Comment Policy

Everybody is entitled to their opinion.  Some people abuse that right.  So be it.

But abusers, trolls, racists, homophobes, misogynists and the otherwise tedious are not welcome here.  Life isn’t long enough.

Anyone can disagree with me, and correct me when I’m wrong.  I want to hear from other people.  Debate is healthy.

But I have no intention of supplying a platform for individuals with hateful and dubious philosophies.  Healthy debate is not hateful debate, okay?

16 Responses “Comment Policy” →
  1. Hi, I think your site is fantastic! Thanks for sharing what’s important to you – most of it is to me, too. And great taste in music, by the way. I am including a link to a Thom Hartmann article about how the Brazilians – who apparently still have the regard for Mother Earth that the U.S. lost long ago – have arrested some of the SOB Chevron execs. who are destroying the environment:

    Peace, Salle


  2. Salle Cleveland

    March 25, 2012

    Father Theo, I am sending another link; you can take it or leave it but I thought you might find it interesting – not sure. Don’t know if you are familiar with the columnist Chris Hedges down here in the states but he is one of the few truth tellers left in the field of journalism:


  3. Interesting blog. I see that you have no scientific credentials at all. And yet, you (with the help of Ray Ladbury) had no problem slandering me and my work in a past post. I’m not surprised at what Mr. Ladbury said. He and the RealClimate gang have no class. Just a little surprised that you would simply pass it on to your readers without examining whether there was any truth to it. I am a Harvard trained Ph.D. In chemistry with over 40 years teaching physical chemistry. My Ph.D. work in the 1960s involved pioneering research on magnetic resonance imaging. There is absolutely no scientific evidence that atmospheric CO2 is responsible for the present global warming that started in the mid-1600s. If it was, how could levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have reached as high as 4000 ppm with temperatures exactly as they are today?

    • You are a scientist, I agree, and in that you outrank me. But you are not a climate scientist, and as such, to replace the consensus opinion of 97% of the world’s specialists in the area with your own unsupported opinion, and to peddle that opinion in a book for children, is beneath contempt.

      I don’t have to defend my credentials because I’m not replacing the consensus scientific opinion with my own. I’m not that arrogant. I’m merely deferring to that consensus, which is the only possible option for the non-specialist in regard to such a complex field.

      No one needs special credentials to agree with an opinion shared by every major scientific organization on Earth. You need very good credentials indeed–and evidence–to counter that wave of scientific opinion. You don’t have either.

      My credentials in the area of education do give me the right to discuss what is appropriate to teach to children, however, a group who have no basis of judging your opinion and to whom therefore you owe a special duty of care–that what you are teaching them is something other than your own fond set of theories.

      You failed to exercise this duty of care, or even recognize it.

      I stand by what I printed.

      • I may not be a climate scientist, but I am an expert in the interaction of CO2 with infrared light. I should point out that neither are Al Gore, Ray Ladbury, Thomas Friedman, Paul Kruger climate scientists. However, Bob Carter, Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer are. If you haven’t read my book, which, by the way, was not written for children, how do you know what my “fond set of theories” are? Let me enlighten you. The “consensus” says that only greenhouse gases can absorb heat (this is part of of the NASA study guide for children). If this were true, hot air balloons could not work. All gases absorb heat. Infrared radiation is not heat, it is light. There is a great demonstration (Al Gore and Bill Nye) for children showing two glass jars, one filled with air, one filled with CO2 with thermometers in each. Infrared lamps are directed at both and the temperature of the gas in the jar with the CO2 goes up faster and to a higher value. Only problem is that infrared light cannot pass through glass. This demo for children is totally false. These are the people apparently you support. Science is not done by consensus. Religion is. None of these so-called scientific theories relating to AGW have been proven by the scientific method. So says me and thousands of my colleagues.

      • Even if absurd statements like “infrared light cannot pass through glass” weren’t so laughable, I’d have to point out that the world is not surrounded by glass. And the direct evidence of CO2 blocking light from leaving Earth’s system was provided by the US military, not Bill Nye. And if your book was not written for children then it was written for somebody with a reading level of eleven and a taste for cute–which is strange, to say the least–or your denial on this point is an outright lie.

        If by scientific consensus, you mean voting in a forum, you should know that that is not how scientific consensus is arrived at. Scientists present their evidence in the scientific journals. Other scientists challenge that evidence or its interpretation until all the reasonable scientific objections have been answered. After awhile science moves on to other topics as the original theses become more rigorous and accepted. The process of moving on to other questions has already happened in respect to the basic ideas underlying the theory of climate change. Thus consensus has happened.

        This has nothing to do with the process of religion. Ask your colleague Roy Spencer, by the way, an advocate of Intelligent Design, if you want to know about mixing religion with science.

  4. I’m really sorry, Father Theo, and I apologize. I was under the impression that you were intelligent enough to debate these points. It is apparent from your post that you do not have the foggiest idea of what I was talking about. This should be an eye-opener for your readers. If anyone has pulled the wool over the eyes of our chidren, it is the global warming crowd.. Scaring the daylights out of them with phony science. The title of my book is “Global Warming for Dim Wits.” (Dim Wits spelled this way for a reason). Perhaps you should read it, but , frankly and sadly, I don’t think much of it will make much sense to you. I suppose if it is your goal in life to save the planet and someone tells you that the planet does not need saving, (we humans are the ones who very shortly will be extinct), then you have nothing left to do. Oh, climate change is coming. We have 400,000 years of data to prove it. But I would suggest you start moving south, cause most of Canada and the U.S. will be under a couple of miles of glacier ice.

    • Actually, no one says that only greenhouse gases can absorb heat. You made that up out of whole cloth. You might call that a lie. Or Dim Witted. Greenhouse gases capture infrared radiation, which energizes the particles. When these particles knock against other particles, they transfer the energy kinetically. Greenhouse gas molecules can capture infrared radiation and pass that energy on to other molecules continuously through this process. Thus the entire atmosphere heats, and the more greenhouse gases there are, the more it heats. We call that global warming. It’s happening all around us. Nowhere but in your fevered imagination is it cooling.

      Non-greenhouse gases can accept energy kinetically and thus heat up when in the presence of greenhouse gases. It is these kinetic particles beating continuously against the outside of the hot air balloon which keeps it inflated and the interior less dense, allowing the apparatus to float in the atmosphere.

  5. You have given a very accurate description of the greenhouse gas effect. Quite good, in fact. But you left out something important. Greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation only at specific wavelengths and CO2 absorbs at only one narrow band. Like using newspaper to block off the sunlight, every time you add a sheet, less and less sunlight gets through.
    At some point the newspapers will have absorbed all the sunlight. Adding more newspaper has no effect. CO2 works the same way. As more CO2 is added, there is less radiation to be absorbed by new CO2 molecules. Earth produces only so much. At some point adding more CO2 will have no effect, because all the radiation that CO2 can absorb has been absorbed. There is good evidence to suggest that this occurs at around 400 ppm. This is the way matter absorbs light. This explains why CO2 levels continue to go up, but global temperature has leveled off. CO2 gas has been around since the planet created an atmosphere. In fact, our early atmosphere was nearly 100% CO2 and water vapor. The level of CO2 in the atmosphere now is only 0.038%. There is no evidence in millions of years of earth’s history that greenhouse gases have triggered climate change. There are better explanations of global warming than the greenhouse gas effect. Oh, the teachers guide for teaching global warming at the secondary level put out by NASA states that the only gases in the atmosphere that absorb heat are the greenhouse gases. I didn’t make it up. Neither did I make it up when I got one of the first magnetic resonance imaging machines to work (back then it was just called nuclear magnetic resonance – early 1960s). We’ll leave making stuff up to Michael Mann. He appears to be good at it.

    • The sun heats up the Earth during the day which is radiated as infrared light during the night. This light is captured by greenhouse gases, warming the atmosphere. The more greenhouse gases, the more efficiently the heat is captured. The source of infrared radiation is ultimately the sun. This source restocks the amount of infrared light available continuously, wherever on the planet the sun is shining, as it always has. Your idea that there is a limited amount of infrared light, and that we’ve used up our stock, is palpably wrong. As for your statements about earlier levels of CO2, your data is doubtful–and I never see you address the fact that the Sun was cooler earlier in the solar system’s history. (Yes, stars have cycles, too.)

  6. I guess you don’t understand the greenhouse gas effect after all. Oh well, I rest my case. You can’t make bricks without straw.

    • The greenhouse effect, which happens mostly at night when surfaces radiate the heat they’ve gathered during the day out into space, is just as I’ve understood it from my reading of the scientific literature. This accounts for the fact that warming shows more at night than during the day. Your own ideas on the subject apparently have nothing to do with any established scientific theory.

      Just like your weird notion that infrared can’t pass through glass. The proof to the contrary was right there on television, presented by Bill Nye. Except when the evidence goes against you, you make up “new facts”, Barrante-approved “facts,” I guess.

      By the way, your notion that there’s a limited supply of infrared light to heat up the Earth is already a hit. I’m going to get laughs from that one for the rest of my life.

      • Wow! I don’t know what you have been smoking. But that Bill Nye demo was faked. IR cannot pass through glass. That’s why it’s called the greenhouse effect. Moreover, it doesn’t pass through our atmosphere very well either. The majority of radiation that heats the earth is visible-uv. The Earth warms and it produces the IR based on its temperature. The IR is radiated back toward space (mostly during the day – planet cools at night). A good portion of the IR (about 90%) is absorbed by the primary greenhouse gas, water vapor. CO2 absorbs IR only in one narrow band at a specific wavelength. As that radiation passes through the atmosphere, the CO2 absorbs it. The intensity of the radiation that is not absorbed decreases (it’s called Beer’s Law). As more CO2 is added the intensity of the radiation continues to decrease exponentially until the value is essentially zero. The earth is still producing IR, and all those CO2 molecules keep absorbing it keeping the temperature of the globe constant. The point is adding more CO2 will have no effect because those extra CO2 molecules have no radiation to absorb. It’s been absorbed by the CO2 that is already present. The upper limit is around 400 ppm. That’s why CO2 continues to rise, but global temperature has leveled off (not proven but sounds reasonable). This is how the greenhouse gas effect works. But I see you would rather attack me and my knowledge of spectroscopy. You should join RealCimate.

  7. Your strange theories don’t fit the facts. The greenhouse effect is a metaphor. It has nothing to do with glass acting the same way as CO2 and blocking light. Glass does absorb some infrared, but not all, and it can be treated and often is to absorb more, as with some window glass. Only a percentage has to go through to perform experiments like Bill Nye did, and the presumably he wouldn’t have been using glass especially treated to block the light he was trying to experiment with.

    Your invocation of Beer’s Law also doesn’t cut it. No scientist examining Earth’s radiation balance would leave out Beer’s Law. It’s already part of their calculations. If, as you absurdly assert, the CO2 in the atmosphere is already trapping all the emitted infrared radiation before it leaves Earth’s atmosphere, then Earth should photograph like a black hole in the CO2 spectrum. Perhaps you can show me the proof of that? Also, no heat should be leaking into the outer atmosphere, meaning that the outer atmosphere should be seriously contracting. It is contracting somewhat, as has been measured, but nowhere near what would be expected if no heat was getting through to those upper layers at all. Or maybe you have some alternative explanation for the observational evidence?

    By the way, warming is more evident during the night than during the day. And that cooling that you say happens during the night? That’s heat escaping into space. Right past that impassable barrier that you said CO2 had set up.


  8. Charles W. Plummer

    May 19, 2013

    Dear Reader,
    I am 61 and a father of four, including a 6 and 9 year old. I wrote the following to my 26-year-old son on the subject of Climate Change. I think it comes at the subject more personally, as an apology and admonishment, from a father to a son. I beg your indulgence and apologise for its length.

    Dear Tristan,
    The history of man’s relationship with Nature is filled with Irony. Nature converts living things into coal and oil and natural gas over millions of years. Man burns cheap fossil fuels to underwrite the advance of human civilization and grow its population from 1 to 7 billion persons. Man over-exploits fossil fuels and fails to act in spite clear warnings from Nature. Nature gets even. Nature reclaims Earth from man. An Irony closer to home involves the position conservatives in our government have taken by supporting and funding those casting doubt, discrediting scientists, and denying Global Warming. A scientific consensus regarding Global Warming and Climate Change became truly credible in the mid 90’s, after an overwhelming body of disparate scientific evidence was finally pulled together. From where, you might ask? From an international scientific collaboration, a preponderance of which was funded by the United States Government–mostly Republicans. The motive for funding research in Meteorology, Oceanography, Glaciology, Astronomy, Climatology, and other Geo-Sciences might have originally been to develop new and imaginative ways to harm people (like when to launch an attack; how to alter weather patterns to cause famine and floods; and how to disperse bio, chem and nuclear agents, etc), but it morphed into a consensus on Global Warming as reported in 1996 by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), an organization established on the Republicans watch in 1988, and whose specific objective was to give world governments a better understanding of the risks posed by Global Warming. Now that’s irony Son.

    Global Warming and Climate Change. I suggest you become familiar with these issues, because this is something you don’t want to get wrong. Not at your age. I’m calling your attention to this because it’s all I can do right now. It’s the only way I can try and atone for the mess my generation (Baby-Boomers) will leave yours after we won’t be around to do the job ourselves. You and others under forty will want to know enough about this subject to satisfy yourselves one way or another. And don’t listen to anyone, including me. I’ll tell you what I believe just to try and get your attention. But you need to roll up yours sleeves and do your own checking.

    I initially became interested in this subject by accident. My job required much travel, mostly driving. This was before I-stuff and laptops and barely after the cell-phone was invented. I never left home without ‘books-on-tape.’ In 1991, I was accidentally mailed ‘The End of Nature’ by Bill McKibbens. Like most people, I had heard the words Depleting Ozone Layer and Global Warming, but the book made sense of it. I have tried to stay up on the issues, but in our busy lives, we’re easily satisfied with recycling and conserving energy, and hybrid electric car development, and the new generation of commercials from Shell Oil and Chevron which say soothing words about a ‘Green,’ sustainable future; with trees and sparkling brooks and smiling children, all played to soft music and narrated by plausible sounding ‘average Americans’. It’s like being hypnotized–you end up shaking your head to come out of it. As the father of four, I take the subject of Global Warming and its subsequent effect on Climate Change extremely seriously, and for what its worth, I’ve never hoped so much in my life that I’m wrong. Like most people, I don’t like ‘alarmists’, unless of course, there is something to be alarmed about. Then I find them rather helpful. These particular ‘alarmists’ are Climate Scientists; an extremely conservative, highly educated and dedicated group who have been trying to inform us about something which happens to be alarming. I think it is arrogant for us not to at least listen to what they have to say.

    I have come to believe the threat of Global Warming and Climate Change is real. I think the debate is an invention. Global Warming and Climate Change enjoys a (practically unanimous) consensus from the Climate Science Community. Where did the debate come from? I think it came from people, industries, corporations, lobbyists, and politicians with lots and lots of money to buy lots and lots of opinions and influence. That’s something you may want check carefully. In a world of ‘Arab Spring’ and ‘Occupier’ here-and-now movements, Global Warming seems to have been shunted to a side rail. Big polluters must be ecstatic. But the timing seems right. It all sounds connected if you step back and look at it. Basically, young people the world over are pissed off at having to clean up the s__t-pile left by greedy old rich people. And well they should be.

    I’ve read a dozen books and I try to keep up with a few blogs. I won’t try to sell you on the science. But the Cliff Notes version goes something like this: If you burn a 100 lb pile of leaves and are left with 10 lbs of ash, 90 lbs of something went somewhere. How? Because matter cannot be created or destroyed. It took over half a billion years for nature to make coal and oil and natural gas from living plants. It stands to reason that if we burn, in 200 years, what it took all that time to create, something is bound to happen. We know the chemicals involved and the properties of those chemicals when released to the atmosphere. When those properties produce, say, green house effect, things are bound to warm up. Now, IF true, CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has been rising since the beginning of the industrial revolution. The increase of this greenhouse gas has been linear until the last three decades, when it and the global temperature it fosters went exponential. How do we know? Because we can measure it. US, China, India, Brazil and others keep on burning fossil fuels and plan to burn more. Cheap oil is harder to find, so the master plan to power the lives of an additional two billion persons before 2050 is to construct thousands of new coal-fire power plants. Coal emits lots of CO2 when combusted. More than oil. Lots more than Natural gas. The world has lots of coal. Coal is nature’s trump card for getting even with man. Without major policy changes and active compliance with greenhouse gas mitigation during the next twenty years, you are pretty much guaranteed a 3 to 6 degree (C) rise in average global temperature this century, much of it in your lifetime. All of it in your kid’s lifetimes. That’s 5.4 to 10.8 degrees F. that’s a temperature increase too rapid for most people to adapt to without unimaginable changes in the way daily life is conducted. The heat is only part of the problem. Heat changes the climate and climate is a biggie. It’s the most important factor in food production, access to drinking water, and severity of weather events, to name a few considerations. And that’s the good news, because I have an idea these estimates are conservative. Son, I want you to be able to live your life how you choose on healthy blue planet, and be able to raise your own kids in the same kind of place. Charlito and Naomi are two decades deeper into having to deal with Climate Change than you and Morgan. So yeah, it’s serious.

    Even conservative predictions of Global Warming constitute the most significant challenge mankind has ever faced. Climate science consensus is telling us to reduce CO2 emissions to 350 ppm’s (parts per million) by 2030 to ‘functionally be doing something’ to halt and reverse this increase in global warming, or at least slow it down to where man can live life, adapting to the change. We are currently at about 400 (10 more than when I wrote this two years ago). The debate over global warming has raged for over thirty years, and the facts of the matter have become increasingly compelling. Yet here we are with a bigger elephant to eat. “One bite at a time”, would not appear to be an effective world-saving strategy. Alone, little feel-good measures like ‘Green Days’ won’t do the trick. This trend is measurable. One may debate how measurements are taken, but 2% is not 1% and words can’t change that, no matter the money paid and the false credentials touted. You can’t negotiate or compromise or delay Math and Chemistry and Physics. It is what it is. We know how to measure CO2 over time. We can measure temperature and sea level changes. We can measure ocean ph. We can input new and mounting paleoclimate data from ice-core and sea-bed core samples, modeling a window into Earth’s climatic past. A new breed of powerful computers model-out scenarios and probabilities. And we know carbon chemistry and the physics of greenhouse gasses. We understand the ramifications of ‘climate feedbacks’: i.e. Warmer temps mean more permafrost thawing which releases more methane, which further warms the atmosphere and so on. And we have ‘in-our-face’ empirical trends during the last 100 years, which point directly to a changing climate. The ‘the hottest years on record’ or ‘the strongest storms’ or ‘biggest floods’ or ‘most severe wildfire seasons’. We can see from thousands of before-and-after photos of melting glaciers and ice fields that the ice is melting. In your lifetime, sea level increases alone are estimated to rise by enough to have a measurable affect the lives of vast populations. And most importantly, we understand how exceeding the Earth’s climatic ‘tipping point’ becomes the ‘point of no return’. I think the Earth is talking to us and it’s telling us the climate is changing. It’s telling us to pay attention.

    I try to imagine a parallel scenario, easier for my limited scientific mind to grasp. Let’s say tomorrow, a gathering of the world’s leading astrophysicists announced that after five years of examining the data, they confidently announce that in 94 years on such-and-such a day, a quarter-mile wide iron asteroid will impact the Earth. We are told that if we all work together and marshal our resources, we can prevent catastrophe. Now, no one wants to believe that much bad news, so there would be a lively debate over its veracity. But it wouldn’t be like this debate. For one thing, it would be short, not decades long. We’d be checking the data; doing our homework as individuals and families; and governments would be establishing a global consensus and forcing industry cooperation, regardless of the objections. Why would governments do that? Because concerned citizens would force them to. We’d vote the people out who weren’t behind the effort. We’d be listening to our top scientists and mathematicians. We’d quickly learn to prioritize what’s important and what isn’t. We’d have less patience with agenda-driven, unqualified opinions that stall and confuse; and the audience these persons would draw would shrink dramatically. We would get on with mitigating the problem, no matter the cost or sacrifice, before it showed up on our great-grand children’s doorstep at 27,000 MPH. Fiction? Some of the upper-end estimates of Global Warming and the resulting chaos during the next 100 years are barely less onerous to humanity than my poor asteroid example, should mankind fail to effectively respond.

    I understand the problem. The belief in global warming and what it will mean to the future of this planet is so big; it’s hard to get your mind around it. Most of us, even I sometimes, find myself saying, “It just can’t be! Can it?” It requires a courageous leap of faith to embrace the data–to take it seriously; one which most people won’t make without a push. Lets look at the players:

    TEAM ONE—Science: On one side, we have a group of Climate Scientists who are telling us what their research tells them. Thousands of them. Collectively, they have education, dedication, and years of hard won data; let’s say facts. Do scientists make mistakes? Yes. Do scientists falsify data to gain recognition and receive grant money? It’s happened but it’s rare. Today’s peer-review process pretty much assures the end reader that facts have been checked, adjusted, corrected, rechecked and signed-off-on prior to publication. Are scientists ever wrong? Sure, but the top 1000 of them in any given field probably aren’t when they all agree. Are scientists conservative by nature? Yes. You would be too if you spent the majority of your life trying to ferret out the truth of some obscure matter, only to be proved wrong; its embarrassing. Are scientists right about the hazards of Global Warming and Climate Change? Thirty years of conservative peer-reviewed results say, “Absolutely.” My personal answer is, “I f____g hope not.” I’ll tell you what points me toward climate scientists being right, as much as the things we can see and measure, After thirty years of flat denial, big polluters no longer deny Global Warming. Big polluters used to be ‘flatlanders’, now they sound stupid when they deny the world is round. So without missing a step, they tossed the ball laterally to a new argument, “global warming isn’t man-made so there’s nothing we can do about it.” I think they plan to finance that debate for another thirty years. Team Science calls “bull__t!” They state unequivocally, “It is industrial man that is causing this much Global Warning this fast. It’s something we can measure. It’s something we can do something about.”

    TEAM TWO–Big Polluters: On the other side of the Global Warming debate, we have the largest, richest, most complex man-made entity on this planet, the Fossil Fuel Industry. And playing on their team is the Auto Industry, the Electric Utility Industry, The Transportation Industry, and most Governments (following along behind, checking for shifts in the wind). I believe they all know the world is heating up and their game plan is to keep the subject “in play.” I think they are happy to settle for a draw. I have read a number of analogies comparing the Global Warming debate to Big Tobacco’s strategy in defending in the ‘hazards of smoking’ debate. It works well to a point. Does anyone really think the CEO’s of Big Tobacco didn’t know his or her product was harmful? They knew it. They knew they would lose to the truth in the end, so they developed a master plan for corporate survival, knowing they would lose. Big Tobacco needed time to diversify and time to adapt and wanted to keep making money while they were at it. Big Tobacco invested whatever was necessary to create doubt, confusion, debate, and delay. The world is a courtroom, and ‘reasonable doubt’ is all it takes to dismiss the case or ‘hang a jury.’ Parallels to Global Warming are hard to ignore. The difference is, in this context, if we allow big polluters a chance to burn all Earth’s remaining fossil fuels and diversify and adapt according to their timetable, we all might just as well buy a pack of Camels and light up.

    It’s money SON, and the opinions and influence money buys that is controlling the field for now. The game used to be whether Global Warming was true. No longer. The NEW end-game strategy is to sew doubt, and confuse, and delay having to stop burning fossil fuels. Big Polluters, just like Big Tobacco, already know they will lose to the truth. They don’t care. They aren’t trying to win the battle for truth. They are trying to make money the way they’ve always made it and they are trying to do that for as many more years as they can. Does anyone really believe all those smart people running Big Fossil Fuel and Big Auto and Big Transportation and Power Generation and Big Governments don’t know the truth? I think they do. But they’re not going to make meaningful changes unless they are made to. I think big polluters will burn this planet down if we let them.

    I well remember the ‘Ozone Layer’ debate. Cloroflourcarbons (CFC’s) were to blame. Why isn’t the Ozone Layer the big public debate it once was? Because scientists convinced the public and the public forced the government to change the regulations, and the government forced industry to curtail the use of CFC’s. You practically need a HAZMAT crew to charge a car air conditioner these days. Can a world mobilize? Again, I think so. It did twice for two world wars. I figure the U.S. has five years to get organized. Five years to develop and begin implementation of a master strategy whose aim is to muzzle the Coal and Oil industry, put real horsepower behind the development of alternative energies, and put the world back to work, working on that very problem—to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions on this planet. The target date for stabilization would be 2030. The goal? 350 PPM’s CO2. How do you do it? First, do your homework. Don’t bother going any further if you don’t believe this is a problem. But please, take yourself far enough to be able to support an informed opinion. And then, if you believe, you still may decide not to get involved, but at least you won’t be caught leaning the wrong way, and for sure, you’ll be able to make more informed decisions about your future; your career path; where to live; and what necessary skills you need to hone for living in a warmer future. Good luck taking all this in. I’m hear to talk to when you are ready.

    Love Dad

  9. I hope you sent Barrante straight to the bargain bin Theo. Veritas. Keep up the good work.


Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: