment#22965) points 1 & 2 above. I hope we won’t dispute 1 much, but what gives the confidence to assert 2? I understand the arguments surrounding this, of course (the doubts that people have over IPCC projections of climate sensitivity), but I don’t readily see why this should give confidence to the assertion of point 2.
bender (Comment#22957),
What else would you call people who believe in the greenhouse hypothesis because of what they’ve read in the papers, but could be swayed by new data either way on the potential magnitude of the effect?
Isn’t that a not-sure-how-much-how soon warmer? Like me? I want to start my own party!
Simon–
Maybe you are a lukewarmer.
Joe Romm, whose book is entitled “Hell and High Water” is clearly not a lukewarmer. People who deny warming altoghether are clearly not lukewarmers. Some of it is also temperament. Lukewarmers don’t usually go all foaming at the mouth.
“you can’t put numbers on the descriptions”
Really. So Lukewarming and Warming aren’t seperated by any objective demarcation.
Who knew? 😉
Andrew
Andrew– No. Either are “tall” and “very tall”.
Simon Evans, lucia, Andrew_KY, George Tobin,
The reason I did my survey was because I wanted to know what the substantive and objective differences were between these allaeged categories that we keep hearing about: deniers, skeptics, warmers, alarmists. I was interested in demarcation. I used a single question because the number of survey respondents drops quickly with the number of questions asked. Geoge suggests a lukewarmer demarcation/definition based on a range of pretty fuzzy parameters. Good luck getting interpretible data from a survey asking multiple/complex/loaded questions.
I think Simon should be puzzled by the term “lukewarmer” because there seems to be a lot of middle ground between the “skeptic” and the “warmer” (there were 2 “deniers” (A=0) in that survey). Implying there are a lot of ways that a “lukewarmism” could be defined.
Rather than imagine pre-conceived categories and risk erecting strawmen, I chose to listen to what people had to say on a quantifiable question and classify after the fact. This was not about quantifying people’s certainty about their beliefs (I did ask people to try to attempt to quantify the uncertainty on A by giving me a range, but very few were willing to do that); it was about estimating people’s “priors”.
3-4 years later it would be interesting to ask the same question and see what has changed and why.
The middle ground is an important space to understand because it’s the only space available to policymakers that has a chance at appealing to moderates of either side.
All:
If you wanted to distinguish deniers, skeptics, lukewarmers, warmers, alarmists, and nutters – what is the one single parametric question you would ask? Just one.
bender,
The middle ground is an important space to understand because it’s the only space available to policymakers that has a chance at appealing to moderates of either side.
Ok, so let’s agree to deal with the methane at least –
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/326/5953/716
This would be cheap!
answer:
what can we do today to avoid a global warming calamity.
Howard:
That won’t work because it makes a presumption not all camps could agree to. Moreover deniers and alarmist nutters might both be inclined to answer “nothing”, but for opposite reasons (action not required, too late for action). Also, it’s too open-ended. I want a *single* parameter that spans the *full range* of views with *no redundancy*.
What do you think climate sensitivity is?
(You might have to explain the concept to most of them. )
Answer key:
-1.0-0.0 nutters
0.0-0.5 deniers
0.5-1.0 skeptics
1.0-2.0 lukewarmers
2.0-4.0 warmers
4.0-6.0 alarmists
6.0-11.0 nutters
bender – this might be stretching the definition of a single parameter question but how about:
“Without reference to any external data please free hand draw a graph, including scales and error bars, for the last 2000 years showing the global land surface temperature anomoly relative to the 20th C average”?
ok so I’m treating the “single parameter” as “the graph”, but I think responses could be analysed by a template test – I’ll leave others to suggest bounds for the templates and where the categories would lie. Or submit their own!
A sort of Rorschach approach?… 🙂
bender (Comment#22982)
What effect does a doubling of CO2 have on the global temp?
Ans:
denier: that is a dumb question,
skeptic: less than natural variability,
lukewarmer: what the physics says a doubling should cause,
warmer: what the midrange of the models say,
alarmist: the top of the range,
nutter: Al Gore is god and we’re all gonna die if we don’t repent and make him Emperor of the world right away.
bender,
The fundamental problem I see is that even among Climate Soap Opera Junkies, like we all are, a person’s choice of category/name could reflect cultural and political or even personal tribalisms as much as they do with any scientific view.
I think there is some meaning attached to these names, but not very much. I think many of the people who identify with the names, don’t WANT the name to mean anything specific! 😉
Andrew
Bender:
You are correct. The question has to take the nutters cryptic responses into account on both sides of the debate. After further thought, my mind melted. I hope you have a question in your back pocket that you will reveal in a few days. Otherwise you can sod off ;>)
Boris (Comment#22988) November 2nd, 2009 at 6:44 pm
Thanks for this Boris. When I was trying to put some constraints on sensitivities that lukewarmers could buy into I was stymied. I’m not sure I would put a number on it exactly I’d prefer to talk about a
methodology for bounding sensitivities. But if you ask me to put a number on it I would pick the best performing GCM WRT to hindcast ( hindcast against GISS and Hindcast against GISS – .3C)
and base my estimate on that. Something like that.
bender (Comment#22982) November 2nd, 2009 at 5:52 pm
My number would be this: The real contribution of UHI over the past 100 years. If Gisstemp shows .X warming over the past 100 years and maintains that None of this is due to UHI, I would say that the motivating belief for lukewarming for me is the belief that this analysis is wrong. The right answer lying somewhere between Ross’ analysis and GISS..lets say the historical record could too warm by as much as .3C, no more probably less.
Here is a question that may separate the various species of climate debaters:
The physics of light absorption indicates that a doubling of CO2 in a well-mixed gaseous mixture analogous to earth’s atmosphere would raise the temperature of the mixture about 1.2 to 1.5 degrees C. What is your understanding as to what will happen if CO2 were to double in the atmosphere?
(a) Other factors such as water vapor will amplify the warming and bring about a net rise in average temperature of at least 3 or 4 degrees.
(b) Other factors such as water vapor will amplify the warming and bring a net rise in temperature of not more than 2 to 2.5 degrees.
(c) Other factors such as water vapor will neither amplify nor reduce the warming and the net rise in temperature will be no more than 1.25 to 1.5 degrees.
(d) Other factors such as water vapor would likely overwhelm the forcing from CO2 and in any case any warming contribution by CO2 would not be detectable outside the range of natural variability.
Perhaps more revealing would be to rank these statements in order of probability:
Joe Romm/Al Gore Alarmism a-b-c (d cannot be mentioned)
Theological Alarmist a-b-c-d
Empirical Alarmist b-a-c-d
Denialist d-c-b-a
Lukewarmists would likely come in with varying combinations of d, c and b in front and a last (excluding the pure denialist permutation).
I am a c-d-b-a lukewarmist. Obviously, I have no major disputes with c-b-d-a Lukewarmists. I share the rejection of “a” with denialists. I respect b-a-c-d alarmists but have little or no use for a-b-c-ers.
Is that tribal enough?
If we want to survey people here on the Boris and Tobin scales:
I’m a lukewarmer on the Boris scale, and a b-c-a-d on the Tobin scale (although 1.2 to 1.5 seems a little high for the no feedback case).
George Tobin (Comment#22999) November 3rd, 2009 at 8:38 am
Nice.
C B A D or C B D A.
No use for ABCers
No use for pure denialists.
basically in all likelihood I think the net feedback are going to be positive. The net feedbacks are not going to be zero and the probablity of negative net feedbacks seems diminishing small.
Also, I think the science tends toward discovering more positive feedbacks ( just as an observer bias) and that negative feedbacks tend to get short shrift. So, I think the historical record is biased
up a bit and the modelling efforts tend to over estimate net feedbacks consequently and as a matter of investigative bias.
“I think the net feedback are going to be positive. The net feedbacks are not going to be zero and the probablity of negative net feedbacks seems diminishing small.”
.
Ok, I’ll play.
.
How do you know that the feedback doesn’t change over time, perhaps starting off net positive but then going increasingly negative as the negative effects of clouding, in the long-run, overtake the positive effects of water vapor (and all those other short-term positive effects of reduced snowball albedo etc.)?
.
Please don’t pull a Hank Roberts on me, and say “it’s the pyhsics, man” or a Gavin Schmidt and obfuscate about “the robust models”, which we know are poorly parameterized in terms of sub-grid moist convection processes and do include such obvious effects as vegetation feedback dynamics. There are LIMITS to the effective range of these positive feedbacks.
.
So, go ahead: alarm me. But be warned that if you start trying to sell me on outlandishly catastrophic effects, then it is going to diminish the shock value of less catastophic scenarios such as a 5m or even 50m sea level rise, if and when you are forced to back-pedal on your alarmist prognositications.
I rank (C+D)/2 highest. D is obviously wrong, as no amount of feedback will completely negate the effect, but I think that the real sensitivity could easily be lower than the range stated in C.
A is actually more likely than D, since D is completely impossible, but A is not. B is more likely, I think, but not very likely
So I put it as “less than C but more than D”, C, B, A, D.
bender (Comment#23022)-I think that generally it is thought that negative feedbacks act “fast” will the positive processes might be more slow. Hence, in part, the clear difference between the expected response times. But I freely admit that I don’t have the understanding to make a strong argument for this position or against your proposed hypothesis (I don’t really me “you” are hypothesizing it, that is, supporting it, but you putting it out as a hypothetical).
Have people had a look at Tom Fuller’s problems with Deltoid, is this a rerun of Lucia and Tamino?
As Bender says…OK I’ll play.
The mathematics of negative and positive feedback are equivocal at present but the best indication of climate sensitivity is the geologic past.
The geologic record shows that the climate has not burned the planet to a crisp with far higher CO2 levels, therefore the likelihood that it will with 450 ppm or even 4500 ppm is less than unlikely. Natural variability far outweighs a precise model calculation of [CO2] to temperature.
Climate models are built upon assumption based on assumptions; beyond the feedback uncertainties there are the issues of how long these gases stick around. Consider the heating impacts of CO2 from other greenhouse gases like methane. I am not convinced that people know the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere – is it 10 or >100 years. H-bomb C14 measurements show short residence times, but alarmists say CO2 sticks around for over 100 years. People say they can measure anthropogenic CO2 from d13C ratios, but methane is also 12C enriched just like fossil-fuel CO2. Everyone says methane has an 8 yr residence time in the atmosphere, so then please tell me how you can distinguish degassed methane oxidized to CO2 from fossil fuel CO2 based on d13C. It appears to me that you can’t. Does anyone have any idea how much methane is bubbling off the tundra as the planet warms? Could it be possible that this carbon source is far greater than anthropogenic CO2? Which is all to say that once you resolve the feedback numbers for CO2 you may find that the culprit is not even CO2 but another gas.
So lets put the slide-rulers away and use a little geologic common sense.
Will the planet be warmer with higher [CO2] – probably as it was in the past.
Will it be the end of a habitable world – unlikely (see explanation above)
‘supose that makes me a lukewarmer.
bender (Comment#23022)
So, go ahead: alarm me
From an interesting paper of which Ghil is a coauthor(to be submitted).
… To conclude — if the model we studied here has anything
to do with reality, and substantial theoretical and GCMsimulation
work (Wetherald and Manabe, 1975) suggests that
it does — a relatively slight decrease in net radiation balance
will lead to catastrophic consequences, while a slight
increase in this balance sounds like a fairly mild way out of
harm’s way
“How do you know that the feedback doesn’t change over time, perhaps starting off net positive but then going increasingly negative as the negative effects of clouding, in the long-run, overtake the positive effects of water vapor (and all those other short-term positive effects of reduced snowball albedo etc.)?”
.
Deep and wise question .
The whole discussion and questions proposed to distinguish believer categories ignore what is the most important question from the scientific point of view .
Time scales .
Concepts like climate “sensitivity” are understood like invariant by most people . The definition itself is inspired by local equilibriums and (small) deviation thereof . Linear theory .
.
Yet it is beyond any reasonable doubt that Le Chatelier principle applies .
For those who ignore it , Le Chatelier principle says that if one imposes a change on a system then the system reacts in such a way that it negates the imposed change .
This principle exists because Nature can’t accept dominance of positive feedbacks that always lead to divergences , blows up and infinities if they are allowed for longer time scales .
It is because negative feedbacks dominate everywhere that the Universe is a place where stars , planets and climates may exist .
The evidence of stability of the climate over 3.8 billions years (what is almost infinity) proves that , like Le Chatelier principle predicts for chemical systems , over long time scales negative feedbacks dominate as they rightly should .
So while it might be possible that on very short time scales some positive feedbacks may temporarily appear (I do not belive that it is the case) , it is certain that they can’t last for a very long time .
.
So the answer on the question would be : the feedbacks do vary in the time and on greater time scales are always negative .
The question about climate “sensitivity” is meaningless if the time scale is not specified .
AndrewKennet–
It looks like Tim Lambert is going to drive a lot of traffic to Tom Fullers blog. Maybe we need a poll to discover what the middle ground is? 🙂
Well, there will always be a ‘next’ poll… Thanks for the link Lucia, and thanks to all who participated. Lucia, do you want the frequencies?
bender (Comment#23022) November 3rd, 2009 at 8:27 pm
Hmm changing over time. Good point. Have to think about that for a while.
It was interesting to see that skeptics were not a monolithic entity.