One of the greatest academic scandals of this generation is unraveling, and the mainstream media is strangely silent.
Earlier this month, the scandal now nicknamed 'Climategate' began with the publication of hacked emails from the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, showing how corrupted and conniving the climate change scientists (big guns, not small fry, mind you....from the IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change) have been in promoting the global warming agenda.
For details please read Lord Christopher Monckton's report.
The Daily Telegraph's report is also good reading.
For me, this is a sad indictment of how far academia has sunk. Once we could trust the objectivity of reports that came from academic centres. Or at least it did seem that way. Now, it seems the universities and research centres have all fallen prey to money wielding organizations, or self serving politicians. Can we trust academicians now?
Some may say that this is an isolated incident involving a unrepresentative group of academics, but the cynical in me believes this may in fact be more prevalent than we want to admit.The silence of the main stream media is deafening. Governments and politicians who have invested much in the global warming hypothesis have much to lose should it be proven to be a hoax. A gargantuan industry has already been built up around technologies to mitigate global warming. What will become of these should there be no global warming?
Let's not even think of the possibility that we might not have been told the whole truth about other issues such as the H1N1 pandemic, or stem cell research, or gene therapy, or the need for cancer screenings.... The list goes on.
I had made the point earlier about the need for more objective data. This is even more urgent now. The question is where will it come from?
Posts
Six Years
13 years ago
25 comments:
Have you noticed that the ST and local media are absolutely silent about this scandal?
And the ST even interviewed this UN guy, who made some remarks (in other media) about this scandal, but ST didn't ask him any questions about it?!
Amazing, right?
Yeah, it is very obvious that the main stream media is avoiding discussing this issue. Neither SPH nor Mediacorp show any interest in flagging out this major academic scandal.
The question is, why?
Giga, academics aren't saints. It's just in the past they were a select coterie and the hoi polloi daren't challenge their wisdom. But the days of the lock-pulling subserviant dumb serfs are over. The Internet has levelled the knowledge field or at least lowered the standing of self-proclaimed academics, brains, poets whatever. These are then seen to be no better than the less educated great unwashed masses, beginning with honesty.
By the deafening silence of the mainstream media, u mean SPH n Mediacorp of cos! The BBC had a piece on the news on this climate scandal just now. As did the Telegraph which u cited.
Green technology.
Especially those flagged as the next growth area.
Case in point. ESP:- SOLAR PANELS.
I think the problem is that once the politicians, big governments and corporations buy into the global warming issue, and begin to incorporate it into their strategic missions, whether for power or greed, it is difficult to face up to the fact that you have been duped. No one likes egg on the face. No one likes to lose money from misplaced investments in green technologies.
This is not to say that global warming does not exist, just that the data is not as conclusive as we had been led to believe.
That cabal of manipulative self serving scientists should be hung out to dry. Governments should not try to protect them. If they had destroyed raw data deliberately and mischievously, criminal proceedings should be brought to bear.
It is time that the whole issue of protecting the environment and managing climate change be dealt with objectively. What data do we actually have? Let's be honest about our ignorance.
And to SPH and Mediacorp, who continue to ignore the issue... it's time to wake up.
Hi:
I'm S'pore born and bred and would consider myself a climatologist - at least my bosses, peers and students do, so I would think that I know a fair bit about this global warming thingamajig.
I am well aware that this is your blog, and you are free to post whatever opinion you have, but I feel duty bound to point out several fallacies here, as well as the others subsequent to this original one.
1) The emails which were illegally - yes, illegally - hacked from the CRU server have been shown to be taken out of context. The real explanations of these emails are easily available - see here and here and here for instance. Why not mention them instead of the general contrarian links you seem to promote in your other posts?
2) I find it very telling that you've been reading the Christophers - Booker and Monckton - who love hyperbole, smear and slander in their prose. Can you tell me how many peer-reviewed climate science publications they have? I should also warn you that these commentators (not scientists, BTW) are well known to have been wrong before and before and before and before
In short, apart from titillating scandal articles, they generally deal with scientific bunkum.
3) CRU is not "the Nasa of climatology" - it is one of many climate research units (which include GISS, NCDC, UAH etc. - feel free to google these for more info) that are mostly independent of commercial or private industries. Sure, they may get some private funding but the majority of research grants come from their national science organisations like NSF in the USA. Their funding is a matter of public record - have you found something that shows that "the universities and research centres have all fallen prey to money wielding organizations, or self serving politicians"? I'd like to see it.
(Continued below for word limit)
(Continued)
4) The people named in the emails - (full disclosure: I have met in person, corresponded with and/or bounced ideas with several of them in previous years) are but one of about 2500 involved in the IPCC. To allude that these people are "big guns" in the IPCC is somewhat misleading. There's only one big gun in the IPCC and that's Pachauri.
Further, I take issue with you calling these people "corrupted and conniving." These are very serious charges, so where's your proof? Something Booker, Delingpole, Monckton or some conservative op-ed said in the rumour mill? As I've pointed out above, there is very little in the emails that can be viewed as either corrupt or illegal once viewed in the context in which they were written.
5) Why are the general (i.e. non-right leaning, conservative) mass media silent? Simple - because it is a non-story. Do the emails show that AGW is not happening? Does it show that everything about climate science is a conspiracy? Does it show that data have been deleted or manipulated to show something else? According to Nature (I assume you know how truly big shot this journal is), No. no and no.
6) You're training to be (or already are) a M.D, yes? How would you feel if I told you that AIDS is NOT caused by HIV, and my evidence is this, and that the South Africans have the right way to deal with the "supposed" pandemic that you point out?? That's exactly how I feel about all the BS on the CRU hack.
Don't you think the timing of this hack (within days of the Copenhagen climate conference) is most suspicious? And lastly, calling the hack "climategate" as defined by Booker et al. is ironic as the real crime here is perpetuated by the h@ck3rs who (and I am 100% speculating here) were probably egged on by corporate or big business (read: fossil fuel) industries who wish to delay policies to reduce carbon emissions.
W.
Oh, and one more thing. If I were to go running around the YLL school and scream "HIV DOES NOT CAUSE AIDS" based on some contrarian, un-peer-reviewed literature, would you think I'm an idiot? Of course you would (I hope). I should instead read the relevant literature in the Med Lib, yes?
So here's a suggestion. Instead about speculating about the CRU hack non-event, how about reading the whole IPCC 4AR WG1 - available here? I'd like to hear if you still think AGW "is not necessarily due to human activity" after digesting that.
If folks can spend so much time and effort to pore through hacked emails, surely they'd be able to spend an equal amount of time reading about the actual science, yes? And I'm pretty certain a smart critter like you should be able to read through the whole document over a weekend :-)
Hi Winston, really appreciated your post! Contrary to what you think, I have really no interest in promoting any particular monolithic view of AGW (whichever way the wind blows). Thank you for pointing out the contrarian views about the unfolding 'Climategate'. :)
I never did think much of AGW. There have been major climatic changes in the past, independent of human activity, and such cyclical changes will occur with or without human activity. But I am just a small critter and not a climatologist. Barely survived the last ice age. What do I know? I am now officially an agnost where this issue is concerned.
What caught me by surprise was the flood of interest in the hacked emails (btw, we don't know for certain if they were hacked, or leaked by a whistle blower, and protected by law?). There is no doubting the strategic timing of their release, but that is not to deny the contents.
Even as a small critter, I do recognize that when scientists get into a huddle, surround themselves with a thick layer of group think, and conspire to deny contrary opinions instead of engaging in open discussions, these are not very healthy indicators of good science.
Whether those guys are big guns or not in IPCC, I cannot be certain. But they seem pretty influential there. Corrupted? Sorry, I did over reach myself in the use of that descriptor. Conniving - yeah, I think so. If my boss wrote emails like that about me and my work, I'd call him/her conniving.
Thanks for send the blogs. I learnt a lot there. But I also came across this blog post by Eduardo Zorita. Perhaps you know him? He's from the GKSS Research Center near Hamburg, Germany. His post is reproduced at this site:
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/11/eduardo-zorita-on-climategate.html
He too has opinions about these guys whom he had worked with in crafting those reports.
No prob :-)
I'll hold you to your word that you wish to be agnostic about AGW, so lets not discuss that. If, however, you do wish to talk/blog about it, at the very least read the IPCC reports that I linked above.
As for your other points:
1) Some context is needed about Zorita, who is Hans von Storch's student. The latter was the editor-in-chief of Climate Research when the horribly flawed Soon & Balliunas paper was published in it after the authors gamed the peer-review system (in short, they had a fellow contrarian (Chris de Freitas) as an editor in that journal and they used it to get published). HvS and 6 other editors resigned in protest at this and the journal's reputation took a massive hit in the early 2000's.
Anyway, Zorita has a pretty transparent agenda here for those familiar with the background. He and HvS were also guilty of very dubious research and behaviour in 2004 that was rightfully criticised by several of the folks that Zorita's now trying to revengefully castigate in public.
I find it funny and ironic that he's trying to censor/exclude Mann, Jones and Rahmstorf when the previous Nature editorial posted above showed that no such censoring eventually occurred in the IPCC AR4. Further, Gavin Schmidt has also commented on the foolishness of Zorita's opinion.
(As an aside - be wary of Pielke Jr. He's well known to be a online sh*tstirrer who, while a pretty good science policy writer, has been shown to be the opposite when it comes to analysing climate science. Notice he did not bother to place Zorita's opinion in proper context.)
2) I'm pretty certain that the emails were hacked and not a leak. The CRU says so. The people smeared said so. And now a source within the criminal investigation says so as reported by the Times.
To claim, as several contrarians commentators have, that it was some whistle-blower act is an illogical, foolish and ethically bankrupt opinion used to justify the act of reading illegal pilfered mail.
3) Once again - the IPCC is pretty big organisation and it involves not just the folks looking at paleoclimate and surface/atmospheric measurements, but also oceanographers and coastal scientists (of which our very own Wong Poh Poh can be classified as one - he's the co-ordinating lead author for a major chapter in the AR4), hydrologists, glaciologists, atmospheric modellers, food and drought scientists etc. While Monckton and Booker may have built a pretty big straw man here, Mann, Jones et al. are not that influential in the larger picture of things in the IPCC.
Lastly, instead of conniving, I would rather say "ill-advised" as calling someone conniving implies a criminal/illegal act already took place (private emails notwithstanding). If, for instance, your boss and others ganged up to successfully exclude you from getting a pay rise or promotion for unjustified reasons - yes, that's conniving. But as the Nature editorial above showed - were these (awfully scientific wrong) papers excluded due to the "conniving" scientists? No.
Anyway, this is my (semantic) opinion and feel free to consider otherwise.
Best, W.
Yeah...I am an agnost....even more so now with this scandal unfolding.
Thanks Winston, for sharing so much about the personalities, machinations and intrigue behind this area of science. It was truly educational. Sadly, by comparison, my own area of academic interest is beginning to look really boring. I wonder why we don't have so much intrigue in our area of science? Perhaps the stakes aren't so high, and the vested interests aren't so great....which raises the question of whether climate science has become 'corrupted' by big corporate/governmental interests (on both sides of the debate) - and which is starting to make me become quite a 'skeptical agnost'. Skeptical about all I read from both sides of the debate. BTW, skeptical doesn't just mean about AGW.
What has troubled me most as this controversy unfolds, is the apparent willingness of senior and prominent scientists to exclude and fudge data, target contrarians, manipulate the scientific review process, etc. Is the data and the conclusions arising from possibly corrupted data still valid? How is one to know? Hence the skepticism.
Conniving? Yeah, conniving. You seem to think that conniving only applies when the outcome is successful. I don't agree with that. People are conniving because of the intent to conspire towards a negative /illegal act. That it wasn't successful doesn't make them less conniving. Just bad implementers.
BTW, if you don't mind, can you explain to me about the tree ring data divergence from 1960's? What's the thinking about why the data diverges from instrumental data from that period.
Oh, believe me, I've seen my fair share of scandal and controversy in biology/medicine too - try regularly reading the news sections of Nature or Science, for instance. Maybe you're not looking hard enough. :)
It's fine to be skeptical - the scientific method demands that scientists be skeptical in thinking. But the problem - especially in a field as politicized as climate science - is that several people, bloggers, commentators and scientists for hire have abandoned their skepticism for contrarianism/denialism.
Now, you seem to think that data were fudged/manipulated/excluded and that the scientists slandered by the CRU hack were guilty of this, despite the evidence I presented above (and more evidence here as well from the IPCC and BBC - Stocker and Qin are, if you must, "bigger fish" than Jones et al.). The sad reality is the other way around - it's the contrarians who masquerade as "skeptics" that are more guilty of this. Naomi Oreskes, a very prominent science historian, documented this trend especially in America. Note how climate change contrarians have followed the playbook from tobacco right down the wire.
You also ask - how is one to know if the data are still valid? OK, in the context of the CRU hack -- the supposed "manipulated" data in question refer to the Mann et al 1998 "hockey stick" paper. If, for argument's sake, the data or methods were dodgy, the "blade" of the hockey stick would not be replicated.
So what would other scientists do? Use other methods and techniques of course. These exclude the tree-ring data in question but use other proxy data (a whole list of papers and proxies is here), as well as avoiding the use of principal component analysis (by using RegEM or CPS methods instead as in Mann et al 2008), and guess what? These show the same sharp increase in recent temperatures vs. the past 600-2000 years. Funny that most contrarians are so fixated on a 12 year old paper (Mann et al 1998) that they neglect that climate science moves on.
So are the data dodgy? My take is a very solid "NO" based on my training and education - but if you wish to pursue your skepticism, feel free to read the papers I've listed above. If you do come to an opposite conclusion...I'd sure as hell would like to know why.
And we agree to disagree on the semantics of "conniving". I'm fine with that :-)
The tree-ring divergence effect or "problem" refers to recent (i.e. post 1960) observations in trees located >55 deg N that do not adhere to the “uniformitarian principle" i.e. of the correlation between climate and tree growth being linear and stable over time. This issue, however, does not seem to apply to tree proxies S of 55 deg N.
Reasons for this include global dimming, enhanced UV-B radiation, local pol1lution or tree specific moisture stress, methodological effects (e.g. detrending method of tree ring data) and selection of the target climate data (e.g. maximum versus minimum temperatures, urban versus rural stations, local versus gridded climate data etc.) (From Wilmking and Singh 2008).
Has this issue been ignored in climate science? No - Briffa et al (1998) picked up on this. Do these mean that trees in these regions are bad proxies and any inclusion of these data implies scientific fraud? No. James Hrynyshyn does a good job in explaining why in relatively easy-to-understand language. If you wish a more technical discussion, the Mann et al 2008 PNAS paper I linked above is the way to go.
Thanks again Winston for your patience.
I haven't had time to read all the stuff you sent but I did manage the 'dummy's guide to tree rings...'.
It seems to me that there's really no good data prior to instrumentation. Certainly no temp data. Prior to that we only have proxy data. And of the proxy data, the one that is most 'robust' and which goes farthest back is the tree ring data. But since these are proxies, they can only be calibrated against thermometers when they became avaiable which appears to be from 1700's. And since then it has only be trending together with thermometers until 1960's? Which seems to be that it is not a very good proxy data. It seems we can equally argue that post 1960's is a unique period.....or that pre-1960's is unique. No one can prove it either way. Tree ring data is just unreliable.
It is a faith based approach!
Given the unreliability of the tree ring data, it seems somewhat fudgy to plot it all out as if we are confident of what it means. It is true that given our inability to see the past clearly, even a little bit of sight is good. But we need to be honest about our limitations to know what past global temps were.
That 20th century temps have been going up, does not necessary mean that this has not happened since year zero. There are just too many assumptions based on fuzzy science.
Sorry, the temperature data only goes back to 1850.
Meaning the calibration was only possible based on 110 years out of the last 160 years?
Oh my...
I've met several dendrochronologists who would tear your head off if you were to tell them to their face that proxy data is "a faith based approach" or "fuzzy science" and is "unreliable". Guess you're lucky it's just poor ol' me! :-)
It's like telling a radiologist that "YOU KILL PEOPLE ALL THE TIME WITH RADIATION!" and that x-rays should be banned altogether.
And you base that on "A dummy's guide to tree-rings"? You're kidding, right? As I've mentioned before, how about reading the primary literature in the IPCC AR4 and THEN forming an opinion? Chapter 6 would be much, much more informative and trustworthy than a dummy's guide.
You know, it's funny - I have talked to several contrarians or so-called "skeptics" in person here in the US (as opposed to over blog conversations) and they often cite skeptical pages and blogs as proof of their knowledge. It's incredible how they often shut up/change their minds after I show them the relevant pages in the IPCC or on the primary papers.
Look, if you wish to hold that opinion (along with the other seemingly contrary opinions about AGW you have posited, despite claiming to be a "climate agnostic") without considering the stuff I've posted, that's ok. It's your blog! Just don't expect to be taken seriously. :-)
And lastly, despite what you think and have posted so far, AGW is more than just tree-rings and proxies. Consider:
-rising global surface temperatures post 1860
-rising global satellite temperature data
-rising global ocean heat content data
-rising global sea surface temperatures
-more climate extreme events in recent years
-the cooling stratosphere vs. rising tropospheric temperatures
-decline in glacier mass worldwide
-decline in arctic sea ice
-decline in land ice in Greenland & Antarctica
-earlier start of Spring...
(these are but a sample from the bigger list in the IPCC 4AR - in my defence it's sunday morning here and I haven't had coffee yet :-))
My point is, don't get so fixated with proxies that you miss the forest for the leaf.
Also, I've got more fish to fry, papers to write, data to collect etc. - so here's a suggestion/offer. How about emailing me (wtchow@asu.edu) if you wish to further discuss AGW questions? Hopefully it won't be subject to another CRU-style hack hehehehe :)
"I've met several dendrochronologists who would tear your head off if you were to tell them to their face .... :-)"
Hahaha....that fits in quite nice with the image of the climatologists from CRU.
But seriously, I am an agnost, but like I say just increasingly skeptical as I understand more. I have nothing to gain by taking any particular side of the debate and have not applied for nor received any research funding from Shell... :)
"Look, if you wish to hold that opinion (along with the other seemingly contrary opinions about AGW you have posited, despite claiming to be a "climate agnostic") without considering the stuff I've posted, that's ok."
Remember our perspectives differ because you are a believer and I am an agnost. Just because I don't share your conviction does not make me less of an agnost.
The reason why many, especially non-climatologists (i guess that's mee, too) don't read the serious stuff is that it is just too full of technical jargon. I have been in the sciences long enough to know that that's what some people do when they want to obfuscate a particular lack of understanding. Contrary to what you think I actually have read AR4.
I do not deny that recent observations do indicate warming. The stumbling point really is that proxies records are mere proxies, and it is a bit of leap of faith to say they indicate actual temperatures. Tree rings is not all there is but is the most quoted by climatologists (perhaps it is more global than ice cores, and less susceptible to salinity and other effects that plague coral data, and also goes back longest.) And we now know the tree ring data diverges from 1960 from temp records. That to me makes it a bad proxy. One cannot argue that it is good until 1960 and bad after that. That will be cherry picking your data.
So really we only have temp data from about 1850 (and now supported by satellite and other fancy data sets). What we know for certain is that there is a rise in the temps from 1860. Has that happened before, or have we had higher temps before...? We don't really know do we?
There's certainly been suggestions from proxy records of blips like MWP and dips like LIP.
So the cloud of uncertainty hangs over whether warming is a cyclical natural event, or unique and man made.
So debating warming is probably irrelevant. The real controversy is in the A of AGW. GW on its own however, doesn't create the sense of urgency and panic in some people's minds (although I don't see why not....since coastal cities and low lying communities are going to be devastated still regardless of AGW or plain old GW).
Cheers.
Penultimate post from me. Even my patience has a limit, unfortunately:
1) "Hahaha....that fits in quite nice with the image of the climatologists from CRU."
-- After you slander/smear their work ("fuzzy science...faith-based approach"), just like the denialist/contrarians are doing to the CRU, you were expecting something else? *shakes head*
2) What's your definition of an agnost? Mine is this - Agnostic:
A person unwilling to commit to an opinion to anything.
It's clear to me that you're no longer one re: climate. Unless you claim to be the other definition...? I doubt it, as your stance appears to lean more towards the irrelevant stance of epistemological/scientific nihilism.
3) "Remember our perspectives differ because you are a believer and I am an agnost. Just because I don't share your conviction does not make me less of an agnost."
-- No, it's not. I take offence at you calling me "a believer" with "conviction" as it implies religious undertones in my worldview on AGW.
I don't believe in AGW because of some authority figure - I know AGW is happening from the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence, coupled with my education and training. The ironic thing is that you evidently believe this is otherwise from a very shallow reading of literature, or perhaps from an unqualified authority figure like a Booker or Monckton. Big difference there.
(Continued below)
Last post from me - continued from above:
4) "The reason why many, especially non-climatologists (i guess that's mee, too) don't read the serious stuff is that it is just too full of technical jargon. I have been in the sciences long enough to know that that's what some people do when they want to obfuscate a particular lack of understanding. Contrary to what you think I actually have read AR4."
-- Oh really? I'll call your bluff on reading the AR4. If you'd read it you would have seen the numerous FAQs and in-text boxes written in plain, easy to understand language littered through the document. Note that the IPCC reports are not written for a scientific audience but for policy/governmental types and the general public.
If you did read it, you would have also found the answer to your long, confused dismissal on proxy data.
Actually, scratch that thought. Maybe you skimmed through the pages and gave up because you could not comprehend and were scared of "technical jargon".
I'm sorry, but this (combined with your lack of reading/comprehension of other papers I posted on the divergence issue that explains why the data are (i) not cherry picked and (ii) still useful as climate proxies) smacks of intellectual laziness ("Tree-rings for dummies?! R U SRS?) and reinforces my point that no "genuine skeptic" will take your contrarian opinions on climate science seriously.
--Also, from someone who ostensibly claims to be a doctor/biologist, since I have no idea what your bona fides are, your claim that "I have been in the sciences long enough to know that that's what some people do when they want to obfuscate a particular lack of understanding." is an utterly laughable ipse-dixitism. You haven't been working much outside your field, have you?
Relevant anecdote - My wife, a cancer biologist, has little problem understanding my published climate work and its jargon. I, unfortunately, can't fathom the biologish/cancergeuse she writes in her papers and proposals.
By your reckoning, does that mean her collaborators are obfuscating some cherry picked, fudged data? Does it mean that biology or medicine is a crock of sh*t because the language is too difficult for me to understand?
Or does it mean that I need to take the time to read more and understand and comprehend the cancer biology before spouting off some opinion as fact?
Lastly, it's most interesting to see that the fallacious views and opinions in this original post that I challenged have neither been corrected, nor edited, nor altered in this or subsequent posts. That, to me, says more about your true views on climate change than whatever false claims of climate agnosticism you holler.
Have a nice day, season's greetings, so long and thanks for all the fish etc. W.
*sigh*
I am sorry that our discussions have gotten you so huffy and hot under the collar. I had hoped that we could have had a more civil discussion. I can't help it if I don't agree with your view of the data and the scientific approach.
If you looked at my earlier blog post (http://gigomole.blogspot.com/2009/11/rising-sea-levels-what-is-impact-on_24.html)you will see my reference to global warming and rising sea levels and my reference to IPCC AR4. Was I a skeptic then?
I was intrigued and drawn into this discussion recently by the email leaks which revealed a very unsavory aspect of this science. One that I was not aware of before.
As I read more about it and through whatever we were able to discuss, it did confirm that the information and views presented in the public domain was far from unanimous, and was subject to a far greater degree of uncertainty than I had earlier thought.
But Winston, just because I disagree with you should not give you cause to be upset.
"My wife, a cancer biologist, has little problem understanding my published climate work and its jargon"
I guess that makes me not as smart as your wife. So sorry.
The problem plaguing this whole discussion in cyberspace, is the lack of willingness of climate dogmatists to accept contrarian views. Anyone who doesn't nod their head in agreement is labelled a skeptic, lunatic or something worse along those lines, and need to be silenced in some way. This attitude is not helpful to proper scientific discourse.
Was it not possible Winston, for you to explain in layman's terms....(yes, I am that dumb, or intellectually lazy) ... why we can pretend we think we know what global temps were before 1850, when actually don't have data. Or that we can be so confident that the earth was not similarly warm before? Seems like there are too many ifs and assumptions to build such and important global consensus around.
So for me the whole notion of anthropogenic global warming is still wide open. The views of this small critter will not affect Copenhagen, or the workings of IPCC, nor will it prevent the world from heating up further.
The emperor's clothes are not that real.....
gigamole,
dun be so upset. Your posts very funny, plus not very cheem so beri easy to read. I is like it very much. please keep up the good work.
oso, i wanna ask does this mean it is okay to buy a house in bukit timah since there no global warming? i want but i scared flood.
haha...thanks, but I am not upset. :) No reason to.... I always wonder if the reason why some of these scientists get so emotional and defensive is really that they know their position is not very tenable.
Bukit Timah is not so bad a place to stay. The recent flood was not because it was low lying.... but more so that an exceptional amount of rain fell in the catchment zone north of 6th Ave in a very short time. This resulted in overflow of the already very expanded drainage canals. The situation is very much improved from when I was growing up.
Always look forward for such nice post & finally I got you. Really very impressive post & glad to read this.
Architects in Indore
Civil Contractors in Indore
Good luck & keep writing such awesome content.
Virgin Linseed Oil BP
flaxseed oil
Post a Comment