Realclimate.org has a graph that beautifully shows that short-term trends often don’t show the long-term trend.
Gavin Schmidt and Stefan Rahmstorf explain:
The red line is the annual global-mean GISTEMP temperature record (though any other data set would do just as well), while the blue lines are 8-year trend lines — one for each 8-year period of data in the graph. What it shows is exactly what anyone should expect: the trends over such short periods are variable; sometimes small, sometimes large, sometimes negative — depending on which year you start with.
The data clearly shows that short-term comparisons don’t tell us anything. The rest of their article goes on to look at the reaons why this is so.
– Earl K.
Related Posts:
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Look closely at the graph. Notice that not every year is chosen to start a trend line. Also note that the 0 point on the vertical axis represents the mean temperature( probably the 1960 – 1990 average) and the other numbers are the annual deviations – anomaly warmer or cooler – from the mean. Now see that trend lines begin in 1976, 77, 78 and 79. In all these years, the anomaly is cooler than the mean. Oddly, no trend line begins in 1980, the first year on the graph with a warm anomaly. Draw your own trend line from 1980 to 1988. Find all the other warm anomaly years for which trend lines have been omitted, I’m sure in the interest of “clearer understanding of the science”. Draw trend lines from them. Don’t forget about 1998. Would you agree to the possibility that this graph is either incompetently incomplete or willfully designed to deceive?
Guess I don’t see the conspiracy. Looks like there is a trend line starting in 1980 to me.
I don’t believe in conspiracies and did not intend to imply one. I took the highest leftmost red point on the graph to be 1980. Perhaps it is 1981. In any case it is still the first year with a warm anomaly and is still the only one of the first six years not to begin a trend line. I don’t know why you continue to post on these trivial disputes among scientists. If someone disproves CO2 AGW, that would be worth posting about. The premise of this blog is that the science is settled far past the point where anti-warming action is necessary. Accept your own premise and let’s talk solutions.
Paul,
Let’s back up a bit.
Could you possibly say a bit more about *why* you claim there’s no trend line starting in 1980 or, say, 1998?
Further, what would be the point of skipping trend lines that start in particularly warm years (not that I think any were skipped)?
So as not to show certain trend lines pointing down (cooling trend lines)?
But the whole point of the RC post is that these 8-year trend lines reflect weather noise, ie that they mean next to nothing, compared to the long-term trend.
Visually speaking, the more ant-stack like the 8-year trend lines are compared to the long-term data, the clearer this point is.
So I’m confused as to why you would think they would take out lines that clearly contribute to the chaotic impression, if they were willfully trying to deceive you…about…what?
Do you suspect them of trying to undermine their own point?
But perhaps I am misunderstanding you. So if you wouldn’t mind clarifying, I would appreciate it.
Paulina,
I agree the graph is meaningless which is why I don’t know why it gets posted here. These minor dust-ups within the scientific community, while interesting and educational to observe, are a distraction from the task at hand. Let’s talk policy.
Paul–
Who said the graph was meaningless?
Further, I don’t think you are being fair to Stefan and Gavin.
If you don’t want Joe to post on this kind of thing, that’s one thing, and you’re welcome to remind him of his blog’s premise. But if he does post on this (“this” in this case actually being more of a media and communication issue than any kind of dispute among scientists), and you choose to engage the content and comment *and* suggest the original authors are incompetent or willfully deceptive, then it seems problematic for you to change the subject when Joe questions your analysis.
Frankly, you are just plain wrong about the graph and the trend lines. Not a big deal. We all make mistakes.
But other people in your situation who have not only made these kinds of regular mistakes, but who have, based on these kinds of mistakes felt compelled to insinuate negative things about others (about Stefan and Gavin, in your case) have often chosen to apologize for this, to those other people.
It makes for better communication all around, I find.
Paulina,
I just wrote what I saw when I looked at the graph. If you see it differently, go ahead. I also see the possibility of unconscious bias in both sides of this contretemps between geophysicist Pielke who is critical of models and climatologist Schmidt, a modeler, about the accuracy of model based IPCC projections. Reading the thread at realclimate, I was struck how these two learned men can talk right past each other, neither grasping what the other is saying.
While CO2 AGW may be settled, climate science certainly isn’t. It was Gavin Schmidt who recently compared climatology to a teenager in its development. Aside from contrarians inside the field, the most cogent criticisms of current climate science comes from statisticians, geologists, mathematicians, meteorologists (not John Coleman!) and computer programmers. It mostly concerns data assemblage and analytical methodology. Most of these critics are not deniers. It’s all very interesting stuff, but irrelevant. I’ve told myself not to comment when Joe does one of these posts, but it’s hard to resist. Yes, I think the graph is incompetently incomplete (he wrote with rhetorical flourish) due to sloppiness. If you think that offends Stefan and Gavin, feel free to tell them about it and maybe they can explain why I can’t see the trend lines that start in 1981 or 89 or 98.
Let’s find something we can agree on. Do you think it’s a good goal to have a 90% hybrid or plug in automobile fleet by 2040?
I think the chart is helpful.
Too often the deniers use arguments that are easily refuted and this seems to show one. We’ve had people on this website argue that 1998 was the warmest year, then any trend would have to be downward from there. This chart shows that you can’t start from any one year. It makes sense.
This is a web site after all. That’s how information is given to us, as people make relevant arguments, they are given to us. We just have to read them and be patient with the information.
Should we have more relevant conversations? Sure, but I wish I had more relevant conversations with my friends and coworkers to. It doesn’t always happen that way. Maybe we have to work towards that.
Paul:
Your sort of missing the point — the message from the graph is that the longer the time frame, the more reliable any trend line is.
The reason this is meaningful is that deniers have cherry picked the data by starting with the 1997-98 el nino and making claims about long term trends from one specific short time interval. The graph shows how disingenous this is.
And your attempt to look for nazis in the wood pile by arbitrarilly picking some starting date and making a long term inference from short-term data is equally fatuous. It is absurd at best, dishonest at worst.
Just for the record, Pielke is not a denier. He’s not even a skeptic. He is a scientist taking measurements and reporting them. The graph, in Pielke’s opinion, has nothing to do with what he’s reporting. In fact he stipulated from the get-go that 8 years is too short to identify a trend. His work compares the IPCC forecasts for sensitivities from 1.5 to 4.5 with actual recorded temperatures.
How long until there’s a trend? The current warming began around 1975 and was identified at least as soon as 1990. So is fifteen years enough? Twenty? The unusual thing in the trend right now is that since 2001 temperatures have been, according to Hadley/Met, statistically indistinguishable.
John,
One more time. I am not a denier. I have never said global warming ended in 1998. I have said that since 1975, the start of the current warming period, temperatures rose through 2000 with 1998- an anomaly of an anomaly – the warmest. Since 2000, temperature deviations have been statistically indistinguishable. The graph has nothing to do with this. The graph is a red herring thrown at Pielke who never said anything about 8 year trends. Pielke is comparing IPCC projections from AR1, 2 and (TAR) to actual measurements. The projections are based on varying levels of climate sensitivity to the doubling of CO2ppm. Gavin is defending his model. Maybe it is you who is missing the point. And how you got looking for nazis in the woodpile out of my comments is beyond understanding.
Now, I’ll ask you the question I asked Paulina and I’d be happy to hear from Ronald too. Do you think it’s a good goal to have a 90% hybrid or plug in automobile fleet by 2040?
Paul—
Why you can’t see the trend lines is an interesting question. Are you asking for help to see them?
Try this: look at the year, say 1981, now let your eyes draw a line straight up from the x-axis toward the temperature data point for 1981. Now you have a straight vertical line from the x-axis to the 1981 temperature point (the high one, over on the left). The trend line starting in 1981 will start somewhere along this vertical line.
Do you see it now?
I have no idea, but perhaps it starts a lot further down than you might have imagined? That’s part of the point of the exercise. Why does it start so far down? Because the next year was much lower!
Another potential reason you might not have seen it is that it trends up. Perhaps you were jumping to the conclusion that it had to trend down? (Perhaps not, probably only you can really answer the question why you didn’t see them.)
Wouldn’t you agree that a more reasonable way to have gone about this whole discussion would have been to ask for help to find the trend lines without immediately jumping to the conclusion that (1) the trend lines aren’t there and (2) that the graph makers were incompetent or willfully deceptive?
Regarding Pielke *Jr* and Gavin talking past each other, I don’t want to get bogged down in their respective disciplines since I think that’s really kind of irrelevant here. Pielke Jr being a political scientist (correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think he is also a geophysicist) should not preclude him from understanding any of the points Gavin was making which mainly have to do with common sense and logic. Especially, perhaps, since he has a bit of training in math, too. Although, as I suggested, I’m not really sure how much of that you need here, either.
You ask for something for us to agree on? I’ll readily agree that there is always a possibility of unconscious bias. Here, unconscious bias is the least unflattering explanation for Pielke’s apparent failure to understand.
Do you think unconscious bias has anything to do with your own inability to see the trend lines? I don’t mean that as a sarcastic comment. I’m genuinely interested in your answer.
Finally, this is not about what’s offensive to Stefan and Gavin. This is about trying to elevate the level of communication. I have the impression you are interested in that. It’s also about people hopefully giving some more thought to the issue before they make the kind of insinuations you made. Because those insinuations are one part of what keeps us from moving ahead on solutions.
Pielke says he agrees with IPCC 4th assessment Working Group 1. So he isn’t a denier. He is, however, a delayer, trying to muddy the waters and argue the problem is not such a big concern.
Paul K,
I didn’t realize that you actually wanted a discussion on the question you posed, I thought it was rhetorical. Absolutely, we should have an automobile fleet of 90 hybrids or plug-ins by 2040.
I am for any and all reasonably economical means of reducing greenhouse gases released into our atmosphere. That should help us get there. Along with the hybrid/plug-ins we should have as much of a energy efficient, Renewable energy electrical grid as well to power those vehicles.
Paul K,
As someone who says he is concerned about global warming, you are carrying around a lot of suspicion…I think it is no longer skepticism to argue about the trendlines drawn on that graph.
I’m puzzled by your insistence…I would like to attribute it to the massive amount of science- and authority-bashing that passes for discourse on the right or whatever you call your form of libertarianism. This type of talk has passed for reasoned argument for so long that I think it is time to retire this kind of knee-jerk anti-science talk. Look up Richard Hofstadter on the “Paranoid Style in American Politics”… an old essay but still operative in many of these climate debates.
Ronald,
Thanks. Agreement is so much better than discord. I’d like to hear from Paulina and John too. From previous comments, I gather that you are already “walking the walk”. That’s good. I like your quote, “I am for any and all reasonably economical means of reducing greenhouse gases released into our atmosphere.”
Michael,
I don’t think I’ve ever said I was concerned about global warming, certainly not in the way Joe and perhaps you are. I don’t discount the possibility nor do I wish to dissuade you of your beliefs about it. I do have environmental, economic and security concerns beyond global warming that lead me to see the necessity of replacing fossil fuels as our power source. I was drawn to Joe’s blog because, while our focus and reasons may differ, our ultimate goals are very similar. Joe seems to have a better grasp of what is possible politically and in the market place than most on how to reach those goals. You seem quick to categorize people politically so you can apply the broad brush. I’m more of a fan of Van Gogh.
Joe,
I’ll try my best to curb my skeptical comments on the science. They are a diversion, however pleasant and intellectually stimulating. Hey, I occasionally actually learn something.
I am not against informed skepticism, but I don’t think “skepticism for the sake of skepticism” is productive at this LATE date. You don’t always have to agree with me — but I do try to bring a scientific perspective based on the literature.
The “consensus” — a much abused term — is not what a few climate scientists believe. Rather, it is itself derived almost solely from the peer-reviewed literature, as reviewed and summarized by the top climate scientists — and agreed to by 200 governments. As I have argued many times, the content almost certainly understates the problem.
At this LATE date, the consensus you’re looking for is in the policy, not the science. That’s why I’d like to fewer science posts and more about where we are, where we need to go and how to get there.
There is no reason even for skeptics not to accept the IPCC as authoritative. The IPCC has projected outcomes for varying degrees of climate sensitivity to CO2. Sensitivity is one of the unknowns that scientists are trying to determine. You can cite science supporting sensitivity as much as 4.5 – 7C, higher than the IPCC. Others can cite science supporting a low sensitivity. Pielke is controversial because he seems to say it could be below 1.5C. I think it will take 10 or 20 more years of measurements before the correct answer is known.
Paul,
Nothing against you personally but I continue to be stunned how fairly intelligent people can be so caught up in denying what is staring them in the face. A friend of mine who lives in Connecticut just reported to me that now she sees robins hanging around all year when previously they were not around during the winter. Not a scientific observation for sure but there are just too many stories of warming winters (with occasional cold snaps) to be biased AGAINST scientific analyses that clearly show warming.
Your “skepticism” borders on paranoia. The reason why I say that it is that you are desperately trying to make that graph appear differently than how it appears. Maybe you are not personally paranoid. But you have breathed deeply of a culture that is paranoid about government involvement in the economy and I’m guessing science as well. You are writing here as if you are throwing everything you have against what is incredibly obvious.
The discussions that you are looking forward to about what to do will expose even more the influence of this culture of paranoia about government. Government is not the cure-all but the fantasy promoted by some greedy and some naive people that government can or should be excised from the solution has eaten away at people’s ability to perceive what is real and what is not.
Michael,
I suppose I should open my mouth wider so you can put even more words into it.
Paul K,
Glad to hear you are interested in hearing from me re the 2040 fleet.
Let’s *maybe* talk about that, just as soon as we’ve finished this other discussion you started (the one about the trend lines).
It’s often good to clean up the first mess before we make a new one.
What do you say? Have you given some thought as to why you weren’t able to see the trend lines?
When you say: “[I don’t see those trend lines]; if you see it differently, go ahead,” you seem to be suggesting that a plotted trend line is in the eye of the beholder.
“Some people believe that there is a trend line plotted in that graph starting in 1981, some don’t. Who are we to judge?” Is this what you meant?
I’m actually not sure which is worse—which offers less promise of meaningful communication—(1) your claim that the lines aren’t there, coupled with your baseless insinuations about hard-working people, or (2) your apparent suggestion that the question of whether the lines are there is some kind of fuzzy, subjective issue.
But if *that’s* where we are starting from, I’d like to know before we start talking about solutions. Why would anyone (including you) want to have a discussion re solutions if facts are to be squished around like so much unwanted Jell-O?
This is *not* about “the science”. And this is *not* a distraction. This is about ensuring that the foundations for meaningful discussion are in place.
More and more people are growing really tired of discussions where no real communication takes place.
How about you?
Paulina,
I sense your definition of meaningful communication is I agree with you or you won’t talk to me. I don’t care about the graph beyond my initial gut reaction. I don’t care about the science. It is interesting, confusing and changing at the margins almost every day. I fully accept the IPCC as authoritative. I care about replacing fossil fuel in transportation, home heating and electrical generation. If that reduces CO2, great. In the unlikely event that tomorrow someone disproves the CO2 climate connection or the current warm period shifts to a cooling one like it did from 1940 to 1975, my goals would remain the same. Would yours?
Paul K,
What you sense is not *entirely* unappealing, but I don’t think it’s accurate. :)
We can disagree on a lot of things and still have really meaningful communication. But we have to agree on some ground rules.
It seems we don’t.
I am the author of the graph shown above, and it includes a trend line for every single 8-year period. This was generated automatically with a simple do loop in a matlab script. At realclimate you can check out the same graphs for 7-year trend lines, for 15-year trend lines, or for the Hadley Centre (rather than GISS) data sets. Before you accuse a scientist of either incompetence or deception, I suggest you actually use your eyes.
stefan rahmstorf,
Thanks for your comment. I’m a bit surprised by the hornet’s nest I’ve stirred up, but that’s what makes blogging fun. Perhaps you could answer a few questions. I assure you I am open to learning. First off, by clicking on the larger image and using Paulina’s advice and a magnifying glass, I think I’ve found the start point for 1981. It is near the -0.1 mark and overlaps another line. 1983 appears to start at about -0.13 and 1998 near 0.15. These lines all trend up. Six of the eight years following 1981 show a cooler anomaly, five significantly so. The two warmer years are only a bit above 1981. The total of the negative variation far exceeds the positive. I am confused as to how this produces a positive trend. 1998 is similar in that only one of the following eight years is higher, yet the trend line is up.
How is this explained? Are the trends determined going forward in time, backward or in some other way? And now the truly amateur question, why don’t the trend lines start at the individual yearly data points?
Paulina,
Here’s my view of meaningful communication. We each state our beliefs. We find areas of agreement and disagreement. We attempt to expand on the agreements and smooth out the disagreements.
p.s.
I have never been unwilling to say “I stand corrected.”
Find the Line of Best Fit, interactive.
Select: Computer Fit option
http://illuminations.nctm.org/ActivityDetail.aspx?ID=82
http://illuminations.nctm.org/ActivityDetail.aspx?ID=146
These are linear regressions, a method widely used in technology, science, business, Wall Street . . .
Paul K,
Draw a chart for yourself with just the 1981-1988 data, using pen and paper or excel.
Look at those data points.
A trend line is the line that tries to be fairest to all the points. Tries to come closest to all of them, at the same time.
How do you get the line, construct the line? It’s an optimization problem. Roughly, you want to add up the distances from all the data points to the line and have that total sum be as small as possible.
If you started smack in the first data point, by default, *that* would be “cheating”. In the sense of not being fair to the other points–why did that one get special treatment?
Sure the trend line *will* end up closer to some of the points than to others. But all the points are weighted equally, and it just happens that some of the data will be right on or close to the trend line.
If you instead decide not to solve the optimization problem and simply choose to start at a given data point, you won’t be drawing a trend line, you will be doing something else. (Playing connect the dots, maybe.)
Using excel (put 1981 through 1988 in the A column and the corresponding temperature values in the B column; you don’t have to get the values exactly right to get the general picture, but be careful with the sign and with the decimals) you can draw a “scatter chart” and then draw the “trend line.”
(You can google these things, or use the excel help function, or I think, maybe, someone in comments recently gave step by step instructions at realclimate for something related and relevant, so try the realclimate search function at the site.)
Let excel solve the optimization problem for you. Then you’ll have made a trend line.
You can probably get a rough idea just using pen and paper, too.
Now, I’m really curious about the following part. I take it you thought you knew what a trend line was, and it simply turned out you didn’t. So it’s not as if you were callously acknowledging to yourself:
“I have no idea what a trend line is, but I don’t think I see one here for 1980, or maybe 1981. So the graph authors must either be incompetent or trying to be deceptive.”
It wasn’t quite that absurd.
Instead, it was more along the lines of: “*I* can’t see all the trend lines they say are in there. *They* must be incompetent or willfully deceptive.”
Hmm.
Paul, we’re not starting in a free for all. We are not starting from scratch in every interaction, reinventing the wheel every time. These trend lines, simple little things, and lots of other fairly simple little things, are not up for grabs each time someone’s knee jerks.
If you feel your knee jerking, try not to jump to nasty conclusions about other people.
Look to yourself: what kind of person do you want to be? You can say whatever you want. But much more importantly, you can be whomever you want to be. You can be someone decent, friendly, and respectful of people who have done nothing to justify your disrespect and shockingly much to deserve vast amounts of it.
Plenty of people find that this approach works really well in communicating.
OK, so that would be “who have done nothing to justify your disrespect and shockingly much to deserve vast amounts of respect”… or something to that effect… (thanks L!)
:)
Paulina,
Before continuing my quest to conform to your rules of communication, let me point out that initially I merely asked if there was a possibility of incompleteness, which I ascribed to sloppiness, or deception. That was a gut reaction. After reading the thread at realclimate, Stefan’s comment here and your kindly advice, my only criticism of the graph is that is arguing against a straw man in that Pielke never suggested meaningful trends could be found in an eight year period. In fact, his original post stated they could not. As you know, Pielke purported to use a method of analysis first proposed at realclimate to look at the accuracy of various IPCC projections for given CO2 sensitivities. Gavin claimed he was misusing the method and comparing apples to oranges, an argument that was on point and carried some wait.
Since the purpose of the graph was to refute an argument no one was making and we all agree that no trends can be found in so short a period, I repeat my assertion that is meaningless and irrelevant to the issues of importance here at climateprogress. Your explanation of fairness to data points leaves me still a bit at sea. I’ll check out the links from Jay Alt about linear regressions. I really do hope Stefan, if he does not feel too abused, will provide the expert explanation.
So tell me. Do you think it’s a good goal to have a 90% hybrid or plug in automobile fleet by 2040?
Before continuing my quest to conform to your rules of communication, let me point out that initially I merely asked if there was a possibility of incompleteness, which I ascribed to sloppiness, or deception. That was a gut reaction.
Shorter commenter: “Don’t mind me, I’m trying to sow FUD.”
Best,
D
Dano,
You’re missing my point completely. One more time, the graph is irrelevant both to the argument between Pielke and realclimate and to what I think you and I agree should be the emphasis of this blog. Solutions, solutions, solutions. Can’t say if I’m sowing FUD or not. I don’t what FUD means due to a severe case of ADS (acronym deficiency syndrome).
Let’s review:
You didn’t know what trend lines are and still don’t, but now at least you know that you don’t know.
There’s something to be said for that.
Not knowing what they are, you had a gut reaction and ended up insinuating nasty things about two leading climate scientists.
Not much to be said for that.
Then you *literally* blamed all of this on your gut, mentioned the phrase “I stand corrected” but didn’t use it (let alone acknowledge that you had wronged anyone), and then sought to justify your dislike for the graph by referring to Pielke’s claim that the graph was beside the point.
So, first you assumed Stefan and Gavin were wrong and worse, based on nothing.
Now you are going to assume their graph is beside the point, that with the graph they are arguing against a strawman, based on Pielke claiming this?
The only strawman near that graph is the strawman picture of Stefan and Gavin supposedly not knowing that Pielke *said* he understands that the term of a trend matters. But the facts visually represented in the graph, facts not intended by anyone to be news to Pielke, have *implications*.
If someone might not want to consider these and how they bear on the Tierney-Pielke venture, he or she could, I don’t know, perhaps start talking about how the graph itself is uncontroversial. (Reminder: it’s not intended to be controversial.)
Your claiming you can’t see the trend lines doesn’t mean they don’t exist. (I’m taking it you’ve agreed with this by now, but frankly I’m not sure.)
Your claiming not to understand the relevance of the graph in this context doesn’t mean the graph is irrelevant in this context.
Pielke acts as though he doesn’t understand some of the implications of the information in the graph (or their relation to the graph)–and appears to ignore explanations when offered. So do you.
And there you have it. In addition to treating facts as facts, meaningful conversation requires us to stop and process our mistakes.
Again, why would anyone (including you) want to have a discussion about solutions if what passes for discussion is only so much noise? Or rather, just so much noise interrupted every now and then by insinuations against climate scientists.
If you are for real, work out how the strawman charge is itself a red herring. Ask for help if you need it. Then, acknowledge your mistake, and move on without launching another attack on Stefan and Gavin.
I sense you may want to start talking again about Pielke’s comments on climate sensitivity. Do yourself a favor, and restrain yourself until you’ve had a chance to think about it. If you still don’t get it, ask for help.
To indicate that you actually want help and not just a chance to repeat talking points, don’t repeat them when you ask for help.
I also sense you may want to point out that I said the whole point of the RC post was the weather vs. climate point of the graph. And that Pielke doesn’t dispute this term-of-the-trend-matters point. So then, you might want to say: what’s the point of the post?
If you find yourself wanting to say that, start over (re-reading the beginning of this comment should help, but who knows) or ask for more help. Please, try to avoid making communication-nullifying talking points while asking for help. (They’re communication-nullifying for several reasons. You may want to spend some time thinking about this too.)
I have something to thank you for. This is going to sound sarcastic, and I apologize for that, but that’s pretty much unavoidable at this stage. Nevertheless, sarcasm is not my goal.
I *am* thankful to you for helping me think about the following in a new and more interesting way.
There’s this thing in this old Greek text that’s always bothered me. It’s advice to poets, pretty much. And some of it has to do with don’t do x, don’t do y, or the audience will laugh at you. What bothered me was that the advice seemed to assume not only that the poets did not want to be laughed at, but that this desire was something that should go unchallenged, unexplored: that that’s where we were going to start from.
I now feel more sympathetic toward the person offering that advice to poets way back when. Not that I think that the following is what was motivating him, but anyway: A total lack of concern with making oneself ridiculous, senseless, to the world, if made into a habit, is obviously something that could make meaningful discussion illusory, not to mention what it could do to our would-be quest for it.
Again, you are of course free to say whatever you want. You are also free to choose the kind of person you want to be. Conform to your own choice, if you have to talk about conforming. But why not give it some thought first?
Paulina,
I’ll take that as a “No, I don’t think it’s a good goal to have a 90% hybrid or plug in automobile fleet by 2040.” I hope you’ll become a better person, too. As the poet said, “Laugh and the world laughs with you; cry and you’ll cry alone.”
Paul,
Thanks.
Is this your way of saying you kind of…
…like me? :)