Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
What? Neptune’s warming too?!
Posted by: McQ on Monday, May 14, 2007

Those damn skeptics just keep popping up like gophers. Don't they know the science is settled?
Incredibly, an article has appeared in a recent issue of Geophysical Research Letters showing a stunning relationship between the solar output, Neptune’s brightness, and heaven forbid, the temperature of the Earth. With its obvious implications to the greenhouse debate, we are certain you have never heard of the work and never will outside World Climate Report.
Disgusting.

How in the world will AlGore help manage the financial ruin of the Western world if these pesky yahoos keep pointing out that big yellow hot thing that hangs in the sky most of the day may have some role in the warming we're experiencing?

(HT: Tom Perkins)
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
I think we should wait for the CIA report on what this means to America’s security and interests before jumping to any conclusions.
 
Written By: abwtf
URL: http://abw.mee.nu
Oh, it turns out the polar icecaps on Mars are melting. Better get the Martians to sign Kyoto!

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

The sun is responsible for periodic global climate cycles. I heard a woman astrophysicist explaining this ten years ago. The interviewer looked at her as if she had two heads.

http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
 
Written By: Mark
URL: http://
McQ, you need to get over this. I know it’s a personal thing, but you’re wrong on this and you know it.

Every morning, it’s cool. We drive to work, expelling a quindecillion tons of C02. The day gets hotter. We drive home. Later in the evening, the CO2 settles and it gets cooler.

How much proof do you need man?
 
Written By: Robb Allen
URL: http://blog.robballen.com
This is a recording....Changes in Neptune’s temperature have nothing to do with changes in the temperatures of Mars or Earth...it’s all a big coincidence.

I’m wondering just how many coincidences we have to accept before someone in the AGW camp admits that maybe man’s contribution to the issue is much, much smaller than they had figured.


 
Written By: steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
Well, I saw it at Clayton cramer’s blog, so HT there, and World Climate Report, where he saw it.

And let’s not forget the actual researchers, who at the least put their collegial dinner invitations at risk by publishing something not obeying the narrative.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Think of what happens now with our eco-destructive lifestyles and vile, individual liberties! Can you imaging farming in Greenland? What about the polar bears, are we to slay them as the imperialist Vikings did? Whoa to the polar bears, may Gair curse your names!
 
Written By: Tex
URL: http://
McQ, Tom, we went over this the other day, the albedo of Mars (I was going to talk about the albino of Mars, but Joe would yell at me for my misspent youth) has nothing to do with the heating of Earth, it’s dust storms moving dust around and exposing rock that’s heating and causing it. And this dust only falls on areas that don’t heat, and so it’s a continual cycle that presumably that will continue to warm Mars until it becomes a great big hot fudge sundae like thingie that drips all over the planets in lower orbits and causes further climate problems that will be attributed to my old SUV (Hot Fudge Sunday falls on a Tuesday!)

And, and, and.....same thing for Neptune.

So there.

It’s settled, the science is consensus and that big yellow thing doesn’t have a damn bit to do with heating or cooling the Earth and anything that happens climate wise is directly attributable to AMERICA and the fact they twice voted to make the Shrimp President! and now you’ll all pay! pay! pay!

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
It’s settled, the science is consensus and that big yellow thing doesn’t have a damn bit to do with heating or cooling the Earth and anything that happens climate wise is directly attributable to AMERICA and the fact they twice voted to make the Shrimp President! and now you’ll all pay! pay! pay!
Good glasnost and captain sarcastic impression
 
Written By: cap joe
URL: http://
Clayton Cramer points to this article tat indicates that the increasing solar effect will start to downturn. Thus so much for that. AGW will go the way of the great much publicized 70s freezing death that no one remembers.
 
Written By: cap joe
URL: http://
This blog post contains an interesting and complex discussion of the impact of the change in solar activity on Earth’s climate.

The abstract for the article is also interesting:
Although correlations between Neptune’s brightness and Earth’s temperature anomaly—and between Neptune and two models of solar variability—are visually compelling, at this time they are not statistically significant due to the limited degrees of freedom of the various time series. Nevertheless, the striking similarity of the temporal patterns of variation should not be ignored simply because of low formal statistical significance. If changing brightnesses and temperatures of two different planets are correlated, then some planetary climate changes may be due to variations in the solar system environment.
"Not statistically significant" is equivalent to "quite possibly meaningless but we’d like to do more study".

The posters at RealClimate are serious scientists. Why are you so sure that they’re wrong and the skeptics are right?
 
Written By: Francis
URL: http://
I guess they can explain Jupiter warming up as well.

So that is Mars, Earth, Neptune and Jupiter. Bet there are more if we look?


Jupiter’s case must be more duststorms and warming rocks as well.
Why are you so sure that they’re wrong and the skeptics are right?
Well, they have staked their reps that AGW is the sole case for global warming and nothing else. They have a lot to lose if the argument goes the other way. Perhaps that is the reason?
 
Written By: cap joe
URL: http://
The posters at RealClimate are serious scientists. Why are you so sure that they’re wrong and the skeptics are right?
There are plenty of serious scientists among the skeptics. I don’t feel like another round of Appeal to Authority.
 
Written By: steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
Francis, the scientists who are skeptical about the cause, degree, and effects of warming are also serious scientists. Why are you so sure they are wrong?

Now that appeals to authority are uniform all around and clearly fail to advance understanding, perhaps everyone can move on to more sensible points of debate.
 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
"Not statistically significant" is equivalent to "quite possibly meaningless but we’d like to do more study".
Francis, I’m willing to buy Global Warming, just not Anthroprogenic Global Warming.

If the side you’re championing would take the exact quote you’ve cited above and bruit it about more often in regards to the human forcing of warming while screaming about melting glaciers, dying polar bears and rising sea levels I’d be perfectly happy to listen.

I’m willing to consider dealing with the problem, I’m just not at all convinced that we, you, and me, and my SUV, are the true cause. I’m fairly comfortable it’s natural and cyclic.
You can hurl all the money and societal change at the problem you like, but it will equate to hurling your next 50 paychecks into a bonfire to make it go out.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Bet there are more if we look?
I’[ll lay money on "four more and a planetoid"...

Anyone else want a piece of that action?

And Francis...
Although correlations between Neptune’s brightness and Earth’s temperature anomaly—and between Neptune and two models of solar variability—are visually compelling, at this time they are not statistically significant due to the limited degrees of freedom of the various time series.
True enough, but considering that Mars (which is a good deal closer to the sun... Like half the distance Neptune is (I’m guessing, I’m not digging up a Chart of the Solar System). Mars has experianced a warming trend that is almost the mirror of Earth’s.

Sheesh...
 
Written By: Scott
URL: http://
Scott, just for your own edification — and I know you would not be able to die peacefully until you knew this — Neptune’s mean distance from the sun is roughly 20 times that of Mars.

Just doing what I can to make the world a better place :)
 
Written By: steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
Although a small minority, there are reasonable voices in the skeptic camp on human caused global warming. Most scientists reject that, as models including human causes have done a better job at predicting (according to the recently released report). Alas, if skeptics start citing wild correlations with Neptune to try to buttress their case, the laughter will be immense. Neptune!? LOL!
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Francis,

Geez, haven’t you heard? Even the Real Climate guys have acknowledged that the "consensus" is that CO2 does not cause the planet to warm initially. That CO2 increases occure about 800 years after temperature increases. Hence, man-made warming is not happening because of CO2 increases. Man-made CO2 has only about 100 good years behind it.

But,heck. Don’t believe me... believe the Real Climate gods.

http://www.realclimate.org

What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?

Although, it is funny how the Real Climate gods had to jump through alot of hoops to answer that question.
 
Written By: Anon
URL: http://
Erbie, if you laugh at the thought of citing simultaneous planetary warming throughout the solar system, then perhaps you don’t understand the role of the sun in these parts.

Mars and Neptune are both warming...perhaps from different causes, perhaps from the same cause. Is warming on either — or both — definite proof that man isn’t causing warming on earth? No, and no one here has said that. But they are evidence that earth’s current warming trend may have completely natural causes.



I don’t know why I bother arguing with you. It’s a form of Internet Onanism: highly self-indulgent, doesn’t accomplish anything and only serves to make one’s wrists fatigued.
 
Written By: steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
"Not statistically significant" is equivalent to "quite possibly meaningless but we’d like to do more study".
It means it is possible the data is incorrect, that Lowell Observatory has insufficient accuracy across its data to claim such a precise curve.
Alas, if skeptics start citing wild correlations with Neptune to try to buttress their case, the laughter will be immense. Neptune!? LOL!
Astronomers at Lowell Observatory present data of increased brightness of Neptune, using a method of analysis that has not yet been correlated with a seperate measurement of the same phenomena or extensive enough in scope of measurements. This does not seem immensely funny.
 
Written By: unaha-closp
URL: http://warisforwinning.blogspot.com/
"Although a small minority, there are reasonable voices in the skeptic camp on human caused global warming."
I’m sure they will be glad to know that you think they are reasonable, Scott.
"Alas, if skeptics start citing wild correlations with Neptune to try to buttress their case, the laughter will be immense. Neptune!? LOL!"
The title of that comment might aptly be titled "The Perils of Speaking Without Understanding"

 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
Scott, just for your own edification — and I know you would not be able to die peacefully until you knew this — Neptune’s mean distance from the sun is roughly 20 times that of Mars.
Steverino, you have no idea how little I care... :)
 
Written By: Scott
URL: http://
Astronomers at Lowell Observatory present data of increased brightness of Neptune, using a method of analysis that has not yet been correlated with a seperate measurement of the same phenomena or extensive enough in scope of measurements.
Retract that - the observation of change in Neptunes brightness seems statistically valid and appears to be accepted occurance. The correlation of this increase with the concurrent increase in temperature on Earth is arbitary and not statistically signif.

Intuitively it would shock me if the increasing in one physical aspect of a gas giant correlated easily to the physical change in another very dissimilar planet.

Still we are left with an observation that Neptune is getting brighter and are free to speculate on why this might be.
 
Written By: unaha-closp
URL: http://warisforwinning.blogspot.com/
The Neptunians are holding up billions of tiny mirrors?
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?
Could it be that there is a sudden expansion in plant life once the warming reaches a certain temperature ?

The point the skeptics seem to be missing is that - whatever we discover about warming due to any other reason - we are not yet sure whether or not OUR effect on the C02 concentration in the atmosphere is going to exacerbate the global temperature, possibly with disastrous consequences. Now traditionally industry has worked along the principle that we should make the profits first and hope that we are not causing harm - indeed many seem to hold the view that they have a right to indulge in any form of commerce they like unless it can be proven harmful to others (rather than having to prove that it is safe in the first place). Some - Ford, for example - have even been caught deliberately causing severe harm, including death because it was cheaper to pay the compensation than recall the product ! It is these same people who now argue that we should not curtail economic activity until the danger is proven - but obviously, by then it could be too late.
 
Written By: Blewyn
URL: http://blewog.blogspot.com
It would seem to me that a huge ball of gas can not unilaterally change it’s brightness unless it’s temparature or make up is changing, and if it’s temparature is not changing from an external source, I can not possibly see how it’s make up would change in such a short period of time if at all, just like a solid planet.
This must mean that the sun is heating all the way from Mars to Neptune, how can any possibly suggest that the same can not be happen from the Sun to Mars.

As an aside do people realise the climate models are based on an equation formulated in 1896 (not 1986). They have barely refined there predictions from this at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrhenius_equation
 
Written By: emmess
URL: http://
Could it be that there is a sudden expansion in plant life once the warming reaches a certain temperature ?
Then where’s this supposed muting effect now? According to that theory, mankind’s contribution to C02 shouldn’t be felt for another 800 years.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
Intuitively it would shock me if the increasing in one physical aspect of a gas giant correlated easily to the physical change in another very dissimilar planet.

Still we are left with an observation that Neptune is getting brighter and are free to speculate on why this might be.
Intuitively, it would shock me that changes in the magnitude of a physical parameter of one planet in a solar system, which had proportionally like changes of magnitude in a differing parameter in a different planet, to the tune of a 0.9 correlation—distanced only from each other in time by a consistent 10 year lag—did not have the same root cause.

And we are free to speculate as to what that root cause is, and the Global Warming (TM) faihful are free to interpret this as supporting the idea that AGW is the reason that correlation is not 1.0—and in that they will have no quibbles from me.

Up until they propose government action to reduce the already tiny AGW component to half at some fantastically high price. Then they’ll get more than quibbles.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Erb believes that humans are more powerful than the sun in warming the earth? And he is against the Iraq War and Vietnam War? I applaud you sir, in your brave, contratrian stances. No dogma here, people. This man is a revolutionary thinker, not one cliche in any of his posts. He will save polar bears by preventing the neo-colonizaion of Greenland by neo-Vikings (aka neo-cons).
 
Written By: Tex
URL: http://

Anon posted:

What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?

Blewyn said:

Could it be that there is a sudden expansion in plant life once the warming reaches a certain temperature?

The point the skeptics seem to be missing is that - whatever we discover about warming due to any other reason - we are not yet sure whether or not OUR effect on the C02 concentration in the atmosphere is going to exacerbate the global temperature,

Oddly enough being a skeptic... that was my point. Funny, how you missed it.

 
Written By: Anon
URL: http://
Alas, if skeptics start citing wild correlations with Neptune to try to buttress their case, the laughter will be immense. Neptune!? LOL!
Being in a field where everything is based on consensus (cloned) thought and arbitrary distinctions, I am sure you try to project your own field’s method of doing things on the real sciences.

However, the scientists doing the Neptune study were trying to explain why that particular planet is experiencing warming (not just an increase of albedo, but an increase of real temperature). So rather that make sh*t up, they correlated that to solar activity and found amazing enough that it correlates to earth’s increase.

Now add to that the same rate of increase of both Mars ands Jupiter, it becomes very interesting. How do you posit a theory that relates the same changes of temperature of 4 different planets with solar activity and then pretend that the sun has nothing to do with it. That sounds like junk science to me.

 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Stock answer to libs....... It’s the Sun stupid.
 
Written By: McQ2
URL: http://
The point the skeptics seem to be missing is that... we are not yet sure whether or not OUR effect on the C02 concentration in the atmosphere is going to exacerbate the global temperature, possibly with disastrous consequences.
I dont know what skeptics you are listening to, but it seems to me your closing clause is the precice rasion d’etre of skepticism. This is knee-jerk hyperebole that proponents of AGW always seem to include in their pronouncements. Its like saying, "we’re not sure what effect the shrew mite may have on the shrew population, but it might prove catastrophic to all mammals!"

All skeptics I have read argue for continuing reasoned studies to determine what drives weather and weather changes. Until we know with much better certainty that todays wishful thinking however, it is folly to propose drastic changes on how we live that may not only not affect the weather, but may actually exasorbate harmful changes.

 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
I know a lot about how California uses water. Small changes in the climate will cost billions in infrastructure.

I know a little about how other Western states use water. I suspect that they too will face enormous infrastructure costs. For example, Las Vegas and Phoenix may find that they have to pay Los Angeles to build desalinization plants in order to free up Colorado River water.

As a matter of basic physics, known since 1896, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. When CO2 concentrations rise in the atmosphere, temperatures will rise.

The 800-year lag argument demonstrates a basic misunderstanding between historical temperature rises and this one. The world has a set amount of carbon. In past Milakovich cycles, when the earth got closer to the sun, in response plant life did better and released C02 into the atmosphere. The increase in CO2 then had its feedback effect. In modern times, we are releasing CO2 into the atmosphere NOT as a result of a warmer earth but as a result of burning coal and oil.
 
Written By: Francis
URL: http://
I know a lot about how California uses water. Small changes in the climate will cost billions in infrastructure.

I know a little about how other Western states use water. I suspect that they too will face enormous infrastructure costs. For example, Las Vegas and Phoenix may find that they have to pay Los Angeles to build desalinization plants in order to free up Colorado River water.
So, you’re proposing to cost us untold billions in economic upheaval to ’fix’ something you may not be able to fix (the climate), in addition to the billions in infrastructure costs which we’ll have undergo anyway if the climate is changing purely as a result of a natural cycle.
Yes, I can see the sense in that.

As opposed to simply responding to the changes in the environment, you’re proposing we embark on fruitless attempts to control it. We’re not even sure we ARE doing it, it’s not conclusively proven, but you’re sure we can control it and change it if we, um, do something.

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Erbie, if you laugh at the thought of citing simultaneous planetary warming throughout the solar system, then perhaps you don’t understand the role of the sun in these parts.
Meanies, cut Scott some slack he’s just trying to wrestle the AGW porkbarrel into the political science department where he teaches. This Is where AGW belongs, along with the dumpster-diving grant leaches banging their drums for it. They are on their ways to inheriting the 21’s century’s Piltdown Hoax. AGW ranks right up there with Scientific Socialism. Politics wrapped in the flag of science is pathetic. Erb is a lefty political hack without any competence in science, or knowledge thereof - perfect material for the Erb Chair of AGW.
 
Written By: Mark
URL: http://
It’s obvious. The Neptunians are shining their mirrors at us, thus increasing the amount of sunlight hitting the earth, hence global warming. Nuke Neptune Now.



 
Written By: MarkD
URL: http://
I predict a complete exoneration of any human role in earth climate changes won’t change the political imperative demanding human sacrifice in the name of saving the planet. Even if it “isn’t our fault” we’ll be asked to sacrifice for the planet. Even the negligible impact of such gestures won’t dampen the imperative. It’s a new religion! It’s not quite the Shiite self-immolating whipping oneself bloody with chains but it is just as irrational.

 
Written By: Jason Pappas
URL: http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/
I’m with Pappas. The potential for AGW has only served as a more reasonable justification for those who’ve been demanding human sacrifice for a long time.

 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
a great series of comments covering the gamut of climate ideology, from the obligatory "realclimate says...(while ignoring how innately self-serving realclimate is)" through to "what skeptics think...(by those who aren’t skeptics)" and some very pithy and amusing put downs from real skeptics of different flavours.

Just for laughs, compare how this story is running on the other side of the blogoshpere, where realclimate is seen as the moderate voice of reason...

My favourite is how extensive an explanation AGW-advocates will resort to to absolve their dominant construct of any impurity and their utter unwillingness to entertain that any other explantion may have credence.

Ask any grade 1 or 2 kid: "you’ve got four planets, all warming the same time — what could be the cause?"
Why is it grown-ups have such a hard time with logic? Sometimes the answer is simple.
 
Written By: graham smith
URL: http://ehttp://ecomythsmith.blogspot.com/
Ask any grade 1 or 2 kid: "you’ve got four planets, all warming the same time — what could be the cause?"
Why is it grown-ups have such a hard time with logic? Sometimes the answer is simple.
Well we are comparing social science and angry studies academia to small children.

Off course the small children will win. It is the real equiv of "smaller than a 2nd grader"Graham, how could you be so cruel. :)
 
Written By: cap joe
URL: http://
er that should be smarter rather than smaller. Dang those fingers
 
Written By: cap joe
URL: http://
Hey, Neptune is getting hot. Uranus is next.
 
Written By: steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
For your consideration.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
This ´doesn’t mean anything by itself:
"This change seems to be a response to seasonal variations in sunlight, like the seasonal changes we see on Earth."

...

Because it takes Neptune 165 years to orbit the Sun its seasons will last for decades. If what scientists are observing is truly seasonal change, the planet will continue to brighten for another 20 years.

What is remarkable, say researchers, is that Neptune exhibits any evidence of seasonal change at all, given that the Sun, as viewed from the planet, is 900 times dimmer than it is as seen from Earth.
As to Mars, Jupiter, Pluto and Triton:
First off, is Mars even warming globally at all? Perhaps not — it might be a local effect. And if it is global, there already is an idea of why that might be happening: it would be due to periodic changes in its orbit, called Milankovitch cycles. The Earth has them too, and they do affect our climate.

...

The evidence for Jupiter’s global warming is nothing of the sort. It is evidence that there are warm spots, with storms rising to the tops of the clouds. This may just be a local effect, and not global. Jupiter’s atmosphere is fiendishly complex, and not well understood.

...

With Triton, Neptune’s moon, it says in the very article quoted that Triton is approaching an extreme summer season, due to the tilt of its orbit. This happens every few centuries. So the Sun can be constantly chugging away, and Triton would warm up anyhow.

...

As for tiny Pluto, its dynamics are very poorly understood. What we do see is that its atmosphere appears to be thicker than expected right now. Pluto doesn’t have much of an air blanket, and it changes over the course of Pluto’s orbit as the tiny iceball approaches and recedes from the Sun.
He goes on to write that changes in solar activity coan’t be excluded as a possible explanation for global warming, but that there are many other possible causes, like orbital changes.
 
Written By: Ralf Goergens
URL: www.Chicagoboyz.net
He goes on to write that changes in solar activity coan’t be excluded as a possible explanation for global warming, but that there are many other possible causes, like orbital changes.
Yes, off course, given that they are all going through relatively identical changes, it can’t be be due to a single cause. it must be all different. ookkay, got ya.
 
Written By: cap joe
URL: http://
given that they are all going through relatively identical changes, it can’t be be due to a single cause. it must be all different. ookkay, got ya
All being four out of a possible hundred. Higher Martian Albedo as well as some hot spots on Jupiter also aren’t exactly identical.
 
Written By: Ralf Goergens
URL: www.Chicagoboyz.net
Could it be that there is a sudden expansion in plant life once the warming reaches a certain temperature ?
Then where’s this supposed muting effect now? According to that theory, mankind’s contribution to C02 shouldn’t be felt for another 800 years.
Not sure what you mean by this. What I’m asking is if it’s possible that the lag of CO2 concentration behind the temperature rise is down to the fact that plant proliferation was not linear, and expanded rapidly once a certain life-friendly temperature was reached (ie a tropical climate) over most of the world. The volume of biomass would have increased dramatically, leading to increased CO2 in the atmosphere...
 
Written By: Blewyn
URL: http://blewog.blogspot.com
All skeptics I have read argue for continuing reasoned studies to determine what drives weather and weather changes. Until we know with much better certainty that todays wishful thinking however, it is folly to propose drastic changes on how we live that may not only not affect the weather, but may actually exasorbate harmful changes.
In what way could minimising our CO2 output exacerbate a deterioration in weather conditions ?
 
Written By: Blewyn
URL: http://blewog.blogspot.com

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider