tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post507533288712189203..comments2024-03-19T03:14:04.172-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: Richard Courtney neither lives in, nor visits, nor passes through, nor flies over a small village a block or two from EpsomEliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger28125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-38651519282234209442016-09-26T14:03:12.608-04:002016-09-26T14:03:12.608-04:00great understandable and useful blog…..
thank you...great understandable and useful blog….. <br />thank you for sharing..<br /><a href="http://www.varanasiastro.com" rel="nofollow">Good Site</a>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09937854173152486650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-59816303528766964422008-03-03T13:20:00.000-05:002008-03-03T13:20:00.000-05:00I see (Dr - TBC) Richard Courtney is a speaker at ...I see (Dr - TBC) Richard Courtney is a speaker at the current <A HREF="http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/ConferenceTable.pdf" REL="nofollow">Heartland bash</A> (the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change -- or not!) on Tuesday, 8:45-10:15, in the Julliard Complex, on the 5th Floor.<BR/><BR/>I knew you'd all be grateful for that info.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-16974468870948037352008-02-23T05:35:00.000-05:002008-02-23T05:35:00.000-05:00My catty comment regarding Courtney is that it is ...My catty comment regarding Courtney is that it is thanks to union leaders like him that this country is in the state it is in. But that is a reflection of my own personal political views, not of base reality. <BR/><BR/>The link to John Hunter is very interesting.<BR/>To summarise- Courtney appears to be an apparatchik who with some luck was in the right place at the right time to parley his job into something more interesting during his retirement.guthriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17992984293423290387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-75399635897814340172008-02-22T11:38:00.000-05:002008-02-22T11:38:00.000-05:00John Hunter's comment about Richard S Courtney at ...John Hunter's comment about Richard S Courtney at <A HREF="http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/24/earth-scientists-express-rising-concern-over-warming/#comment-13888" REL="nofollow">dot.earth</A> and the <A HREF="http://people.aapt.net.au/~johunter/greenhou/greenhouse_industry.html" REL="nofollow">link therein</A> are worth reading. I'd previously come across Hunter's link but not reported on it.<BR/><BR/>Could it really be true, that Richard S Courtney is "<I>an accomplished expert in both [sic] invention, obfuscation and bluster ... [and] an entertaining, though rather unconvincing, line in threatening litigation</I>"?<BR/><BR/>(Rhetorical, obviously.)<BR/><BR/><I>Cymraeg llygoden</I>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-6423959154824324092008-02-20T15:34:00.000-05:002008-02-20T15:34:00.000-05:00I'm afraid none of the following adds to knowledge...I'm afraid none of the following adds to knowledge about our friend's qualifications, but it does flesh out a bit of his history going back to 1983.<BR/><BR/>I needed to check up on a patent ref. and took the opportunity to search for our friend's "patents" in an online patent search. I came up with the following:<BR/><BR/>****************<BR/>GB2107052 1983-04-20<BR/>Inventor: COURTNEY RICHARD STANLEY<BR/>Applicant: Coal Industry (Patents) Limited (Great Britain), Hobart House, Grosvenor Place, London<BR/><BR/>Abstract: A method of detecting heatings in coal seams comprises monitoring the concentration of HCl gas in a mine atmosphere and producing an alarm signal if the concentration rises above a predetermined level. Preferably a tube bundle system is used for monitoring the mine atmosphere.<BR/>*****************<BR/>A search on just his name comes up in the World patent database, but not (it seems) in the GB or EP database searches, but the patent number does come up in the GB search -- which might say something about the search capabilities at the UK Intellectual Property Office's website (didn't go back to check EP).<BR/><BR/>No other hits came up. So there's definitely one patent to his name.<BR/><BR/>Also, in odd moments, I've tried to chase up his supposed representations to the House of Commons(Lords) Select Committee on Energy(Environment). This has so far proved fruitless (probably because any representations might be before they started cataloguing things electronically). But in searching this aspect I did come across the following references to Richard (S) Courtney.<BR/><BR/>Apart from the items raypierre has already brought up, Richard Courtney has had a number of letters in <I>New Scientist</I> (NS): in <A HREF="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12717296.000-letter-hot-air-.html" REL="nofollow">Aug 1990</A> (taking issue with John Gribbin over a few things, including JG's comments about the IPCC and the George C. Marshall Institute), in <A HREF="http://technology.newscientist.com/article/mg13017680.600-letters-not-so-little-.html" REL="nofollow">May 1991</A> (about coal vs nuclear research investment), and in <A HREF="http://technology.newscientist.com/article/mg13618495.500-letters-stormy-debate-.html" REL="nofollow">Nov 1992</A> (about the IPCC and storms); and he's had a contribution to NS's "Last Word", which then appeared in book form in <A HREF="http://books.google.com/books?id=NCTHpOGb2jMC&pg=PA175&lpg=PA175&dq=richard+courtney+cheltenham&source=web&ots=ZfaCrbWVFz&sig=4DHXouVq7XKBYOWMz0PeEJuPVpo#PPA175,M1" REL="nofollow"><I>The Last Word 2</I></A>.<BR/><BR/>[<I>Aside</I>: Since his NS <A HREF="http://technology.newscientist.com/article/mg13017680.600-letters-not-so-little-.html" REL="nofollow">May 1991</A> contribution makes mention of "House of Commons Select Committee on Energy in June 1990", I wonder whether this gives a time frame on when he'd have made such representations.]<BR/><BR/>Then there's a letter contribution in 2001 to the <A HREF="http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4239929,00.html" REL="nofollow"><I>The Guardian</I></A>, on Lomborg.<BR/><BR/>It seems he might also have stood for election as a Labour Borough Councillor for "Leckhampton with Up Hatherley" on 2 May 1991 (but I suppose it could be someone else of the same name -- note they've spelled "Stanley" wrongly here). He got <A HREF="http://www.cheltenham.gov.uk/libraries/documents/the%20council/elections/boroughresults/boroughresults1991.pdf" REL="nofollow">308 votes</A>. Probably not bad for Labour in Cheltenham, home of the famous Ladies' College.<BR/><BR/>The thought of a possible prospective Labour politician extolling the virtues of the George C. Marshall Institute somehow boggles me (but perhaps there's another Richard S Courtney in fair Blighty -- though the trail suggests they're probably one and the same)!<BR/><BR/><I>Cymraeg llygoden</I>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-9808425831309323092008-02-19T09:13:00.000-05:002008-02-19T09:13:00.000-05:00[PEDANT mode on]nick barnes is correct. My comment...[PEDANT mode on]<BR/><BR/>nick barnes is correct. My comment was tongue in cheek. The only illegality is casting a vote in two or more wards at a UK national election.<BR/><BR/>Specifically, students and those with second homes in the UK (who can prove they live at both regularly) can vote in respect of both addresses at a local election, but at only one address in a parliamentary election.<BR/><BR/>[PEDANT mode off] :-)<BR/><BR/>But since no one votes in local elections ... ;-)<BR/><BR/>This probably adds credence to RS Courtney not living anywhere in Surrey (or Epsom in particular) in the period he was registered to vote in Falmouth.<BR/><BR/>Now, about that "Dr" attribution ...<BR/><BR/><I>Cymraeg llygoden</I>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-22526362280370000252008-02-18T11:54:00.000-05:002008-02-18T11:54:00.000-05:00Our Welsh friend says:no one in their right mind w...Our Welsh friend says:<BR/><I>no one in their right mind would register for voting in two electoral wards</I><BR/>He is broadly right, and may have been writing humorously, but as a card-carrying pedant I should point out that this used to be, and AFAIK still is, normal and legitimate practice for students and possibly some other categories of people who have genuine homes and interests in more than one ward/constituency. It was (is?) illegal for such a person to cast more than one vote in a general election, although I believe that 20 years ago there was no mechanism for checking this.<BR/>SWITCH NOPEDANT.Nick Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00057838251997644583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-47412175549266231172008-02-16T15:57:00.000-05:002008-02-16T15:57:00.000-05:00Just to add to raypierre's comment about Courtney'...Just to add to raypierre's comment about Courtney's publications in <I>Nature</I> and for completeness here (since I've already linked to it on this site), Courtney did submit an actual paper (Letter) for publication in <I>Nature</I>. It was entitled <A HREF="http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:aIqBJCv0vHcJ:www.warwickhughes.com/papers/courtney01.doc+%22RSC+Environmental+Services%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=uk&client=firefox-a" REL="nofollow"><I>Significant differences in determinations of mean global surface temperature trends for recent decades</I></A>. It was rejected in 2003 for the reason stated in that link. It surfaces as a reference in <I>Global Warming: Myth Or Reality: The Erring Ways of Climatology</I><BR/>by Marcel Leroux (which I won't link to), published by Springer, where on p. 476 it is stated as published in 2004 in "<I>Comm. to 'climate sceptics'</I>, whatever that may be.<BR/><BR/><I>Cymraeg llygoden</I>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-14472775129094361942008-02-16T13:57:00.000-05:002008-02-16T13:57:00.000-05:00In Nature a "Letter" is a peer-reviewed short arti...In Nature a "Letter" is a peer-reviewed short article. The equivalent of a "Letter to the Editor" is called "Correspondence" in Nature, and this is what Courtney's two bits of writing are in Nature. Contributions of this sort are short remarks with a maximum length of a few hundred words, similar to a Letter to the Editor in a newspaper. It is not primarily a vehicle for technical commentary.<BR/><BR/>I read both of Courtney's letters, though for copyright reasons I don't think I can post them. As I said over on Dot Earth, one of the letters (the one published under the title "Water into Wine") was a remark on a Nature article on psychological basis of religion, primarily a retelling of Courtney's feelings while preaching. By the way, Nature picks a single title for a whole group of letters on a topic, and the "Water into Wine" heading actually refers to a different letter on a certain well-known and highly reported chemical transformation of H2O.<BR/><BR/>The second letter was a comment on the procedure IPCC used in the Second Assessment Report to deal with inadequacies in the Working Group III report. That's the economists' report that had, among other flaws, a completely uncritical use of economic models without verification, plus questionable valuations of human life (most infamously valuing one first world life at 10 Indian lives, based on discounted earning power). It was a comment on procedure, not methodology.<BR/><BR/>In no way can either of these be considered "articles." Even as letters, neither one deals with scientific, or even economic or technological, issues.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-28455858889684615062008-02-15T20:05:00.000-05:002008-02-15T20:05:00.000-05:00Minor correction to my previous post:"A failed att...Minor correction to my previous post:<BR/><BR/>"A failed attempt to get a Letter-type paper published in Nature is just that, a failed attempt to get some work peer reviewed" <I>and published</I> "(and ..."<BR/><BR/>since RSC's submission (which I linked elsewhere hereabouts) was peer reviewed.<BR/><BR/><I>Cymraeg llygoden</I>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-59319998100470863302008-02-15T13:11:00.000-05:002008-02-15T13:11:00.000-05:00Maybe it is time for some reader who has ht time r...Maybe it is time for some reader who has ht time right now to go ver to http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_S._Courtney<BR/><BR/>and do a few updates.<BR/><BR/>(In fact, as a general rule, after we have one of these investigations, it's really a nice idea to collect the results and update Sourcewatch (and Wikipedia, if appropriate) so that information about interesting people gets collected in a more accessible form.)John Masheyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17786354229618237133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-71840325397923989362008-02-15T12:08:00.000-05:002008-02-15T12:08:00.000-05:00Cymraeg llygoden means Welsh mouse.I post elsewher...<I>Cymraeg llygoden</I> means <I>Welsh mouse</I>.<BR/><BR/>I post elsewhere under my real moniker (which if anyone requests, even a Scandinavian troglodyte, I will readily reveal), but it seemed that "anonymouse" was de rigueur when I first got here and so I stuck with it here.<BR/><BR/>As to two-tier system: no (at least not as I'm aware).<BR/><BR/>A failed attempt to get a Letter-type paper published in Nature is just that, a failed attempt to get some work peer reviewed (and such work is generally too long for normal correspondence-type letters I'd warrant). The failed Letter-type paper has the same credibility as any other non-peer-reviewed work. It may have merit, but be unworthy of publication for the stated reason (and possibly unstated reasons). Indeed, it may pass muster elsewhere. Or it may just be unworthy.<BR/><BR/><I>Cymraeg llygoden</I>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-17641989024226936512008-02-15T11:44:00.000-05:002008-02-15T11:44:00.000-05:00Cymraeg llygoden- would you mind translating that ...Cymraeg llygoden- would you mind translating that for us? I don't have a Welsh dictionary. <BR/><BR/>As for Courtneys failed LEtter, could you enlighten us as to the status of such things. Is there a 2 tier system, with peer reviewed "Letters" and ordinary letters to the editor? As far as I can see Courtney's publications in NAture look like the latter.guthriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17992984293423290387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-22761998783128765972008-02-15T10:17:00.000-05:002008-02-15T10:17:00.000-05:00Ah! We need a sarcasm tag/flag. 'Fraid I (obviousl...Ah! We need a sarcasm tag/flag. 'Fraid I (obviously) didn't see it as such.<BR/><BR/>But now you point it out, it's clear. But it can be read both ways.<BR/><BR/>Good point, you sarky ol' devil.<BR/><BR/><I>Cymraeg llygoden</I>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-57560516967098986542008-02-15T09:57:00.000-05:002008-02-15T09:57:00.000-05:00I was being sarcastic.Courtney's changing the focu...I was being sarcastic.<BR/><BR/>Courtney's changing the focus to Pierrehumbert's statement about Epsom is an obvious diversionary tactic: "Cast doubt on one thing someone claimed in order to cast doubt on everything they have claimed."<BR/><BR/>Signed: "feigned indignance" AnonymousAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-28506757573500176672008-02-15T04:58:00.000-05:002008-02-15T04:58:00.000-05:00Perhaps "feigned indignance" Anonymous 7:43 PM sho...Perhaps "feigned indignance" Anonymous 7:43 PM should revisit the comments in <A HREF="http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/02/ethon-brings-news-after-short-visit-in.html#links" REL="nofollow">Ethon brings news</A> and read what Ray Pierrehumbert actually said. Most people do still visit their employer's premises at least a few times in a year, so it's not an outlandish premise anyway.<BR/><BR/>And since Courtney's appeal to authority is largely based on his CV, then I'd suggest there is simply no comparison too, but not in the way you suggest.<BR/><BR/>[And guthrie, there is Courtney's failed peer-reviewed Letter (as opposed to letter) submission to Nature that I linked to somewhere hereabouts.]<BR/><BR/><I>Cymraeg llygoden</I>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-35216631198173394082008-02-14T22:43:00.000-05:002008-02-14T22:43:00.000-05:00I don't know about anyone else, but I am simply ap...I don't know about anyone else, but I am simply appalled that Ray Pierrehumbert would have the gall to suggest that Richard Courtney was ever in Epsom.<BR/><BR/>Mistakenly concluding that someone once lived and/or visited the town where their employer is headquartered is FAR worse than "resume enhancement". Simply no comparison.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-8675200372443740592008-02-14T22:32:00.000-05:002008-02-14T22:32:00.000-05:00Conclusion: Courtney is a f***ing buffoon.Saturnia...Conclusion: Courtney is a f***ing buffoon.<BR/><BR/>Saturnian.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-54994345950613466232008-02-14T21:18:00.000-05:002008-02-14T21:18:00.000-05:00Ethon may wish to pay a visit to Texas.Ethon may wish to pay a visit to <A HREF="http://www.tylerpaper.com/article/20080213/NEWS08/802130360" REL="nofollow">Texas</A>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-68012196929642014342008-02-14T20:22:00.000-05:002008-02-14T20:22:00.000-05:00guthrie, not only is a letter to the editor a pape...guthrie, not only is a letter to the editor a paper, but so is a blog comment. <BR/><BR/>In fact, I, your peer, am reviewing this vital document (your post 1:57 pm). I, and I suspect the other referees, would prefer you remove the scare quotes from 'Correspondence', tighten up the third sentence, and expand and provide documentation for the point you made in your last paragraph.<BR/><BR/>Nonetheless, your work there so far squares not only with the literature, but according to a couple of phone calls I made, is very plausible. Tentatively, good work!<BR/><BR/>Now, when are you providing an abstract of "Courtney Citations in Nature Articles" Dr. Guthrie?Marion Delgadohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09493068399042656060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-84348832385304646792008-02-14T16:57:00.000-05:002008-02-14T16:57:00.000-05:00I got halfway there myself, but lack a subscriptio...I got halfway there myself, but lack a subscription so cannot read the letters. According to a search of Nature website using, in quote marks "Richard S Courtney", I find these:<BR/><BR/>Nature 379, 109 (11 January 1996) <BR/>Purpose and function of IPCC<BR/>Richard S. Courtney<BR/><BR/><BR/>Nature 366, 606 (16 December 1993) <BR/>On changing water into wine<BR/>Richard S. Courtney<BR/><BR/><BR/>Both appear to be under the heading "Correspondence". Thus I can only assume that either Mr Courtney has not got an idea of the correct usage of words, or someone else made up the bio we are reffering to, or else Mr Courtney has a hyuuuuge ego. <BR/><BR/>Note for the braindead- in no way can a letter to the editor be considered a paper. A paper is a peer reviewed summation of work that has been carried out or an interesting hypothesis which is being presented. Correspondence is where you get to claim that someones paper is wrong, but without in turn getting peer reviewed and with less impact on the scientific literature.guthriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17992984293423290387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-15279357621145947142008-02-14T16:48:00.000-05:002008-02-14T16:48:00.000-05:00It would however be worth putting up his letters t...It would however be worth putting up his letters to nature. A sockpuppet has claimed on the SCotsman page that COurtney was "published" in nature meaning he had a few letters printed. It would be nice to know what these letters said, because if someones bio says "and has published papers in many journals including Nature, microscopy, and Filtration", I would expect them to have published real peer reviewed papers in said journals, rather than letters. <BR/>So, enquiring minds want to know, how much of that bio is puffed up?guthriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17992984293423290387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-31142746806423611972008-02-14T14:58:00.000-05:002008-02-14T14:58:00.000-05:00Re David B Benson's first query:As of the Electora...Re David B Benson's first query:<BR/><BR/>As of the Electoral Roll in 2007, he is registered to vote in Falmouth. The available data also lists the other two occupants of the house, which I won't repeat here.<BR/><BR/>Electoral roll data are limited, though you can find out slightly more by paying an agency fee.<BR/><BR/>As to the second point, I think the only way to find out is if he decides to divulge it himself. There seems no web record other than what is listed in that wind farm piece, as far as I can gather. Or perhaps there's someone out there who was on the same course as him ...<BR/><BR/><I>Cymraeg llygoden</I>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-4468762247612286092008-02-14T14:24:00.000-05:002008-02-14T14:24:00.000-05:00To back up a bit- Courtneys post #37- The UN Inter...To back up a bit- Courtneys post #37- <BR/><BR/><I>The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a “consensus” of governments and not scientists. Many – perhaps most – of us scientists who are involved in the IPCC do not agree with contents of IPCC Reports.</I><BR/>Paranoid ramblings not backed up by any evidence. <BR/><BR/><BR/><I>The most important fact about climate change is that there is no evidence for anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) global warming (AGW); none, not any of any kind. </I><BR/>So he claims.<BR/><BR/><I>A claim that AGW exists is merely an assertion: it is not evidence and it is not fact. And the assertion does not become evidence or fact by being voiced, written in words, or written in computer code.</I><BR/>I say exactly the same thing about claims that AGW is not occuring. <BR/><BR/><I>he existence of global warming (GW) is not evidence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) because warming of the Earth does not prove that human activity warmed it.</I> <BR/>Except when many years of work finds various fingerprints of humanity in it. <BR/><BR/><BR/><I>The fact is that any warming that may have happened during the last 100 years is within natural climate variability that has occurred in the past.</I><BR/>Only an idiot like COurney would claim that the entire 100 years is within natural variablity. Everyone agrees that the early 20th century was so. Everyone agrees that by the end of the 20th century, we were outside natural variability. <BR/><BR/><I>And that warming could be a completely natural recovery from the Little Ice Age that is similar to the recovery from the Dark Age cool period to the Medieval Warm Period.</I> <BR/>There is no evidence for this hypothesis.<BR/><BR/>Various bits of mince snipped.<BR/>The replies to his ill-informed and evidence and logic lacking screed were interesting. The usual suspects hailed it as a masterpiece of incivise evedential critique. We begged to differ.<BR/>After being challenged by Slioch, Courtney then said:<BR/><BR/><I>Slioch: <BR/>You are impertinent. But, since you ask, I am an Expert Peer Reviewer of the IPCC who was appointed to that position by the US National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). It is my job to comment to and for the IPCC on every word of every draft of each IPCC Scientific Report being prepared. Simply, I am one of the thousands of climate scientists whose views eco-terrorists proclaim.</I><BR/>Note that he spells SLioch correctly this first time. Then he rambles on about why he is so wonderful and knowledgeable, and finishes with INSULTING everyone who disagrees with him. <BR/><BR/><I>I fully understand the nature of “scientific discovery”: I have made some.</I><BR/>Unfortunaately, we cannot find any evidence of him doing so.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>You call AGW a theory. It’s not. AGW is a hypothesis. And a hypothesis does not become a theory until it has some supporting evidence.<BR/><BR/>You say there is no proof of AGW. I agree and I point out that there is no evidence for it, either. You claim there is some evidence but cite none. Your waffling about the moon etc. is irrelevant.</I><BR/><BR/>More claims without any evidence to back them up. <BR/><BR/>{Bits of pointless rambling snipped}<BR/><BR/><I>There are several good explanations for the variations in global temperature. For example, clouds reflect solar heat and a mere 2% increase to cloud cover would more than compensate for the maximum possible predicted warming due to a doubling of carbon dioxide in the air. Records of cloud cover are very short because cloud cover is measured by satellites that were not launched until the mid 1980s. But it appears that cloudiness decreased between the mid 1980s and late 1990s such that - over those 15 years - if the Sun’s heat was constant then reduced cloudiness provided an extra surface warming of 5 to 10 Watts/sq metre. This is a lot of warming. It is between two and four times the entire warming estimated to have been caused by the build-up of human-caused greenhouse gases </I><BR/>Here Courtney makes a claim, WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE TO BACK HIMSELF UP! And no mechanism, either.guthriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17992984293423290387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-55636714776521287232008-02-14T14:22:00.000-05:002008-02-14T14:22:00.000-05:00Be nice if somebody could track down:(1) just wher...Be nice if somebody could track down:<BR/><BR/>(1) just where the culprit does register to vote;<BR/><BR/>(2) just what, if anything, his post-graduate qualifications are.David B. Bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02917182411282836875noreply@blogger.com