Over the weekend I found myself fascinated by the story of a group of prominent scientists who conspired to promote the theory they supported. Their correspondence revealed how they agonised over the impact of others’ publications and reviews, planned their public commentary so that their critics would be thwarted, and worked together to raise the prominence of their theory with the public. Yes, the fascinating final episode of Darwin’s Brave New World on ABC1 delved into all of these machinations from Sir Charles Darwin and the supporters of his theory of natural selection – but while the history of one of the most important scientific theories was being presented, the actions of some modern scientists have come under scrutiny for their own apparent collusion.
Last Friday, emails and data taken from a server at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit were made available to the public. News of the files quickly spread around the climate science blogosphere, and the blogs of the so-called “global warming sceptics” quickly turned their attention to finding the most incriminating evidence of scientific malpractice. For those who already viewed the science of global warming as a con being perpetrated on the world by scientists and governments with the silent assent of the media, these emails were the smoking gun they had hoped for. But are their proclamations of doom for the science of global warming valid, or is their desire to see a conspiracy stretching their arguments beyond the evidence?
Andrew Bolt’s blog serves as a prime example of how those who already denied global warming have responded. Bolt first posted news of the emails on Friday afternoon. He then began to present some of the emails that were considered most damning – in particular, Bolt and others highlighted the reference by Phil Jones to using a “trick” to “hide the decline” in a data series. He continued to update with quotes from more emails as they were discovered. By the time the hacking was confirmed by the UEA on Friday evening (Australian time), Bolt was prepared to call it “a scandal that is one of the greatest in modern science”.
When Bolt resumed his blogging early on Saturday morning, he went in hard and heavy on the “warmist conspiracy”. His commenters went along with him, asserting that the scientists should be charged with treason and that any plans to introduce emissions trading should be abandoned immediately. Bolt began to broaden his attack, highlighting links to Australian government institutions such as the CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology and then evaluating the news media’s response to the emails – and, not surprisingly, finding it lacking. It seems that journalists’ pesky insistence on verifying facts, attempting to place the emails in context and seeking a reaction from those involved prevented them from hastily unmasking the grand conspiracy that underpins all climate science.
As the email commentary moved into its second full day, Bolt sought to brand the conspiracy – while some bloggers went for the cliché “ClimateGate”, he encouraged his readers to be more inventive in their labelling. He also divined the true source of the leaked files – moving from describing it on Friday as a theft by hackers in which “the ethics [were] dubious” to Sunday’s statement that it was “whistleblowing, almost certainly by an insider”. This was an interesting “trick” which allowed Bolt to clear away some moral ambiguities in his own commentary and also to attack the “news outlets of the Left” who insisted on saying the information came from hackers. As he refined his own message leading into the new week, Bolt continued to criticise “the paid mainstream media” for failing to break the story, being slow to cover it, and equivocating about its implications. Even the existence of news stories that were being widely read somehow became evidence that the media was not paying the story due attention.
The frenzied weekend of posting by Andrew Bolt illustrates what the so-called sceptics would like this “scandal” to be – the unmasking of a vast conspiracy, in which the scientists have committed scientific fraud to advance their case for a theory that has been corrupted by the interests of environmental groups and government funded bodies, while the Left-leaning media has complied in promoting the global warming agenda. This purported grand conspiracy fits easily with the existing notion that the draft Copenhagen agreement is a step toward establishing a world government, that our universities and research centres are tainted by the agenda-driven funding of climate science, and that global warming is the Left’s new tool to control our society and economy.
But what do the emails actually show? Some of the claims of scientific fraud have been debunked already, and the eagerness of those mining the data to capitalise on one or two damning words has brought up red herrings that are easily explained when the message is taken in context, such as Jones’s supposedly fraudulent “trick”. This is not to suggest the emails are not potentially damaging to the reputations of their authors – for instance, they raise some serious questions about the handling of FoI requests and the integrity of some peer-review and editorial processes. Some of those issues deserve further scrutiny, and if anyone is found to have engaged in improper conduct then they will have to shoulder the consequences.
In yesterday’s Crikey email, Sinclair Davidson argued that the emails suggest “overall a pattern of poor behaviour” and that “the public, whose taxes finance that behaviour” are entitled to be displeased. I recently wrote about the importance of confidence in publicly-funded research, but I think Professor Davidson overstates the implications of these emails for confidence in the scientific process. In my view, what the emails highlight more than anything is that ego and politics continue to affect how scientists approach their work – especially when the science will itself influence politics and society. Much of what the authors discussed was about making the strongest presentation of their evidence, their concerns about the weaknesses and unexplained details in their arguments, and how to rebut the claims of their critics – many of whom, such as Andrew Bolt, have a strong public voice but draw on pseudoscientific reasoning and misrepresentation to attack the research evidence. In short, the emails suggest a clique – a small, exclusive group of like-minded experts discussing how to advance the evidence for their theory – rather than a broad conspiracy.
Proponents of a theory will discuss how to deal with the things they cannot yet explain, such as the recent slowing of global warming. Scientists might be loose, or even inappropriate, in how they talk about their critics when sending personal emails to their colleagues. And when they see serious practical and policy implications for their work, they are likely to discuss how to present a clear and coherent message to the public. The fundamental question is, do these emails discredit the scientific evidence that our understanding of human-induced climate change is based on? As much as some might like to hurry us toward that conclusion, it is not clear how these discussions by a small set of climate scientists undermine the many decades of theory and research that is the basis our current knowledge.
ELSEWHERE:Responses from RealClimate on Friday and today; Ruth Brown at Crikey’s Rooted blog; two posts at Larvatus Prodeo from Saturday and today; Tim Lambert yesterday and today; and the conspiracy theory counter-argument from Tim Blair.
49 Comments
I would like bolt to prove to me that there is no conspiracy between himself and others to deny global warming.
Since he seems to think that perusing others emails is valid way of conducting business I would like to see all of his going back 10 years. That would convince me that he is genuine. I wonder if he would delete any before he hands them over?
I wont hold my breath waiting for them though.
Even *if* (and that’s a big “IF”) every single thing Bolt et al says about the e-mail-generating scientists is true, it proves absolutely nothing. This reminds me of the young-earth-creationist attempts to undermine evolution by pointing to the Piltdown Man hoax.
Someone falsifying their bit of data 10 years ago (again, *IF* that is the case, which I doubt) does not nullify 100 years of data collection and analysis, and the information gleaned in the last generation by satellite.
At the bottom line, a hoax perpetrated by a small group does not undermine the science of the broader group.
Tobias,
“Some of the claims of scientific fraud have been debunked already”
Can you please provide some info or links on this?
This newest ‘scandal’ literally changes nothing. The Bolts and Blairs of this world already believed there was a leftist global conspiracy attempting to bankrupt everybody and institute one-world Communist government before these emails were leaked. This is just one irrelevant ‘gotcha’ moment out of hundreds, and once this one has been dealt with, as all the others have been, the denialists will move on until the next leaked email or Uni of East Bumcrack graph drifts along and suddenly it will be THIS graph or THIS out-of-context quote that brings the whole climate change house of cards crashing down around the AGW alarmists.
This paragraph from a Deltoid page, originally about the Hockey Stick flim flam, sums it all up nicely for me.
The timeline for these mini-blogstorms is always similar. An unverified accusation of malfeasance is made based on nothing, and it is instantly ‘telegraphed’ across the denial-o-sphere while being embellished along the way to apply to anything ‘hockey-stick’ shaped and any and all scientists, even those not even tangentially related. The usual suspects become hysterical with glee that finally the ‘hoax’ has been revealed and congratulations are handed out all round. After a while it is clear that no scientific edifice has collapsed and the search goes on for the ‘real’ problem which is no doubt just waiting to be found. Every so often the story pops up again because some columnist or blogger doesn’t want to, or care to, do their homework. Net effect on lay people? Confusion. Net effect on science? Zip.
Seems to be playing out according to script.
Savvas, the initial focus on the email mentioning a “trick” to “hide the decline” in data was the first thing some bloggers seized on as evidence of misconduct. It’s explained at the first RealClimate link above (I’ve also just quoted some of the explanation in Jeremy’s thread).
“Net effect on lay people? Confusion.” Which, of course, is exactly what the denialists want.
Akerman’s trying it on too:
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/piersakerman/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/statistics_con_the_final_nail_in_rudds_climate_change_coffin/
The other problem with the denialists claims is that if AGW *was* a giant scam or conspiracy, it would have to have been perpetrated across many decades, involving tens if not hundreds of researchers across disciplines, institutions, countries, governments, and the private sector. If such a conspiracy existed and was sophisticated enough to withstand that time period and scale, it would be other researchers who understand the science who would be uncovering it, not social commentators like Bolt and Blair who haven’t even completed undergraduate degrees let alone spent a career studying scientific measurement and methodology.
Like i said, they are no different to the Birthers or 9/11 Troothers for that matter.
should be tens if not hundreds of thousands of researchers.
Ben Eltham’s article in today’s Crikey email is worth a read.
Tobias said: “… it is not clear how these discussions by a small set of climate scientists undermine the many decades of theory and research that is the basis our current knowledge.”
You might have had a point, Tobby, if this “small set of climate scientists” had not been the most vocal of all. Their names are well known and widely-quoted, and in no way do they represent a “small, exclusive group”.
I realise the choir has been anxiously awaiting a preacher but it is duplicitious and “intellectually dishonest” of you to suggest the names in questions are nothing more than the St Kildas of climate change.
One of Australia’s climate scientists gives some further explanation.
Mann and JOnes are well-known and widely cited because they have been doing their research for at least 20 years! In the same way that most people think of Fiona Stanley when they think of child health research – she’s been the public face of child health research for decades. But as I intimated on the weekend if someone were to hack into her email account and find the words “cleaning the data” or a spray against anti-scientists like Bolt, it in no way brings into question the work done at Murdoch Children’s Research Institute for eg.
“cleaning the data”
As someone who does data analysis for a living, I’ve quite enjoyed seeing the denialists hopping around this. It’s a bit like the scene in 2001 where the monkeys find the monolith. I loved watching them on another site as they tried to make sense of a Matlab script which they found amongst the purloined emails. There’s a story doing the rounds of us time series analysts that one of them saw the word ‘bias’ and thought he had stumbled onto the mother-lode. Idiot.
Anyway, when analysing data you clean it up all the time. You carry out window functions on it before doing Fourier Transforms on it. You remove periodic data so you can look at the random components. You remove the random components so you can look at the periodic components. You feed it into high-pass filters, low pass filters, bandpass filters in order to understand it better.
And all the time it turns out I’ve been doing something immoral… (smirk!)
Confessions: “Mann and JOnes are well-known and widely cited because they have been doing their research for at least 20 years!”
Yup. 20 years of fiddling around with those graphs and trees and bears and numbers and grants and tax payer dollars before they were caught out. Kinda reminds me of those Wall St types you lot love to hate.
Like I said, Tobby MIGHT have a point had his subjects been not so blazingly prominent.
That would make you and me and the team I work with. I’ve enjoyed this email episode too.
Pedro: that’s a whopping accusation, which I know you can’t substantiate. This is the essential difference between denialists like you, and realists like me: I don’t need to rely on smears and hysterical, baseless accusations, and wild distortions in order to win this debate. Your lot on the other hand…..
Confessions: “Pedro: that’s a whopping accusation, which I know you can’t substantiate.”
Ok, so I threw in the polar bears for a lark. But at least I can back the rest up. Unlike you gullibilists who want us to believe polar bears actually fall from the sky. Who are the idiots, again?
“Anyway, when analysing data you clean it up all the time. You carry out window functions on it before doing Fourier Transforms on it. You remove periodic data so you can look at the random components. You remove the random components so you can look at the periodic components. You feed it into high-pass filters, low pass filters, bandpass filters in order to understand it better.”
Nigel, as someone who carries out a lot of modelling work (in MATLAB too – as it is the engineers tool of choice), I can say that what you have said is true. You use this type of filtering to look at the most relevant data that is critical to your area or zone of interest. That is fine if you are choosing to ignore some aspects that are irrelevant to your particular task. It is not fine if you are using this type of filtering to remove analysis of data that does not suit your desired outcome. I once had a student that produced a model of a cars suspension system that he had designed (using a hydrogas suspension system) and he compared it to a similar type of production variant for a military vehicle produced in the U.K. I thought his model was rather simple and should therefore not have produced such a relatively exact correlation. So I looked at the input file from the U.K. manufacturer. It looked rather linear to me, so I called the company and asked them for their prototype test data. Hmmmm….it looked very different from the input data the student claimed was from the company. After much examination, I tried a few filtering commands in MATLAB, coupled with some matrix manipulation, and lo and behold, the little bastard had manipulated the “raw” data to make his model look like an actual production vehicle.
Main point, raw data is just that and any manipulation needs to be clearly and concisely declared. Especially if you are advocating the developed world to change their economies drastically. Which I support by the way, just with less panicked fervour than some of the client advocates.
Where have I ever said “polar bears will fall from the sky”? And I bet you can’t substantiate the other stuff either.
LOL so to summarise, your contribution to this thread has consisted of the following:
1. vacuous comment trying to claim that one group of researchers in one corner of the globe represent ALL researchers everywhere.
2. wild accusations about the conduct of 2 climate researchers that cannot be substantiated by objective fact.
3. attributed statements to me that I have never made.
This is standard conduct from denialists, and is the reason you have lost on this issue: the coalition have agreed to back the ETS according to Sky News.
So Sky News is wrong. AGAIN! First on the leadership spill, now this.
Never, ever trust Murdoch entities for anything requiring fact.
Pedro@ 16, if you’d think about it for a second you’d realise that this deliberate compilation of emails covers a period of twelve years,and since it comes through one institution,the University of East Anglia,it focuses on a handful of individuals by design AND default.
Intentionally or not,it creates the impression that a cosy little clique is pulling strings everywhere…however,there are plenty of other ‘most vocal’ climate and earth scientists banging the drum around the world in a great number of languages.
An unfiltered twelve years of emails from and to this ‘group’ would run to the tens of thousands,and involve not tens of names but possibly thousands…now there’s a conspiracy for ya!!
Now,I don’t want to downplay the significance of Phil Jones and the CRU dataset, but it is a collaborative effort involving the input of scores of meteorological organisations worldwide who have legal agreements and rights over use. If anyone,and this is not aimed at you, believes that the countries inputting into this process just let little old Phil and his team manipulate their data into a bullshit metric without them noticing,then they need their heads read.
And if anyone thinks that one or two lines of reconstructive inquiry involving a few tree core datasets comprises the sum total of significant palaeoclimate work,let alone a substantial part of climate science,they are very seriously deluded. Yes,there are many such people.
Sadly for these researchers,they just happen to be the individuals that a very determined and thoroughly dishonest coalition of industry and self funded cranks have decided represents the best target to achieve their end. If they can land a blow on climate science anywhere,it is here,and that is enough to animate their mob frenzy.The cranks have nothing else,but an awareness of community scientific ignorance and a large group of zombie meme droppers like Andrew Bolt makes them a potent force.
However,for people writing science and economic policy in governments around the world, I think Toby’s view of these scientists relative significance is more realistic.
Thanks for the very wry and smart article.
Interesting isn’t it how the deniers are obsessed with: a) conspiracies and smoke filled corridors, leading to b) masses of MONEY. It’s like a mirror into how the Right operates.
What they want to believe is true about climate science, really IS and was the way Big Oil works, Big Tobacco works, the mining industry works, James Hardie worked, etc etc. In other words, all the stuff they never ever question.
Really good post TZ and some good comments too.
This episode has merely reduced Andrew Bolt and other denier’s credibility one or five notches further.
The smallest storm in a teacup I’ve seen for quite a while. But delivered Bolt another series of posts, many more sycophantic comments, plenty of hits and some more notoriety. Andrew Bolt is doing very well out of this denial stuff isn’t he? Could he ever afford to give it up? Are there any circumstances or outcomes where Bolt could ever admit he was wrong? Bolt is trapped in and by denial and unable to ever change paths. As we saw with Iraq, he’ll just re-write the script and continue making the same tired old movie. What a sad-case.
DeanL, excellent point you identify: the Denialist Industry. All the likes of Bolt have to produce is slopy copy leading to notoriety, fame even. Ergo ego. Nothing more. Certainly not science or ethics.
that’s ‘sloppy copy’…
Slightly off track, but I’d just like to reprint in nearly full the latest illuminating work of literary genius from “Habib of Wilston” at 9.55pm in Bolt’s most recent thread:
“”About bloody time- now they can start taking it up to this upstart in parliament, and actuallly making him justify crippling the Australian economy and impoverishing the Australian people on proven junk science and a con- the Waxgoblin was close to losing his sh1t last week over some gentle probing about his abject failure in border protection, if he gets prodded over his UN ambitions and gullibility over a global scam I’d say that expected public meltdown is not far off.
They could not win federally with Gillard, and who else is there? The coalition is now in a position to win the upcoming election, consigning these dolts, dullards, dunces, degenerates and desperados to well deserved ignomy after one disastrous term.
If this comes off on Thursday I’ll even join and hand out how to vote cards- it’s time for the adults to take control, the kiddies have had their go and as expectedhave behaved like a roomful of purple-arsed mandrils on crystal meth.”"
Hmm. Wasn’t the U.T. blathering on about “wudeness” a little while ago?
bertus: these people are rooted in delusion. There’s no hope for them!
Once the ETS is passed and in place, they’ll just find something else to moan about. And who exactly are these credible alternate leaders to Turnbull? Abbott is poison, Tuckey and Jensen are jokes, Andrews would be a walk-up start to the government. Hockey doesn’t want it. Yet again bolt’s take on federal politics is found wanting: remember all those “Costello poised to take over” predictions from recent years?
Andrew Sullivan:
This is evident even from the denialist tactics in this and the other thread. “Look over here! Emails!!!”
You can’t have a coherent argument with these people, they are rooted in delusion and living in an alternate reality.
What gets me most about this whole debate is the selfishness of the “skeptics”, their only complaint is that their current lifestyle might change. When you break it down their problem with the ETS and renewable energy is ecconomic. I have never seen any skeptic suggest that doing something about AGW would be bad for the enviroment, just that it might mean thay have to pay a bit more for energy or a little bit more tax.
If your only concern is getting and keeping more and more money then your life is a bit hollow (in my humble opinion), and if you can think of the world as nothing but a network of money making markets then I feel sorry for you. There is more to life than ecconomics, it is simply one (small) part of life.
The Bolt Effect wreaks its ugly havoc again.
Over at Bolt’s den, he says: “Time to audit NASA’s warmists, too”
Heh. What about we audit Bolt’s recent Israel junket, too.
“I have never seen any skeptic suggest that doing something about AGW would be bad for the enviroment,”
I have on other threads discussing this issue, said numerous times that although I’m sceptical of the extent of man’s contribution to climate change, I have no issue with taking steps to reduce our emissions, provided we don’t bankrupt ourselves and force people into poverty in the process.
Clearly the resultant reduction in pollution could only be a good thing.
Will the proposed scheme going before Parliament achieve this reduction ? No.
As for paying a little more for energy or a little more tax, those rises in costs may be insignificant to you or me, but there are a lot of people out there who struggle to pay their bills and any increase in costs will make a huge difference to them. It’s also not just energy costs that will increase — the cost of all goods and services will rise as companies will obviously pass their additional costs onto the consumer.
So Bolt is crowing because it’s been “proven” that scientists have manipulated the data. But hang on…
Hasn’t Bolt been telling us for years, with his links and quotes and endless graphs, that the data shows there is no global warming?
So…the pro-climate change One World conspiracists have been faking data in order to show the earth isn’t warming?
That’s Bolt’s hypothesis?
GavinM
How come the right now says a tax that affects the poor is bad now but when they were pushing a GST on us it was OK? Remember that Howard et al had no problem with taxing fresh food, and if you want to really increase the tax burden of the poor I can’t think of a better way.
I am also not convinced the ETS is going to bring the result some believe, the problem as I have stated before is that most want a solution which means their use of energy is unchanged. If we don’t accept we have to change the way we live we are doomed IMHO, we can not sustain our appetite for energy. We do have however existing designs and technologies which allow us to live much as now with a smaller energy input.
@bpobjie Amusing riposte!! Its very clever: scientists are brilliant manipulators, but can’t fake their own data consistently!
Can I use that?
Surly,
I can’t answer for “the Right”, I’m not a Right-winger — I’m just not as Left as you seem to be
I imagine they would justify the GST by saying there was supposed to be trade-offs with other taxes and government charges, (particularly State ones) — not that many of those trade-offs ever seemed to get implemented, I don’t believe I’ve seen any mention of such trade-offs for this ETS scheme. (Happy to be corrected on this though).
I don’t like the GST either — I remember the “never, ever” line too — it was one of the many reasons why I didn’t like Howard.
I’d be interested to know on what basis you don’t believe that the ETS would drive up the cost of everything we buy — surely you don’t think producers will just absorb the extra costs they are going to face ?
I’d also like to know what you think this ETS scheme will achieve.
Go for it.
According to the minister last night the average cost to households will be $900 per annum, and under the current bill compensation to households is set at $1000 per annum. It seems pretty clear to me that there is no pinch factor on households (and that’s without even considering the energy sector!), there is unlikely to be change.
GavinM
The GST only replaced taxes on things that were covered by sales tax, and many things weren’t covered by ST. Also the overall tax on things the poor spend most of their income on (food, energy clothing) went up while luxury or discresionary items went down. As I understand it there are offsets built in to this ETS.
As I have said apart from raising awarness of the carbon problem this ETS won’t acheive real long term change. Making people aware of the energy they use, by making it more expensive isn’t a bad result, remember how the rise in oil prices sent people searching for more fuel efficent cars. We need to change the way we use energy not the way we produce it, it is insane to simply believe we can replace the energy from coal with renewable.
bpobjie @ 35,
You have to understand the mind of Andrew Bolt: A scientist that produces data that supports Bolt’s argument can only be good and of unquestionable character…not to mention correct; A scientist that produces data in support of the counter side of the argument must be bad and of questionable character…and wrong.
This must be why Bolt’s scepticism is never directed at the former.
“The GST only replaced taxes on things that were covered by sales tax, and many things weren’t covered by ST.Also the overall tax on things the poor spend most of their income on (food, energy clothing) went up while luxury or discresionary items went down.”
Exactly right Surly, the problem is that poor people will still need food and clothing and given the increased cost in producing these items that the ETS will bring, do you seriously believe that those items won’t increase in price again ?
To both you and confessions, what exactly do these offsets entail — how are they going to compensate for the increased cost in goods that must follow increased cost in production ?
“We need to change the way we use energy not the way we produce it, it is insane to simply believe we can replace the energy from coal with renewable.’
No argument with you there, I’m just not quite sure that increasing the cost of everything we buy is the right way to do it. Remembering that the only people who bought fuel efficient cars were those who could afford to — I doubt you’d see too many low income earners driving around in the newest, fuel efficient models.
Gavin: I think you need to read the specifics of the CPRS if this is what interests you. I haven’t looked at the detail, just the broad stuff, and just what I’ve read on blogs and in the media.
Macklin in question time today said low income households will be compensated 120% which effectively means they make money. This is one of the reasons why the Greens and others who wanted stronger action claim that there is no incentive for householders and EITEIs to change behaviour. If the CPRS will cause householders to be out of pocket there arguably wouldn’t be so many people up in arms about the amount of compensation it gives out. Obviously denialists like Fielding will never be satisfied, so I take his histrionics with mountains of salt.
There was a link to the CPRS amendments that the government put to the opposition at the Australian yesterday, but it doesn’t appear to be there today. I note that they still haven’t restored their ‘Climate’ section which seems massively out of step with the big national political story of this week. A further sign in my view that the paper is struggling for relevence.
It’s all over bar the shouting…. the “blip” of the hacked emails is starting to assume the patina of yesterday’s news. I laughed at a quote in the link..”[the deniers] are starting to sound like the buggy-whip manufacturers when the horseless carriage was invented.”
monkeywrench: action on climate change now has bipartisan support in this country and I reckon it’ll be hard for the coalition to reverse this when they eventually get back into government. And in related news, New Zealand passes its ETS. And {GASP} they have a conservative PM!!1!
From the Gaurdin article monkeywrench linked to
“Limbaugh said: “I’ve instinctively known this from the get-go, from 20 years ago! The whole thing is made up, and the reason I know it is because liberals are behind it! When they’re pushing something, folks, it’s always bogus. ”
Nice to see he has an open mind
And the scary thing is Limbaugh is one of the people who the News ltd opinion writers look to. So now it’s “Never mind the facts, if a lefties involved it’s obviosly bogus”
Sorry – completely OT – From Monkeywrench’s link – Wow, Lord Lawson looks old, looks like he’s lost a load of weight too. I’m not dissing his looks but Nigella has a very attractive face (IMO) even though she looks like her dad (or did). Amazing, then again I reckon my boy is good looking and I don’t rate myself (bias no doubt
)