What do Greenpeace actually know about the science behind 'Global Warming' ?
17 December 2009, 10:40 AM
#31
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Here, There, Everywhere
Posts: 10,619
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
17 December 2009, 10:44 AM
#32
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good summing up of why, this person at least, is a sceptic ... Squander Two Blog ....
One paragraph "... I object to the constant use of the word "denialist", designed as it is to imply a parallel with AIDS denialists and Holocaust denialists. We never refer to Einstein as a "quantum mechanics denialist", even though he didn't accept the theory and the theory has been proven right to as great an extent as science ever is. You're not going to persuade me of your case by insulting me, but you are going to make me wonder why you're conducting a propaganda campaign against anyone who expresses any doubts whatsoever about your views ...."
Dave
One paragraph "... I object to the constant use of the word "denialist", designed as it is to imply a parallel with AIDS denialists and Holocaust denialists. We never refer to Einstein as a "quantum mechanics denialist", even though he didn't accept the theory and the theory has been proven right to as great an extent as science ever is. You're not going to persuade me of your case by insulting me, but you are going to make me wonder why you're conducting a propaganda campaign against anyone who expresses any doubts whatsoever about your views ...."
Dave
Geezer
17 December 2009, 11:02 AM
#33
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hmmm, I don't know whether that was such a good example for him to choose! I see why he's saying it, but the example he has given shows that even one of the greatest minds ever didn't believe the consensus but he was wrong, much like 'sceptics' now, according to the IPCC
Geezer
Geezer
Dave
17 December 2009, 11:05 AM
#34
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think G/Peace have an innate desire to belong to an organisation so that they have the excuse to have great big fuss upkicking exercises and that they also have tunnel vision to ensure that they cannot be diverted from their efforts, even if they don't quite understand it all anyway!
Les
Les
17 December 2009, 12:49 PM
#35
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...well you may have looked at "the links", and you may even have clicked on them - but it is obvious that you didn't actually watch them, let alone take anything in!!! 
Lord Monckton always says "don't believe me" and "check for yourself" - something the alarmists never dare suggest (because they insist that "the science is settled" and "there is consensus"!).
mb
Lord Monckton always says "don't believe me" and "check for yourself" - something the alarmists never dare suggest (because they insist that "the science is settled" and "there is consensus"!).
mb
). I watched them all the way throughThen I googled Monckton and looked at what BOTH SIDES say about his 'research'
Last edited by Martin2005; 17 December 2009 at 12:52 PM.
17 December 2009, 02:07 PM
#36
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Monckton does seem to be as dodgy as the people he criticises. Quite ironic really.
That doesn't detract from the real scientists that oppose AGW however.
Geezer
That doesn't detract from the real scientists that oppose AGW however.
Geezer
17 December 2009, 02:12 PM
#37
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Epsom
Posts: 5,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
17 December 2009, 02:32 PM
#38
Scooby Regular
Monckton: "When you say the majority of scientists, how have you established what the majority of scientists think?"
Greenpeace Wench: "Well I'm reading papers, and I'm listening to people who have something to say about global warming"
Greenpeace Wench: "Well I'm reading papers, and I'm listening to people who have something to say about global warming"
17 December 2009, 04:28 PM
#39
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, there are several references to him having used the same tricks to support his case that are levelled by him against the AGW alarmists and IPCC.
Like his allegations, they may be unsubtantiated, but still, they are there.
He is not a climatologist, so he can only really go on what he reads too. He does not have the necessary credentials to say one way or the other, much like a lot of the IPCC.
He is not a good role model for the 'cause' of AGW secpticism as he has a somewhat chequered past and is as pompous and blinkered the people who he wishes to discredit.
He talks a good talk, and of course, he is questioning the data, and a fair amount of the stuff he says can be checked independently, but that deosn't mean he cannot misrepresent!
Geezer
Like his allegations, they may be unsubtantiated, but still, they are there.
He is not a climatologist, so he can only really go on what he reads too. He does not have the necessary credentials to say one way or the other, much like a lot of the IPCC.
He is not a good role model for the 'cause' of AGW secpticism as he has a somewhat chequered past and is as pompous and blinkered the people who he wishes to discredit.
He talks a good talk, and of course, he is questioning the data, and a fair amount of the stuff he says can be checked independently, but that deosn't mean he cannot misrepresent!
Geezer
17 December 2009, 05:24 PM
#40
...
He is not a climatologist, so he can only really go on what he reads too. He does not have the necessary credentials to say one way or the other, much like a lot of the IPCC.
...
He talks a good talk, and of course, he is questioning the data, and a fair amount of the stuff he says can be checked independently, but that deosn't mean he cannot misrepresent!
Geezer
He is not a climatologist, so he can only really go on what he reads too. He does not have the necessary credentials to say one way or the other, much like a lot of the IPCC.
...
He talks a good talk, and of course, he is questioning the data, and a fair amount of the stuff he says can be checked independently, but that deosn't mean he cannot misrepresent!
Geezer
There are such basic common sense problems with the 'Catastrophic CO2 induced Man-Made Global Warming' claim...
GIGO - Garbage In Garbage Out - Take the example of the weather stations... see SurfaceStations This is simple but easy real science - look at where the collected data is coming from - a schoolboy could do it.
Example of a good site...
Example of a bad site...
Notice how the temperature at the 'good site' has not given any cause for concern
Whereas the 'bad site' shows amazingly 
a temperature increase over the years... Which could just be possibly affected by becoming surrounded by buildings, air-con exhaust vents, tarmac and vehicles... 
The panic we are seeing in this 'climate crisis' is being caused by a raise in temp of 0.6 ºC over 100 years! - This is an average of 0.006 ºC per year
!
The adjustments the 'experts' make to the historical data is of the order of 2 to 3 ºC in places - and then they will not make their data and their working methods public and expect everybody to just accept their findings as truth!
- You do not need to be a 'Climateologist' to see something SERIOUSLY WRONG here!
I just cannot understand why we are contemplating spending such a HUGE amount of money and postulating such drastic changes to the lives of the world population over the mysterious pronouncements given by magicians with a secret black box!
The 'Climategate' emails just add fuel to the fire of the suspicions that the 'science' was not genuine and above board!
Last edited by Mick; 17 December 2009 at 05:25 PM.
17 December 2009, 07:45 PM
#42
Guest
Posts: n/a
Why is there all this stuff about needing to be a climatologist? - What is a 'climateologist'? - what is a 'scientist'?
There are such basic common sense problems with the 'Catastrophic CO2 induced Man-Made Global Warming' claim...
GIGO - Garbage In Garbage Out - Take the example of the weather stations... see SurfaceStations This is simple but easy real science - look at where the collected data is coming from - a schoolboy could do it.
......
There are such basic common sense problems with the 'Catastrophic CO2 induced Man-Made Global Warming' claim...
GIGO - Garbage In Garbage Out - Take the example of the weather stations... see SurfaceStations This is simple but easy real science - look at where the collected data is coming from - a schoolboy could do it.
......
As I've been saying for ages. But Martin will be along in a moment to tell us that you need at least 3 PhDs in a climate related subject to even contemplate stating that you know anything about the subject ....
As you say, 'common sense', as is the question of the earth's 'average temperature'. You cannot work it out. At all. No way. Even if you could, how would you then pick the *correct* average ...???
I just wish the MSM would do the simple stuff so that people would see, even those who never got as far as 'averages' in maffs (primary school I believe??), that it is all b*llux!
Dave
17 December 2009, 08:17 PM
#43
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now, this is becoming a bit laughable.
You are now starting to quote stuff to support Monckton that you also use as a weapon against the IPCC. You can't have it both ways.
And I quote....
This is the same rhetoric that people use to discredit the IPCC, that the head of it is a railroad engineer, or the peer reviewers are not scientists at all!
Then we have.....
Again, turn this on it's head. WHy can't all the people who are not climatologists who support AGW read other people's work and then state 'the facts'. How can they misrepresent scientific fact? Is it only those who are skeptic who have truth on their side?
The idea is ridiculous.
Now, from all these threads, you know what I think, all I'm pointing out is that Monckton is a bit of a maverick and can present whatever he wants you to see, because a good mix of reliable data and opinion is an old trick.
Is he doing it? I don't know, but if the 'other side' can, then so can the skeptics. I'm sure there are people willing to misrepresent stuff for their own means on both sides.
If you think that isn't true, then, quite frankly, you are at best naive, and at worst just plain stupid.
Geezer
You are now starting to quote stuff to support Monckton that you also use as a weapon against the IPCC. You can't have it both ways.
And I quote....
Why is there all this stuff about needing to be a climatologist? - What is a 'climateologist'? - what is a 'scientist'?
Then we have.....
You don't need to be a climatologist to read other peoples work and then state the facts, like he has done. How can he misrepresent scientific fact?
The idea is ridiculous.
Now, from all these threads, you know what I think, all I'm pointing out is that Monckton is a bit of a maverick and can present whatever he wants you to see, because a good mix of reliable data and opinion is an old trick.
Is he doing it? I don't know, but if the 'other side' can, then so can the skeptics. I'm sure there are people willing to misrepresent stuff for their own means on both sides.
If you think that isn't true, then, quite frankly, you are at best naive, and at worst just plain stupid.
Geezer
17 December 2009, 10:06 PM
#44
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 5,763
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
17 December 2009, 10:15 PM
#45
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 5,763
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by earlier in this thread
Lord Monckton always says "don't believe me" and "check for yourself"
mb
18 December 2009, 09:00 AM
#46
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Absolutely, but as everyone likes to point out, it's not possible to do things like work out an average temperature, for the Earth. So, how does Monckton think he has worked out a way to prove that it hasn't gone up (or indeed any direction)?
This is my point, he is presenting things as fact that skeptics say cannot be used as fact if used for AGW. What's good for the goose.......
So, when he says he has checked, that's fine, because obviously a lot of what is presented is interpreted data. However, what's to say it isn't being interpreted to favour his view?
Most of it is probably not, but the first example I have given raises an interesting conundrum for those wishing to prove the temperature has not risen.
Geezer
This is my point, he is presenting things as fact that skeptics say cannot be used as fact if used for AGW. What's good for the goose.......
So, when he says he has checked, that's fine, because obviously a lot of what is presented is interpreted data. However, what's to say it isn't being interpreted to favour his view?
Most of it is probably not, but the first example I have given raises an interesting conundrum for those wishing to prove the temperature has not risen.
Geezer
18 December 2009, 02:28 PM
#47
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I've been saying for ages. But Martin will be along in a moment to tell us that you need at least 3 PhDs in a climate related subject to even contemplate stating that you know anything about the subject ....
As you say, 'common sense', as is the question of the earth's 'average temperature'. You cannot work it out. At all. No way. Even if you could, how would you then pick the *correct* average ...???
I just wish the MSM would do the simple stuff so that people would see, even those who never got as far as 'averages' in maffs (primary school I believe??), that it is all b*llux!
Dave
As you say, 'common sense', as is the question of the earth's 'average temperature'. You cannot work it out. At all. No way. Even if you could, how would you then pick the *correct* average ...???
I just wish the MSM would do the simple stuff so that people would see, even those who never got as far as 'averages' in maffs (primary school I believe??), that it is all b*llux!
Dave
Is your stance here to deny everything in the hope that something might turn out to be true?
I mean according to you the earth isn't warming and yet at the same time CO2 isn't responsible for a rise in temps, at the same time the cO2 contribution of man isn't great enough to be influencial.
You should be able to understand my confusion and disbelief when you then laughably claim without equivocation that this is all same big tax conspiracy.
It was this tax conspiracy stupidity that showed up Moncktons theories, because to any rational person it just doesn't stack up.
Could you please
18 December 2009, 04:15 PM
#48
Guest
Posts: n/a
"... Abyd Karmali, global head of carbon markets for Merrill Lynch, said it is still possible taxes on aviation and shipping fuel could be agreed since these sectors are "easy pickings" if countries realise that public money on the table from each country is not enough. He said markets would also be watching to see whether Europe commits to deepening its emission cuts from 20pc to 30pc by 2020, which could increase demand for tradeable carbon allowances...."
The first paragraph - more taxes for me and you!
The second paragraph - an agreement means more of the first paragraph and more money for big business/investment bankers!
See the previous links about the closure of the Teeside steel plant and why. If you don't see it's about money and b*g all else then you really are naive!
Dave
19 December 2009, 12:33 PM
#49
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you'll find thats Klaatu job to insist on everyone being a scientist.
Is your stance here to deny everything in the hope that something might turn out to be true?
I mean according to you the earth isn't warming and yet at the same time CO2 isn't responsible for a rise in temps, at the same time the cO2 contribution of man isn't great enough to be influencial.
You should be able to understand my confusion and disbelief when you then laughably claim without equivocation that this is all same big tax conspiracy.
It was this tax conspiracy stupidity that showed up Moncktons theories, because to any rational person it just doesn't stack up.
Could you please
Is your stance here to deny everything in the hope that something might turn out to be true?
I mean according to you the earth isn't warming and yet at the same time CO2 isn't responsible for a rise in temps, at the same time the cO2 contribution of man isn't great enough to be influencial.
You should be able to understand my confusion and disbelief when you then laughably claim without equivocation that this is all same big tax conspiracy.
It was this tax conspiracy stupidity that showed up Moncktons theories, because to any rational person it just doesn't stack up.
Could you please
19 December 2009, 07:57 PM
#50
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You really are an ignorant ******* Martin. I do not state that "everyone" be a scientist in the debate about climate and AGW. You *DO NOT* need to be a scientist to read the data, it's easy (Shame the Hadley CRU had to "homogenise" data). You just read the data, unadjusted of course. Then understand "heat" black body radiation (On earth that is mostly water), physics (Easy in this context), concentration of CO2, and you are there. It *IS* easy...no need to be a scientist (With an income to protect), no need for the IPCC (Not a scientist in there at all, but you believe there are). It's very simple Martin, check for yourself. Or just be a ****!
19 December 2009, 07:59 PM
#51
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ummm. Deny everything? Que??
Never said the earth wasn't warming. You just have to look back through history from the Medieval Warm Period to the Little Ice Age to now to see that the earth was warm, then it cooled, then it warmed. Whether it's still warming is debatable as, even by *alarmist* standards, their temp. rise since *records began* is well within margins for error on any of the measuring equipment they have/had.
IT IS ALL ABOUT MONEY! You just don't get it do you? See here, for instance, ... Copenhagen Climate Change: Summit failure 'putting investment at risk' - Telegraph
"... Abyd Karmali, global head of carbon markets for Merrill Lynch, said it is still possible taxes on aviation and shipping fuel could be agreed since these sectors are "easy pickings" if countries realise that public money on the table from each country is not enough. He said markets would also be watching to see whether Europe commits to deepening its emission cuts from 20pc to 30pc by 2020, which could increase demand for tradeable carbon allowances...."
The first paragraph - more taxes for me and you!
The second paragraph - an agreement means more of the first paragraph and more money for big business/investment bankers!
See the previous links about the closure of the Teeside steel plant and why. If you don't see it's about money and b*g all else then you really are naive!
Dave
Never said the earth wasn't warming. You just have to look back through history from the Medieval Warm Period to the Little Ice Age to now to see that the earth was warm, then it cooled, then it warmed. Whether it's still warming is debatable as, even by *alarmist* standards, their temp. rise since *records began* is well within margins for error on any of the measuring equipment they have/had.
IT IS ALL ABOUT MONEY! You just don't get it do you? See here, for instance, ... Copenhagen Climate Change: Summit failure 'putting investment at risk' - Telegraph
"... Abyd Karmali, global head of carbon markets for Merrill Lynch, said it is still possible taxes on aviation and shipping fuel could be agreed since these sectors are "easy pickings" if countries realise that public money on the table from each country is not enough. He said markets would also be watching to see whether Europe commits to deepening its emission cuts from 20pc to 30pc by 2020, which could increase demand for tradeable carbon allowances...."
The first paragraph - more taxes for me and you!
The second paragraph - an agreement means more of the first paragraph and more money for big business/investment bankers!
See the previous links about the closure of the Teeside steel plant and why. If you don't see it's about money and b*g all else then you really are naive!
Dave
20 December 2009, 09:17 AM
#52
Guest
Posts: n/a
Dave
20 December 2009, 08:51 PM
#53
Martin and Geezer - you two are unbelievable! 
Instead of slagging everybody off all the time - how about looking into one fact presented, research it and present your own conclusions as to why in your opinion it seems to be wrong.
There's no need to slag Lord Monckton for his appearance!
Pehaps you two are Adonis like and would like to post a photo showing how you are so superior in that department? But that still would make no difference to the facts in this topic and the possible consequences being deduced from them.
For instance - What about the surface station data? - neither of you have answered that one! - is the data going into this wonderful 'Black Box' computer programme any good? - and why?
Instead of slagging everybody off all the time - how about looking into one fact presented, research it and present your own conclusions as to why in your opinion it seems to be wrong.
There's no need to slag Lord Monckton for his appearance!
Pehaps you two are Adonis like and would like to post a photo showing how you are so superior in that department? But that still would make no difference to the facts in this topic and the possible consequences being deduced from them.For instance - What about the surface station data? - neither of you have answered that one! - is the data going into this wonderful 'Black Box' computer programme any good? - and why?
20 December 2009, 09:01 PM
#54
Absolutely, but as everyone likes to point out, it's not possible to do things like work out an average temperature, for the Earth. So, how does Monckton think he has worked out a way to prove that it hasn't gone up (or indeed any direction)?
This is my point, he is presenting things as fact that skeptics say cannot be used as fact if used for AGW. What's good for the goose.......
So, when he says he has checked, that's fine, because obviously a lot of what is presented is interpreted data. However, what's to say it isn't being interpreted to favour his view?
Most of it is probably not, but the first example I have given raises an interesting conundrum for those wishing to prove the temperature has not risen.
Geezer
This is my point, he is presenting things as fact that skeptics say cannot be used as fact if used for AGW. What's good for the goose.......
So, when he says he has checked, that's fine, because obviously a lot of what is presented is interpreted data. However, what's to say it isn't being interpreted to favour his view?
Most of it is probably not, but the first example I have given raises an interesting conundrum for those wishing to prove the temperature has not risen.
Geezer
Even if you take the commonly held belief that temps have risen on average 0.006 ºC per year over the last 100 years there is still no proof that positive feedback will occur and drive temperatures higher faster over the next 100 years. - I think that is a perfectly valid point. - So don't spend vast quantities of money on limiting CO2 - do something more useful with the money!
If it is not possible to work out an average global temperature and we cannot therefore determine that golbal temps have gone up or down... - don't spend vast quantities of money on limiting CO2 - do something more useful with the money!
If a major part of the IPCC propaganda involves the 'hockey stick' which has now been completely discredited (but they are still using it
) Then - don't spend vast quantities of money on limiting CO2 - do something more useful with the money!
20 December 2009, 10:08 PM
#55
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Martin and Geezer - you two are unbelievable!
Instead of slagging everybody off all the time - how about looking into one fact presented, research it and present your own conclusions as to why in your opinion it seems to be wrong.
There's no need to slag Lord Monckton for his appearance! Pehaps you two are Adonis like and would like to post a photo showing how you are so superior in that department? But that still would make no difference to the facts in this topic and the possible consequences being deduced from them.
For instance - What about the surface station data? - neither of you have answered that one! - is the data going into this wonderful 'Black Box' computer programme any good? - and why?
Instead of slagging everybody off all the time - how about looking into one fact presented, research it and present your own conclusions as to why in your opinion it seems to be wrong.
There's no need to slag Lord Monckton for his appearance!
Pehaps you two are Adonis like and would like to post a photo showing how you are so superior in that department? But that still would make no difference to the facts in this topic and the possible consequences being deduced from them.For instance - What about the surface station data? - neither of you have answered that one! - is the data going into this wonderful 'Black Box' computer programme any good? - and why?
When have I slagged anyone off?
When did I have a go at Moncktons looks?
Typical BS response, put words in my mouth then attack me for them
Surface stations??? who gives a damn about surface stations???
I'm not talking about science here, I'm talking about the nutjob conspiracy theories that suround this issue.
Seriously man you need to stop read then think before posting false arguments unless this is a deliberate and calculated misconstuing of my words
Last edited by Martin2005; 20 December 2009 at 10:10 PM.
20 December 2009, 10:58 PM
#56
Guest
Posts: n/a
Dave
20 December 2009, 11:14 PM
#57
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 5,763
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
- weather stations are as reliable today as they were thirty years ago. As in, NOT very reliable, see NZ Study may hold key to faulty world temp data!mb
Last edited by boomer; 20 December 2009 at 11:16 PM. Reason: Added winkie
20 December 2009, 11:19 PM
#59
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 5,763
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh, and it is not just the scientists who are making loads of money - there is a railway engineer who isn't doing too badly either!
mb
mb
21 December 2009, 08:22 AM
#60
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Martin and Geezer - you two are unbelievable!
Instead of slagging everybody off all the time - how about looking into one fact presented, research it and present your own conclusions as to why in your opinion it seems to be wrong.
There's no need to slag Lord Monckton for his appearance! Pehaps you two are Adonis like and would like to post a photo showing how you are so superior in that department? But that still would make no difference to the facts in this topic and the possible consequences being deduced from them.
For instance - What about the surface station data? - neither of you have answered that one! - is the data going into this wonderful 'Black Box' computer programme any good? - and why?
Instead of slagging everybody off all the time - how about looking into one fact presented, research it and present your own conclusions as to why in your opinion it seems to be wrong.
There's no need to slag Lord Monckton for his appearance!
Pehaps you two are Adonis like and would like to post a photo showing how you are so superior in that department? But that still would make no difference to the facts in this topic and the possible consequences being deduced from them.For instance - What about the surface station data? - neither of you have answered that one! - is the data going into this wonderful 'Black Box' computer programme any good? - and why?
A quick look will show you that I am fervently against the idea of AGW. But don't let that get in the way of your post
It is quite possible to hold a view but not agree with everyone who holds that view, or agree with the way they represent 'your' side of the argument.
I'm sure there are plenty of people who fully accept AGW but think Al Gore is a complete tit who does their cause no good!
I'm not advocating that Monckton is anywhere near as bad as Gore, but neither is he the best person in the world to represent the other view.
Maybe that will clear it up, but I doubt it, as all you will read will be the written equivalent of the Teacher in Charlie Brown........
Geezer