Profile of the Climategate Whistleblower

Seeing as we’ve just passed the anniversary of the Climategate leak, it might be of topical interest to repost a piece I did shortly after the emails became a blogosphere bombshell. In the time since then, the ‘hunt’ for the whistleblower has not met with any success that I’m aware of. I would be stunned if it ever does.

The Climategate whistleblower : a profile.

Okay, I’ll preface this with the caveat that I have no access to first hand sources, the people in the unit or any of the IT forensics. Therefore, instead of the usual who, where, when, how and why, I have to go on the latter – which is basically motivation; an intellectual challenge but interesting. I will give my reasons for each conclusion, something which I don’t usually do. The reasons will offend a lot of sensibilities.

I’ve outlined in a previous post why I think it very unlikely that the emails were obtained by an external hacker. Therefore, they were leaked by an insider who had “access”, without which any source is useless. If one thing comes out of reading the emails, it is that the unit was a very closely-knit and intense peer group, the classic bunker mentality. The second thing is that a decade’s worth of emails must contain a large element of messages of a personal nature. These appear to have been stripped out. Why? To focus on the science without needlessly hurting or humiliating other people. Notice also, that the content was not edited and the damning emails were left in context – the work of a fair-minded individual. If you have knowledge of climate science and the arguments going on within it, the emails are obviously explosive stuff. A layman would simply not appreciate that. He knows his climate science and to a depth.

This betrayal of the peer group was done purely over a matter of scientific principle and by a man. Women have just as good a capacity for betrayal as men but usually for them, the reasons are inter-personal, rarely if ever for matters of ‘high’ principle. Running the risk of blowing up your career and becoming a pariah within the peer group for something as silly as “your principles” doesn’t play for them. The whistleblower is almost certainly a man. Whistleblower is such a long word and gets in the way of developing a mental image so I shall call him Unus henceforth, after a very pertinent character buried long ago in the golden era of Marvel.

Let’s focus on Unus to see what picture we can get from what little details we have of his activities. The first reliable report of the offering up of the zip file is to BBC journalist Paul Hudson of the on 12th October 2009. Why him? Because Hudson had recently penned an atypical BBC piece entitled “Whatever Happened To Global Warming”. He also worked for a respected british institution with journalistic integrity (sarcasm on my part but not for Unus at the time). Hudson, at face value, looked to be at least sympathetic and he did work for the BBC. He, of course, decided or had it decided for him, not to run with the scoop of the century (that was your 15 minutes, Paul). What’s this tell us about Unus? Basically, he’s far from worldly wise and politically very very naive. The BBC may run the odd story questioning AGW doctrine but that’s just a nod to the impartiality bit of the Charter and anyway, young Mr. Hudson is a nobody a long way down the food chain and very much the last person anyone would expect to do a “Woodward and Bernstein” with the story. To be that innocent of realpolitik, Unus is probably in the middle to late twenties. Also, when you’re older, married, mortgaged with a few kids, you simply don’t risk them all and your livelihood on “matters of principle”. This would be especially true in the closed environment of academia where being found out would be a complete career killer. There exists a possibility that Unus is a single, much older man nearing end of career who’s had enough of the dishonesty but the IT considerations, which I’ll be moving on to, militate against it.

It’s important to note that from his viewpoint, giving the information to the BBC, a perceived neutral party, no big betrayal was being done. It was more in the nature of having a discreet word with the referee, telling him that someone on your side wasn’t playing fair. A little tentative step, not really a betrayal. The ref would handle it.

As far as I’m aware, nothing is heard from Unus for over a month. Why so long? You’ve got the ammo, you’ve shown the will to use it, just pull the trigger somewhere else. It didn’t happen. Why not? I suspect the interaction between Unus and the BBC was a bit of a cold shower for him. Welcome to the real world, Unus and it has sharp edges. In the aftermath and thinking it through, there was no referee, no neutral third party to hand the data to, they were all on the bandwagon. The only people who would do anything with the data were the sworn enemies of the CRU. Of all the people you could betray the group to, that would be the worst. There was no avoiding it. This would be betrayal with a big fat capital B. I suspect you struggled with that decision long and hard for that whole month.

Gavin Schmidt has been peddling some bollocks about an attempt to upload the zip to RealClimate but I find it hard to believe. Why try to upload it to a pathologically pro AGW website, especially one whose founders appear in the emails?

Back to reality. The zip file was uploaded in middle November to an open server in Tomsk Russia and emails were sent to WUWT  and possibly others alerting them to the file’s location. Why in Russia of all places? To explain that one I have to digress so bear with me. The EU Data Retention Directive 15th Dec 2005 obliges the capture within all EU states of the details of all mobile calls and their location, text messages, landline calls, internet website visits and emails. As Mr. Caine would say, not many people know that. Interestingly, this piece of legislation is an EU record holder. It went from draft to full directive in three months flat. Why? Because it was already being done but the data being gathered was inadmissible in court. Now it is. Basically the internet, like all forms of electronic communication, is one big tape recorder – you have been warned. It’s your ISP who’s obliged to render up the logs of your online activities. The chances of the Norwich constabulary getting the access log from a Russian ISP are somewhere between extremely slim and non-existent and patently Unus knows this. What’s more, getting some sort of injunction on an ISP outside the EU to take down the zip file would be problematic at best.

The Norwich police called in a specialist IT unit to track down Unus. Every computer on the internet has a unique IP address. Find his IP address and you’re well on the way to finding Unus. You get that by examining any emails sent by him or any sites accessed by him. You don’t have the start point of any communications but you do have the end points. There are three possibilities. The Tomsk server is a dead end and getting access to the WUWT emails across the pond would be a procedural and legal nightmare. That leaves the BBC emails with Mr. Hudson. Getting their hands on these presents no legal problems, so I assume they have. Did they get a useful IP Address or not? The answer appears to be no, simply because they’ve obviously fallen back on plan B. Plan B involves scouring all outward communications from within the CRU to see who’s been pissing out of the tent. This explains their momentary interest in the unfortunate Mr. Paul Dennis who had some dialogue with climate sceptics, not quite yet a criminal offence for a climate scientist but enough to earn you an automatic arguido status. The fact that the IP address on the BBC emails was of no use to them means it was concealed either technically (IP chaining, multiple proxy servers etc etc) or Unus used a physical cut out such as public WiFi or an internet café.

Most commentary on Climategate discusses the emails. What’s commonly forgotten is that the zip file also contained program source code and a lot of it. Emails are written in plain English, programs are written in a programming language. The difference is that while the former can be ambiguous, the latter is totally unambiguous. If you’re going to cheat on the computer side, you have to programme it explicitly to cheat, you can’t fudge it. Take my word for it or take the time to check out some of the analysis done, the code is ten times more damning then the emails. That’s why Unus added it to the payload. He’s comfortable reading computer code.

What does all this computer stuff tell us about Unus? He knows his IT to a depth one wouldn’t expect of a climate scientist. Having said that, most of the deductions with regard to his IT expertise are heavily predicated on the level of competance of those trying to find him, which I may have overestimated. He, like them, may not be all that slick. If so, they already know who he is but of course, will never “find” him …

We haven’t heard from Unus since November. Not a peep. I think we never will. Draw your own conclusions. I’ve drawn mine and choose to omit them from this profile.

I’ve looked over what skimpy bios of the CRU players I could find for someone matching this profile, especially for one with the knowledge in the two specialist areas but without any success. The reason, I’m beginning to suspect, is that the whistleblower’s name is not Unus but Gemini.

© Pointman


38 thoughts on “Profile of the Climategate Whistleblower

  1. Pointman

    I was a huge fan of the X-men and still remember the origins of Unus the untouchable.
    He had the power to project a force field around himself that made him nigh on invulnerable.

    In The first encounter between the X-men and Unus, he was defeated by the Beast (Dr. Henry Philip “Hank” McCoy) who used a Thermo Jarrell Ash IRIS Advantage/1000 Radial Inductively Coupled Argon Plasma Spectrometer with a solid state charge induction device detector, to boost his power to the point that Unus lost control of his force shield.

    An appropriate Marvel quote would perhaps be…
    Uncle Ben “With great power comes great responsibility”

    We have the unknown hero to thank, may he remain untouchable.
    Did they ever want to find him?


    • “Did they ever want to find him?”

      Unus in the dock? That’s their worst nightmare. Interestingly, it’s the one PR blunder they’ve missed in the last 12 months.


  2. Pointman,

    This timely update is even more relevant in the light of the events in the past year. It’s as though the CRU whistle-blower gave a flick of his finger and has watched the dominoes fall, one after the other.

    The revelations of the IPCC’s misrepresentations and incompetence, culminating in their declaration that Cancun is an Economic Conference that has nothing to do with the Environment.

    Al Gore’s Chicago Climate Exchange has crashed and burned. Gore discredited as nothing more than a slick salesman heavily invested in a fraudulent industry he helped create for personal gain.

    It goes on and on, there for anyone with the eyes to see. We can only hope the scales will fall from the eyes of the Climate foot-soldiers and they will see how they have been duped.

    I must disagree on one point you made – that women blow the whistle “rarely if ever for matters of ‘high’ principle”. In Australia women have been the major whistle-blowers in modern times. We’ve had major police corruption revealed by a woman – we’ve had one of the most horrific cases of medical malpractice and murder exposed by a woman resulting in “Dr Death” pursued around the world, tried and gaoled for his crimes.

    These women (and others) have been persecuted, sacked and very nearly ruined by a System designed to protect their own and ostracize those of ‘high principle’. We’re indebted to them all.

    As we are indebted to the hero from the UEA CRU whoever he/she/they are, you’ve helped dismantle the biggest Criminal Fraud in history – and it continues apace.

    Thanks Pointman for reminding us all of the debt we owe.

    • Welcome to the blog Mr Lynn. Not a bad idea but she must have smuggled hubby into the server room several times and he would only have to have cracked the admin passwords of the email server and the operations servers as well as the source code library.

      I kind of like the sound of him already.


      • We might suspect that server security at this rather sloppily-run academic department (to judge from Dr Jones ‘losing’ his data) was not so air-tight that a smart programmer/IT guy couldn’t get access. So it is not implausible to suggest that someone fairly low-level, e.g. a secretary or intern–or student?–might have got wind of the chicanery that was routinely practiced there, brought in her spouse/boyfriend/accomplice, copied off the relevant files, edited them, and the rest is history!

        All speculation, of course. Obviously the perpetrator(s) will not want to come forward, lest they be hauled before the bar. Wait until the statute of limitations is up. . .

        /Mr Lynn

  3. Thankyou pointman for a superb analysis an conclusions.

    We have so much to thank Unus for —- I frequently wonder what he or she makes of the results and implications of their efforts.

    I hope they appreciate our efforts to continue the long road to truth and common sense.

    I hope they enjoy following our efforts to spread the word they initiated.

    My feeling is that Unus has some software expertise and recognised the ‘Humbug’ attached to all the computer models used to define the heating effect and the ‘tipping point’.

    I like to think at the very least Unis is a dedicated ‘Lurker’ and may even be a contributor to the whole range of excellent informative Anti – AGW blogs.

    We may never know —— but Thank You Unus

    Perhaps one day pointman will write his best selling book — to tell us!


  4. This is a strange post.
    You have not mentioned one of the most important bits of information about the CRU hacker/leaker, that ought to be taken into account if you are trying to do a ‘profile’.
    This is what he wrote on the Air Vent blog and the Climate Skeptic blog when he posted the link:

    We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps.

    We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents.
    Hopefully it will give some insight into the science and the people behind it.

    This is a limited time offer, download now:


    0926010576.txt * Mann: working towards a common goal
    1189722851.txt * Jones: “try and change the Received date!”
    0924532891.txt * Mann vs. CRU
    0847838200.txt * Briffa & Yamal 1996: “too much growth in recent years makes it difficult to derive a valid age/growth curve”
    0926026654.txt * Jones: MBH dodgy ground
    1225026120.txt * CRU’s truncated temperature curve
    1059664704.txt * Mann: dirty laundry
    1062189235.txt * Osborn: concerns with MBH uncertainty
    0926947295.txt * IPCC scenarios not supposed to be realistic
    0938018124.txt * Mann: “something else” causing discrepancies
    0939154709.txt * Osborn: we usually stop the series in 1960
    0933255789.txt * WWF report: beef up if possible
    0998926751.txt * “Carefully constructed” model scenarios to get “distinguishable results”
    0968705882.txt * CLA: “IPCC is not any more an assessment of published science but production of results”
    1075403821.txt * Jones: Daly death “cheering news”
    1029966978.txt * Briffa – last decades exceptional, or not?
    1092167224.txt * Mann: “not necessarily wrong, but it makes a small difference” (factor 1.29)
    1188557698.txt * Wigley: “Keenan has a valid point”
    1118949061.txt * we’d like to do some experiments with different proxy combinations
    1120593115.txt * I am reviewing a couple of papers on extremes, so that I can refer to them in the chapter for AR4

    The word ‘we’ here suggests that your ‘gemini’ remark may be correct, but on the other hand scientists often use ‘we’ in papers even when there is only one author.
    From the style of the writing, it is clear that ‘Unus’ is a native English speaker – not a Russian hacker. The tone suggests to me British English, not American.
    The text also shows that he knows his climate science and is also highly IT-literate.
    You say you could not find anyone that fits. It seems to me there is one very obvious candidate. Why did you rule him out?

    • Hello Charles

      Has anybody been ruled out? I haven’t seen it that way. Anyone with a modicum of interest has made all the same observations you have. Had he/she/they wanted credit for exposing Climate Fraud they would have made themselves known. Whose interests would that serve?

      The bottom line is not ‘Who’, it’s Why and the evidence Unus presented to the world has been vindicated many times over as the dominoes topple.

      It serves nobody’s interests to see the Leaker prosecuted, least of all the UEA. A Court of Law is very different from a Political Whitewash (or three); it serves everybody very well if nobody is held accountable – for anything. That’s how the System works.

      The Pointman is reminding us all that we owe much to Unus whose action has been more than justified in this past year. A sincere Thank You is what this is about, not a witch-hunt.

  5. Great analysis, pointman – true then, true today.

    It would seem that The Poliss is totally stymied, so Unus/Gemini certainly knew exactly how to do what they did.

    Has anybody actually looked at the programs, and perhaps done some small analysis?

    I certainly had jaw-hits-floor moments galore when I looked through the HARRY_READ_ME files – and I’m not a programmer.


    • G’day Colliemum

      Nice to see you here. I think we’ve all had jaw-dropping moments in the last year haven’t we? Things are certainly different in this lead-up to the Cancun Economic Conference.

      They don’t even pretend the Environment is their raison d’etre anymore. Money is the motivation for Carbon Fraud as it always has been. But then we all knew that didn’t we?

    • Hello Colliemum and welcome to the blog. Always a pleasure to see old pals. There are lots of analysis articles on the code but if your jaw hit the floor on the Harry read me files then you don’t need to read further.

      I think calling in the ‘Poliss’ was one of those initial reactions they regretted. What if the police had actually caught Unus? Imagine it. A six week trial never out of the headlines and watched by the entire world. From the CRU viewpoint, a lose / lose situation.


  6. derek walton who comments on bishop hill has shown interest in using FOI to get BBC to publish the “chain of emails” “forwarded” to paul hudson who, by the way, worked for the Met Office for years before joining BBC, and therefore knows many of the players.

    whether derek does so, and whether or not he is successful, time will tell. however, bbc has never claimed the hudson “chain of emails” was hacked, and it may well be there is evidence of the sender on the “chain of emails”.

    whether or not the “chain of emails” – as bbc claimed later – was merely the one Hudson linked to and authenticated:

    East Anglia Confirmed Emails from the Climate Research Unit – 1255523796.txt

    or was the entire cache, is another matter. hudson certainly gave the impession he was authenticating the lot. anyway, hudson was gagged, according to his local newspaper:

    27 Nov 2009: Hull Daily News: BBC weatherman in global warming row
    A BBC Look North weatherman has become embroiled in a national global warming row…
    When contacted by the Mail, the weatherman said he was not allowed to comment and asked us to speak to the BBC press office…
    A BBC spokesperson said: “Paul wrote a blog for the BBC website on October 9 entitled Whatever Happened To Global Warming. There was a big reaction to the article – not just here but around the world. Among those who responded were Professor Michael E Mann and Stephen Schneider whose e-mails were among a small handful forwarded to Paul on October 12.
    “Although of interest, Paul wanted to consider the e-mails as part of a wider piece, following up his original blog piece…

    Hudson did not followup with a “wider piece”. Mann and Schneider were among those writing emails in 1255523796.txt, but not to Hudson.

    From The Australian in March this year we get a name for this BBC spokesman:

    12 March 2010: Australian: BBC defends journalist Paul Hudson over climate email claims by ABC chairman Maurice Newman
    THE BBC says ABC chairman Maurice Newman was wrong to criticise BBC climate journalist Paul Hudson, who Mr Newman alleged sat on emails related to the so-called Climategate affair…
    (BBC spokesman Simon Hailes ) Mr Hailes responded: “Paul wrote a blog for the BBC website on 9th October 2009 entitled `Whatever Happened to Global Warming’. There was a big reaction to the article – not just here but around the world.
    “Amongst those who responded were (climate change scientists) Professor Michael E. Mann and Stephen Schneider whose emails were among a small handful forwarded to Paul on October 12th…
    “Although of interest, Paul wanted to consider the emails as part of a wider piece, following up his original blog piece.
    “In early November Paul spotted that these few emails were among thousands published on the internet following the alleged hacking of the UEA computer system. Paul passed this information onto colleagues at the BBC, who ran with the story, and then linked to the emails on his blog.”…

    Hudson’s colleagues did not run “with the story” prior to Climategate, so BBC sat on damaging emails for more than a month and later claimed Mann and Schneider “responded” to Hudson’s story, omitting to say to whom Mann and Schneider responded.

    BBC has a lot of explaining to do. as a public broadcaster, they should come clean now.

    • Hello Pat and welcome to the blog. It’s good to see a poster prepared to chase down sources and do a bit of legwork with a computer and a clear mind. Thank you.

      Mr. Hudson had a clear shot at the biggest story of the decade. Very few journalists ever get a chance like that. Perhaps he’s realised now his talents lie elsewhere?


  7. @Swan & Backs2theWall.

    First off, welcome to the blog Backs2theWall. I hope you’ll feel free to contribute here often.

    Women of course have principles, as have men. The point is on what the principle is about. The examples you both quote are of several admirable women prepared to lose and indeed losing a lot, to right what they considered were evils. People were being in effect butchered on operating tables or individuals were corrupting the system. These were ‘in your face’ injustices that had immediate and real effects on people. Putting everything you’ve got on the line for these tangibles works for either sex but risking it all for an intangible like the integrity of science? That’s a man’s head at work.


    • Pointman

      Thanks for getting back to me. I initially read your original comment as largely discounting the notion of a feminine hand in this issue and, having read of these admirable women I cited, I felt we need to acknowledge their integrity and courage.

      However, as we are generalising here, I must cede that your conclusions hold true. Men sure are ‘wired differently’ and sometimes just as well…LOL

      To consider the Leak as you have, holds a mirror up to us all. How would each of us behave or react in the face of a similar scenario? We should take the time to put some hard questions to ourselves and if we don’t like the answers, we’d better make changes, find our moral compass and seek to live more meaningful lives. Unus must now be sleeping well at night and take much satisfaction in watching those dominoes fall.

  8. @Charles

    Hello Charles and welcome to the blog.

    I have of course studied the message that accompanied the release of the emails. Was there something in my post that inferred otherwise? The ‘tone’ of the message suggests nothing more than that the author is an educated person. Read it with an American, Australian or British accent; there’s nothing to imply a “British English” speaker, as you suggest. The ability to punctuate and express one’s self succinctly in English is not confined solely to the British Isles, I’m afraid.

    The use of English here is very precise and stripped down. The first paragraph is all about principle (the ‘why’ referred to above).

    The second could be construed as a threat. By this stage, Unus knew he was putting himself in harm’s way and had maybe ‘wised up’ enough to put away a little insurance. “A random selection” implies there may be more. Touch me if you dare …

    As I said in the post, I see no clear candidate who had ‘access’ to both the servers and the science and am not about to start bandying best guesses around. We owe Unus that at least.


  9. The only reason global underpants skidmarks or whatever it is causing nothing at all got any traction is 30-40% of Western civilization is on effing dope or goofy pills and the educational standards have eroded beyond metrication. AGW is not even relevant, IMHO. It’s just how effed up the West is getting to be in mind, body and spirit. Crusades and reform are not needed. Just everyone stop being arseholes for at least 8 to 16 hours a week, and everything will be cool.

    If I learned anything as an MP, people do not perceive themselves as doing anything wrong when they are doing wrong, nor do crazy high people perceive themselves as crazy high. This also applies to the West going broke. It is not politicians who are arseholes with the public purse alone LOL! Anyone stop to think the public maybe deserves what it is getting in return for 30-40 years of effing over everyone else in the West while being generous to developing nations which are very open and explicit about wanting to destroy us?

  10. ge0050 says: November 24, 2010 at 1:13 pm

    Hello ge0050 and welcome to the blog.

    Yes agreed. Deep Cool has the be the same person. Quite frankly, I’m amazed he ever leaked again when you consider how badly his first attempt was handled by the recepients. The leak was blogged on and even his IP address was referred to as being confirmed as coming from “deep inside CRU” or something like that.

    Lessons were learnt on both sides, especially the leaker’s.


  11. Pointman,
    First, nice blog and analysis.
    Second, while your “profile” is spot-on and I am not disagreeing with your “it’s a man” conclusion, there is one other possibility (which you also pointed out in-directly) which should be taken into consideration and that is the possibility of Deep Cool being a scorned female co-worker (@ the CRU) of one of the men in the whole of the ClimateGate sphere. I say this partly because when once a MAN decides to do something like this, they generally move quickly. If one thing doesn’t work (Deep Cool files to McIntyre, offer to the BBC) they get on to the next option out fear of being caught before they can accomplish their mission. Unus more than hesitated between these acts. Why? Maybe the higher purpose or “mission” was personal revenge? Not science malpractice exposure. Maybe something happened and Unus had second thoughts (deep emotions will due that to you) or maybe the first act of sending the files to McIntyre didn’t get her lover back or change his attitude. Lots of possibilities, but as to the other points, she would “know” via pillow-talk what skullduggery is going on scientifically if not by direct involvement, she could be an IT worker and would have all pass-words, access and as you mentioned required knowledge as to the importance of the code and how to hide yet “release” the data to the Russian server. Further, it would add credence, in addition to your thoughts, to why they will never “find” Unus. The “affaire” would be an even greater problem than “the trick”. Two more things, “she” would use the term “we” as she has communicated this (the affair and her actions) to a friend (females always do) and of course she would extract but hold on to, not only for future release but also protection, any emails from the file (before uploading) of any hint of the affair. “Hell has no fury like a woman scorned.”

  12. Hello Bob and welcome to the blog.

    Let’s run through the first leak to McIntyre. Unus sends an email to him with the dataset attached so McIntyre can process the data himself and see what it tells him. Unus naturally expects he can sit back and wait for him to crunch the numbers and announce the results in public at a future date.

    This is not what happens. Horror of horrors, in no time at all, the dataset has been shared with other parties and the leak is being actively discussed in the blogosphere. Why, they’ve even given him a sexy new name – Deep Cool. They’ve pulled his IP address off his email and announced to the world that it’s definitely from right in the centre of CRU, all in public. It’s being discussed in open blogs by some of the individuals who are most watched and hated by the AGW insiders; McIntyre, McKitric, Watts, Mosher, Gosselin et al. Have I missed anyone?

    If you can’t bring yourself to believe they’d be that dense, have a look for yourself.

    In his place, I would have dived back into cover and stayed there. He did, for four months and somehow survived. By the time he leaked the Climategate material, he’d learnt his lesson; no direct contacts and use a cut out to deliver the goods – the Tomsk server.

    Four month pause? They’re lucky they ever heard from him again.


  13. It’s Jones. As mindblowing as it seems – his own conscience got the better of him. That or he’s completely schizo and his other personality did it without his knowledge. Although I doubt Jones would have the IT expertise.

  14. As I explained at the time, I was teasing CRU about having a “Mole” – Anthony was in on the joke. They’d inadvertently left a somewhat obsolete version of the supposedly top secret station data on their FTP site. That’s why I was sure that the “mole” would not be punished. People are connecting dots that aren’t there.

    Also, I don’t think that Paul Hudson was informed of the full dossier. The evidence seems otherwise.

    • Hello Steve and welcome to the blog.

      Before the BBC ‘D’ notices dropped on Hudson, I too had the sense that Hudson was given a taster rather than the full Climategate payload. Either way, it speaks volumes for his complete lack of a ‘nose for a scoop’ as a journalist.

      I wasn’t aware that you and Anthony were having a joke on the grim high priests of AGW and therefore am obliged to apologise unreservedly for the “dense” crack above.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s