Ummm, Nevermind

Tea Party Wisdom with Rand Paul

On this historic day in which the Supreme Court affirmed that Obamacare is in fact constitutional, we get this gem from the Department of the Dumbest Politicians Ever to be Elected to Public Office:

"Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be 'Constitutional' does not make it so" -Rand Paul

Local Conservative Voice, Questionable Conservative Resources

"I disagree with these experts, somebody has got to stand up to experts"
- Don Mcleroy, Republican Chair of the Texas State Board of Education

Robert Rees

In my last post, I was critical of Cities 92.9 Morning Rush host Robert Rees, for making some pretty silly claims about global warming, and for passing off as fact a Daily Mail headline which was intentionally written to misinform people about climate science. That tabloid article, which used to be located at this link, has since been deleted from the Daily Mail's website, which belies Robert's claim that it would be liberals who would be guilty of covering that story up.

The good news regarding this bit of dishonesty - by a conservative resource no less - is that it provides Robert with an opportunity to prove he was being sincere when he voiced concern over the handling of that story. The story was clearly handled dishonestly, albeit not from the people Robert preemptively accused, and if the presumption of dishonesty warranted mentioning on his show, then I would think that actual dishonesty would warrant a mention. I haven't heard Robert issue a correction to this story yet, but I'm holding out hope that Robert believes in correcting misinformation that he's been duped into passing along to the general public, even if it comes from a conservative resource.

To Robert's credit, he has responded to my criticism. In his response, Robert insisted that he never tries to deceive anyone, and honestly, I believe him. However, his audience has been deceived, and Robert played a role in that deception. This could very easily have been avoided had Robert been more discerning with his choice of resources, after all, evidence of dishonesty was right there in the article, and this wouldn't be the first time the Daily Mail was involved in deception over global warming.

And speaking of deceptive resources, I've reviewed the web sites that Robert provided in his response to me; web sites that Robert claims support some of his commentary. And after reviewing them, I've come to the conclusion that the term support takes on a completely different meaning to Robert than it does to me. When I claim that my arguments are supported, I generally mean that they are supported by primary sources. By primary sources, I mean that if I talk about NASA data, or NASA studies, I ought to be able to refer someone directly to information provided by NASA, such as on NASA's website. I certainly wouldn't dream of referring anyone to a website called globalwarminglies, and then think that I've provided an unbiased, reliable resource for anything. But that's exactly what Robert did, and I'm not kidding, one of the web sites he referred me to is actually called globalwarminglies. I didn't know I could type while facepalming (TWF), but this paragraph is proof that I can.

What follows is a critique of each of the sources provided by Robert:

The first of Robert's links I looked at is to a site called C3 Headlines. The linked page contains the following heading and sub heading:

Greenhouse Gas Facts: Official NASA Temp Data Indicates Less Than A 1 Degree Increase By End of Century

The actual greenhouse gas facts are considered to be weak evidence of catastrophic global warming hypothesis by the vast majority of scientists - latest NASA-GISS empirical information confirms why

And it includes the following graph:

The graph combines both temperature and CO2 levels over a 15 year period starting in April, 1997, through March, 2012, using data from NASA GISS and NOAA. In the yellow box at the base of the graph is the following claim:

"Over the last 15 years, the facts indicate CO2 has little impact on global temperatures."

So the basic argument here, is that since CO2 trends upward over the 15 years, but temperatures seem to be leveling off, and possibly decreasing somewhat in the same period, then we can conclude that the two are not trending together, and therefore CO2 has nothing to do with atmospheric temperature. Seems somewhat convincing at first glance, but then, not so much after looking at the bigger picture.

If you look at the raw data, which I linked to above, you'll notice that the temperature data goes back to 1880, which begs the question; why did the authors of C3 Headlines only graph and display the last 15 years? And the answer to that is simple; graphing the temperature all the way back to 1880 paints a completely different picture than the one being presented here. Take a look and see for yourself, that same temperature data graphed back to 1880 looks like this:

This graph is presented courtesy of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is one of the primary sources for the data used by C3 Headlines to make their graph. What this graph shows is the global mean temperature for the period 1880, through 2011. Keep in mind that the C3 Headlines graph only covers the very rightmost portion of this graph, which shows that temperatures have been on the increase since 1880. Yes there are short term fluctuations that trend toward cooling, but the overall trend is one of temperatures increasing, just as the volume of atmospheric CO2 has increased over that same time period. What C3 Headlines did was select only that data from the sample that makes it look like CO2 and temperature are not trending together, when a complete graphing of the data would have shown that they do. This tactic is called cherry picking, which is the act of selectively using data to misrepresent what the data really says. It's a dishonest tactic, and it's sole purpose is to mislead.

There's another section on the C3 Headlines page that deserves attention, and a facepalm. At the bottom of the page is what appears to be two predictions based on the 15 year graph:

Conclusion: Greenhouse gas facts continue to be very weak empirical evidence of catastrophic CO2-induced global warming as hypothesized by the UN's IPCC and its assocated "scientists."

- Last 15 years (thru March) global temperature trend: +0.77 degree increase by 2100

- Last 10 years (thru March) global temperature trend: +0.07 degree increase by 2100

 Yes, you read that correctly. C3 Headlines found their 15 years of cherry picked data compelling enough to use it as the sole predictor for global temperatures some 88 years into the future. And this is a site the Local Conservative voice recommends for information regarding climate science? Ouch.

The second of Robert's links was to a site called Personal Liberty Digest. The linked page contains the following headline:

NASA data proves global warming computer models wrong

The article references a science paper called "On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth's Radiant Energy Balance" that was published in July of 2011, by science journal, Remote Sensing.

So what was the gist of this paper? Well, it brought into question the accuracy of climate modeling, by claiming the models get the energy balance wrong, and make predictions that lean too warm. What you don't get from reading the article that Robert linked to though, is what the late great Paul Harvey used to refer to as "the rest of the story".

You see, it turns out that about 2 months after that paper was published, another paper appeared in the very same journal with the following title "Taking Responsibility on Publishing the Controversial Paper - On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth's Radiant Energy Balance." This paper was published by the journal's editor, Wolfgang Wagner, who acknowledged that the climate paper had not been properly peer reviewed, and that it should not have been published in the first place. He then resigned his position.

Here are some key quotes that come from his editorial.

About exaggerations made in the media:

With this step, I would also like to personally protest against how the authors and like-minded climate sceptics have much exaggerated the paper's conclusions in public statements, e.g., in a press release of the University of Alabama in Huntsville from 27 July 2011, the main author's personal homepage, the story "New NASA data blow gaping hole in global warming alarmism" published by Forbes, and the story "Does NASA data show global warming lost in space?" published by Fox News, to name just a few.

Why the paper was flawed:

So Why, after a more careful study of the pro and contra arguments, have I changed my initial view? The problem is that comparable studies published by other authors have already been refuted in open discussions and to some extend also in the literature, a fact which was ignored by Spencer and Braswell in their paper and, unfortunately, not picked up by the reviewers.

So while Robert likes to refer to this particular resource to claim that climate models are wrong, it's very clear that the resource doesn't have any substance behind it.

The next link I looked at was to a site I referenced previously called Global Warming Lies. The linked page contains the following statement across the top:

"There is no convincing evidence that human release of carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will cause in the future, catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere or disruption of the Earth's climate"

Which is followed by a reference to the Oregon Petition Project, which is a document that boasts signatures from over 32,000 scientists who agree with a statement similar to the one on the top of the web site.

I wasn't at all surprised to see a reference to the Oregon Petition on one of Robert's resource pages. I'm familiar with it, as I've looked into it before. It's basically a petition that climate skeptics can put there name on if they agree with the statement, and if they qualify as a scientist. And with 32,000 signatures, it does seem very impressive, that is, until you look at the big picture. It turns out that there are around  13 million people who fit the qualification, so in that context, 32,000 is a very small number. Scientific American wrote about the petition back in 2006. Here's a small taste:

Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold Ph.D. in a climate - related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition - one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers - a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.

And here's a terrific video about the petition:

So, I've barely looked at this resource and already I'm unimpressed.

The rest of the page doesn't get much better, as it's dedicated almost entirely to the idea that CO2 is good, no matter the concentration. In fact, Robert makes that argument on his show all the time, claiming that CO2 isn't harmful because it's good for plants. Nobody denies this, so that particular argument is a complete waste of energy. The issue is how concentrations of CO2 effect temperature, and that link is well established in the scientific literature.

The last of Robert's links is to a web site that promotes a book called Climatism. The term is defined on the web site as "the belief that man-made greenhouse gas emissions are destroying Earth's climate".

I spend a lot of time reading about various scientific topics, including climate change, and I've never heard or read of a climate change believer who thinks that man-made greenhouse gas emissions would or could destroy Earth's climate. If that's the starting point of this book, then it appears to be one giant strawman argument. There are plenty of those on the internet, I wouldn't dream of wasting my time with one in book form.

That's all the time I'm going to spend on these sources. Support for Robert's rant was nowhere to be found, but then, that's what I expected.

Local Conservative Voice, Global Conservative Lies

"Guys like you are in the reality-based community...which is filled with people who believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality. That's not the way the world really works anymore, we're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors...and you, all of you, will be left to study what we do." - Karl Rove, to a reporter from The New York Times Magazine during a 2004 interview.

During my morning commute to work, I tune in to the Morning Rush with Robert Rees, a local radio show in the Bloomington/Normal area of central Illinois, where I live and work.

The show is part of Cities 92.9, a Fox affiliate,  and as one would expect from anything associated with  Fox; conservatively biased broadcasting takes place 24/7, with intermittent whining of bias in the media. Self awareness is not one of its strengths.

Robert Rees
(Photo courtesy TheRobertRees)

I started tuning in to the Morning Rush about 8 months ago - purely by accident - while searching for a news channel. I thought I had found one with Cities, but that was only because I had tuned in during one of their brief news segments. The real treat started when the announcer introduced "local conservative voice, Robert Rees." It didn't take me long to realize that I wasn't going to be learning anything about reality on this station. If anything, I was going to be treated to a heavy dose of spin and misinformation. You see, Robert exhibits what I call "I have no idea what I'm talking about, I don't know that I don't know what I'm talking about, but I'm going to share my uninformed opinion anyway, and anyone who disagrees with me is stupid." In other words, he's pretty typical as far as Fox affiliated talking heads go. I will give him credit for one thing, he definitely does know stupid, he just doesn't realize how close to home that knowledge is.

I should note here that I'll be quoting Robert throughout this essay, and I want to make clear that the quotes are taken directly from podcasts posted to Cities 92.9. If you find the quotes to be slightly incoherent, I assure you it isn't due to my translation, Robert just tends to ramble incoherently.

I tuned in to Cities on March 27th of this year to hear Robert ranting - as he often does - about global warming. You see, Robert thinks like many on the right that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is a hoax, despite an overwhelming consensus to the contrary among tens of thousands of climate scientists worldwide. Let that sink in for a moment; the vast majority of the world's experts in climate science (about 97% last time I checked) say the Earth is warming due to human activities, and Robert says their wrong. What expertise does Robert bring to the table in defense of his position? Well, according to his biography, two years as a missionary in the Philippines right out of high school, followed by a string of failed business ventures, followed by a radio career that has culminated in slinging right wing talking points. He claims he's not anti-science, but what else would he have us call someone who denies 150 plus years of climate science, and regularly attacks the integrity of the scientists that have produced that science?

So, what was the source of this particular rant by Robert? Well, it was an article that appeared in the Daily Mail, which is a conservative British tabloid. That article referenced a newly released climate study by posting the following headline:

Is this finally proof we're NOT causing global warming? The whole of the Earth heated up in medieval times without CO2 emissions, says new study

That headline grabbed a lot of attention among both science deniers and scientists, but for completely different reasons. Science deniers, like Robert, found solace in a headline that seemed to vindicate their ideological position. Actual climate scientists knew better, and so did I, but that didn't stop this Fox affiliate, and many others, from uncritically passing this headline off to conservative households nationwide. What follows is the story of how Robert Rees chose to pass that story along on his show, which unfortunately for him, was being broadcast from my radio.

As I tuned in that morning, Robert was complaining about a new EPA regulation that would require future power plants to capture and store emitted CO2:

"Look at the AP, how they're just spinning this story. The first limits ever on heat trapping pollution. Heat trap that, what does that even mean? What does that word even, what does that phrase even mean? Heat trapping pollution? That doesn't even make any sense. Uh, pollution is usually something that is dirty, right? Something that is dirty and is bogging up the atmosphere. Well this is heat trapping pollution, hmm. So it's pollution that dirties up the atmosphere, that also traps heat, ok. Is that what we're talking about? Alright, well, here's the problem. They're talking about carbon dioxide. How the freak is carbon dioxide bad for the atmosphere? Oh, well it's heat trapping. Yeah, but it's not pollution, so leave it alone. It's good for the plants, and vegetation, and trees. Ugh."

Notice how Robert calls it spin to identify CO2 as heat trapping pollution, but fails to recognize that inventing his own definition for pollution - so that it fits into his right wing narrative - is spin. I checked with multiple sources for a definition of pollution, and nowhere was it limited to things that are "bad for the atmosphere". Most 5th graders could identify the flaws in that definition. It's not the atmosphere we're concerned about Robert, it's how changes to that atmosphere affect the health and welfare of living things, which is why the EPA's definition makes much more sense than yours does:

"Air pollution occurs when the air contains gases, dust, fumes or odour in harmful amounts. That is, amounts which could be harmful to the health or comfort of humans and animals or which could cause damage to plants and materials." - EPA 

Keeling Curve

Scientific research indicates that CO2 has historically been the principle control knob for the Earth's temperature. Since CO2 is known to be on the rise in both the atmosphere and the oceans, and the outcome of that rise is known to do more harm than good to living things, it makes perfect sense to classify CO2 as a pollutant, and to take action to reduce the levels of CO2 being pumped into the environment. This is all perfectly reasonable to reasonable people, but Robert works for Fox, and Fox doesn't hire reasonable people.

Robert continued his rant about the EPA regulation, complaining that it was going to increase production costs of electricity, thereby increasing the cost of electricity to consumers, and make it harder for new start up companies. On these points, Robert was correct. Nobody that I'm aware of on the pro AGW side of things (Earth lickers, according to Robert) argues that mitigating CO2 won't raise prices on energy. The argument is that not mitigating will cost much, much more in the long run. Demagogues like Robert don't acknowledge that argument, because then they'd have to address the fact that their position of doing nothing is actually the more costly one.

During his rant, things took a very bizarre turn when Robert took a call from a listener named Ed. I didn't expect much from an audience receptive to Robert's demagoguery, but nothing prepared me for the level of ignorance displayed by the conversation that followed. Ed claimed the CO2 collected would just end up leaking anyway, which would lead to a massive oasis at the source of the leak, and then, liberals would start complaining about all the moisture that would presumably come about by this massive bit of plant growth. And just when I thought things couldn't possibly get any more ridiculous, Robert laughed as he anticipated watermelons as big as houses due to all that CO2 in and around the cave where the CO2 is stored. This was the first time I can recall facepalming while driving (FWD).  Scary stuff.

"There is a new study that has come out to show, once again, global warming is not man made"

I was surprised to hear Robert make this statement, especially with the inclusion of the phrase  "once again" as though other studies exist that cast doubt on the human contribution to global warming. They don't exist, of course, which means Robert was confused, or lying, or both.

"We have the NASA that has shown studies that came out last year that shows that the rising temperature of the Earth is only gone up like 0.3 degrees fahrenheit, and that's not enough for man to be affecting it"

I don't think Robert understands that the amount of the rise in temperature is irrelevant as to whether the rise is being caused by humans. What humans control is the amount of CO2 they add to the atmosphere, it's simple physics after that.

John Tyndall

Thanks to the work of physicist John Tyndall, we've known since 1859 that CO2 absorbs and retains heat. The more CO2 there is in the atmosphere, the more heat that will be retained. So out of the chute, Robert's statement is pure bunkum. Just for fun though, I decided to fact check Robert's number that the Earth's temperature has only gone up by 0.3 degrees. And since Robert mentioned NASA, that seemed like an appropriate place to look.

Lucky for those of us who do judiciously study discernible reality, NASA has put together an excellent resource about climate change. Highly visible across the top of their page are 5 areas in which climate change has had an effect. One of those categories is global temperature, which according to NASA, has increased by 1.5 degrees fahrenheit since 1880. The only mention of a temperature change near 0.3 degrees (as mentioned by Robert), is the top 700 meters of the ocean, which has increased by this amount since 1969. Nowhere on NASA's site do they mention anything about those amounts being too small for man to have contributed. Interestingly, what they do say is this:

"The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years."

One would think that NASA would be aware of the results of their own studies, so it seems odd that their conclusion should be so much different from the one Robert presented. So either NASA is lying, or Robert is. I'll leave it to the reader to draw their own conclusion.

Then Robert goes on to talk about the study described in the Daily Mail's article:

"The medieval warm period according to Zunli Lu at Syracuse University in New York state has said that approximately 500,000 years ago there was a warming of the planet and it wasn't just in Europe. Now, the current IPCC says that the Medieval warm period was confined to just Europe, therefore the warming we're experiencing now is a man made phenomenon caused by carbon dioxide." Well, professor Lu from Syracuse has shown that this isn't true. He says the evidence lies within a rare mineral called ikaite."

There are a number of things factually wrong with Robert's statement, which I'll address one at a time:

First, the medieval warm period was a period of increased warming in some parts of the globe, most notably, in the Northern Atlantic region. This warming occurred between the years of 950 CE and 1100 CE, which was closer to 900 years ago, not 500,000.

Second,  the IPCC report does not say that the medieval warm period was confined to just Europe. What it does say is this:

"The uncertainties associated with present palaeoclimate estimates of NH (Northern Hemisphere) mean temperatures is significant, especially for the period prior to 1600 when data are scarce (Mann et al., 1999; Briffa and Osborn, 2002; Cook et al., 2004a). However, figure 6.10 shows that the warmest period prior to the 20th century occurred between 950 and 1100, but temperatures were probably between 0.1 C and 0.2 C below the 1961 to 1990 mean and significantly below the level shown by instrumental data after 1980."

Figure 6.10

"In order to reduce the uncertainty, further work is necessary to update existing records, many of which were assembled up to 20 years ago, and to produce many more, especially early, palaeoclimate series with much wider geographic coverage. There are far from sufficient data to make any meaningful estimates of global medieval warmth (figure 6.11). There are very few long records with temporal resolution data from the oceans, the tropics or the SH (Southern Hemisphere)."

Figure 6.11

"The evidence currently available indicates that NH mean temperatures during the medieval times (950 - 1100) were indeed warm in a 2-kyr context and even warmer in relation to the less sparse but still limited evidence of widespread average cool conditions in the 17th century (Osborn and Briffa, 2006). However, the evidence is not sufficient to support a conclusion that hemispheric mean temperatures were as warm, or the extent of warm regions as expansive, as those in the 20th century as a whole, during any period in the medieval times (Jones et al., 2001; Bradley et al., 2003a,b; Osborn and Briffa, 2006)."

In other words, the IPCC report acknowledges a high level of uncertainty about the global extent of the medieval warm period, and because of that uncertainty, suggests more study is necessary. Despite Robert's conservative spin, that doesn't translate into this:

"the current IPCC says that the Medieval warm period was confined to just Europe, therefore the warming we're experiencing now is a man made phenomenon caused by carbon dioxide"

There is a translation for Robert's statement though, it's called a misrepresentation of fact. Some might even call it a lie.

And there's something else that should be understood about the medieval warm period: there are known mechanisms for that warming. Scientists have evidence of increased solar output, less volcanic activity, and changes in ocean circulation that all occurred during the Medieval Warming Period, all of which can contribute to a warming effect without greenhouse gases. So even if the warming was global, which evidence suggests it was not, it still wouldn't discount the effect of greenhouse gases on today's warming.

And finally, Robert did what many right wing outlets did, he misrepresented Zunli Lu's research paper:

"Well, professor Lu from Syracuse has shown that this isn't true. He says the evidence lies within a rare mineral called ikaite. What they found is that the entire earth heated up, not just Europe during the warming phase of the medieval period."

When Zunli Lu discovered that his research was being misrepresented by right wing media outlets, he posted the following statement on the Syracuse University website:

Zunli Lu

"It is unfortunate that my research, "An ikaite record of late Holocene climate at the Antarctic Peninsula," recently published in Earth and Planetary Science Letters, has been misrepresented by a number of media outlets.

Several of these media articles assert that our study claims the entire Earth heated up during medieval times without human CO2 emissions. We clearly state in our paper that we studied one site at the Antarctic Peninsula. The results should not be extrapolated to make assumptions about climate conditions across the entire globe. Other statements, such as the study "throws doubt on orthodoxies around global warming," completely misrepresent our conclusions. Our study does not question the well-established anthropogenic warming trend."

He also posted the following to his facebook page:

"Anyone knows journalism help me understand this? Is this what reporters do these days? Add a conclusion, that they like, to other people's work remotely related to the topic, coin a flashy title, and make it big news?"

Here's the real kicker to this whole "news story" about Zunli Lu's study. If you go beyond the headline in the Daily Mail article, and read the actual content of the story, you'll find that the headline - the one Robert relied on for the basis of his entire argument - is contradicted by the story itself. Deep within the article, safely tucked away from the prying eyes of conservatives looking to confirm their own biases in false headlines, is the following sentence:

"Lu says his research has no direct bearing on the current climate, and points out that his research is restricted to one area in Antarctica and is not proof that the whole Earth warmed up. "

This sentence alone proves Robert didn't bother to read beyond the headline. Imagine that.

Robert often says on his show that he's not there to inform, he's just there to start the conversation. But what does it mean to start a conversation with a false narrative? Isn't that the opposite of informing? Isn't that what's known as misinforming? Would it be too much to ask a guy like Robert to fact check his stories first? Or to at least read beyond the headlines? And what can be said of someone who relies on tabloid headlines for his science, and as a justification to attack science? Pro science? I think not.

Robert then wrapped up the segment with the following diatribe:

"The research was recently published online in the journal Earth and Planetary Science Letters and will appear in print April 1st, so you can believe that April 1st coming over the weekend, when this comes out, the liberal left is going to be doing everything they can to hide this, to cover it up, because this goes right against everything they've been trying to do. This goes right against the EPA regulations that President Obama is putting into place right now. It goes right in the face of all this green car movement and everything they're trying to do with that on making our cars lighter and things in order to get better gas mileage. It just flies in the face of all this stuff. Because if man is not the cause of global warming, then what have we been doing for all these years now, trying to reduce our quote, carbon footprint. It's a hoax. It's a hoax and it's a tragedy that we've been wasting so much time with this up to this point already. Look, do I want to have a fuel efficient vehicle, absolutely. But it's not because of carbon, it's because I want to save money in the gas tank. Do I want to have a fuel efficient vehicle, sure, because I still want to be resourceful, I still want to be conservative when it comes to conserving the resources of the planet. But to do so at the uh, using a false premise, is wrong."

Fancy that, Robert Rees talking about how tragic it is to waste ones time doing things based on false premises, after spending an entire talking segment doing exactly that, and using that false premise to attack the left, and impugn the integrity of climate scientists the world over. And then, to top it all off,  accusing his political opponents of wanting to cover this story up. The only people with a motive for covering this story up are people like Robert, unless he gets a thrill from having his attempts at spreading misinformation displayed on the internet.

One final thought regarding Robert Rees; as a member of the reality based community, I can honestly say that Robert is more of an informer than he thinks he is. He provides an invaluable peek into the fantasy world that is the modern conservative mindset; a place where reality is dictated by ideology, not by what can be discerned through judicious study. And for that, he provides a valuable public service.

Welcome to My Facepalm

Hi, welcome to Facepalming, One Post at a Time.

I hope you like what you see here, and I hope you'll make return visits. Before you do though, let me forewarn you, I will not be posting often.

You see, I'm a busy guy.

I work 50 to 60 hours a week, I'm married, and I'm raising too very active teenagers. Blogging is something I'll do when the urge hits me, but it's secondary to the things that really matter to me, which is my family, and my work.

When I do post, it will be because someone, somewhere, said or did something so stupid, that it needed to be highlighted and preserved for all the world to see.

So sit back, enjoy, and happy facepalming.