Scientists Respond to Climategate
EpSil0n-// <[email protected]> Sat, 5 Dec 2009 20:06:34 -0600 (CST)
| Newsgroups | gmane.politics.progressive.news |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
--DpYQmM8oOYdOuGGf-CUkWNivYBuQhLAkUkn4NvG
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
December 4, 2009 | 139 comments
Scientists Respond to "Climategate" E-Mail Controversy
Stolen e-mails and computer code do nothing to change average temperature
trends, but they could damage climate researchers' credibility just when
polls are showing public belief that greenhouse gases are warming the
planet is ebbing
By David Biello
SUSPECT SCIENCE?: The theft of emails from the Climatic Research Unit at
the University of East Anglia has caused some to question the findings of
climate scientists.
Courtesy of University of East Anglia
With all the "hot air" surrounding climate change discussions, none has
been hotter in recent weeks than that spewed over a trove of stolen
e-mails and computer code from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the
University of East Anglia in England. Longstanding contrarians, such as
Sen. James Inhofe (ROkla.), who famously dubbed climate change a "hoax" in
a 2003 speech, has pointed to the stolen e-mails as information that
overturns the scientific evidence for global warming and called on U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson to halt any
development of regulation of greenhouse gases pending his investigation
into the e-mails. And recent polls have found that fewer Americans today
than just two years ago believe that greenhouse gases will cause average
temperatures to increasea drop from 71 percent to 51 percent.
Yet, Arctic sea ice continues to dwindleas do glaciers across the globe;
average temperatures have increased by 0.7 degree Celsius in the past
century and the last decade is the warmest in the instrumental record;
spring has sprung forward, affecting everything from flower blossoms to
animal migrations; and the concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases
continue to rise, reaching 387 parts per million in 2009, a rise of 30
percent since 1750.
Nor has the fundamental physics of the greenhouse effect changed: CO2 in
the atmosphere continues to trap heat that would otherwise slip into
space, as was established by Irish scientist John Tyndall in 1859. "There
is a natural greenhouse effect, that's what keeps the planet livable,"
noted climate modeler Gavin Schmidt of the NASA Goddard Institute for
Space Studies (GISS) during a Friday conference call with reporters
organized by the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank.
"Without it, we'd be 33 degrees Celsius colder than we are. That's been
known for hundreds of years."
He added: "We're getting up to the point where the total amount of forcing
from these greenhouse gases is equivalent to the sun brightening about one
percent. That's a very big number indeed."
In fact, nothing in the stolen e-mails or computer code undermines in any
way the scientific consensuswhich exists among scientific publications as
well as scientiststhat climate change is happening and humans are the
cause. "There is a robust consensus that humans are altering the
atmosphere and warming the planet," said meteorologist Michael Mann of The
Pennsylvania State University, who also participated in the conference
call and was among the scientists whose e-mails have been leaked. "Further
increases in greenhouse gases will lead to increasingly greater
disruption."
Some of the kerfuffle rests on a misreading of the e-mails' wording. For
example, the word "trick" in one message, which has been cited as evidence
that a conspiracy is afoot, is actually being used to describe a
mathematical approach to reconciling observed temperatures with stand-in
data inferred from tree ring measurements.
The scientists on the conference call, including atmospheric scientist
Michael Oppenheimer of Princeton University, also addressed other parts of
the content of the stolen e-mails, including some that griped about
particular journals (Climate Research) or editors (at Geophysical Research
Letters). "It's important to understand what peer review really is," Mann
noted. "It's not a license for anybody to publish."
In essence, he argued, in both cases, some papers that "did not make a
credible case to support the conclusions that were reached" were being
published. As a result, climate scientists were complaining, among
themselves, about the quality of the journals.
"Scientists care very much about the quality of the journals they publish
in," Schmidt noted. "If a journal is perceived to have lax reviewing
standards, then you are tarred with the same brush if you publish in that
journal. Your work becomes devalued."
And ultimately, even those papers specifically challenged in the e-mails
(one of which featured a vow to "keep [these papers] out [of the IPCC
report] somehoweven if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature
is") made it into the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change's most recent report.
As for charges that the CRU database is corrupt or compromised such that
its results cannot be trusted, Schmidt noted that a number of other
databases with climate records supporting global warming exist throughout
the worldincluding NASA's GISS, NOAA's National Climatic Data Center and
even the IPCC, all of which provide access to the raw data. Further, many
of the same contrarians arguing that global warming has stopped in recent
years are relying on the same CRU record that they are now disparaging as
untrustworthy.
"Most of the data have been freely available for decades," Oppenheimer
added. "There's been plenty of opportunity for people to reach a different
conclusion."
In fact, an independent effort to dispel global warming findings by using
the NASA data and discarding certain parts of it ultimately also revealed
an increase in average temperatures over time. And scientists have become
more open as well over the course of the past decade. (Many of the e-mails
are from the 1990s.) "We published a paper in Science last week where we
uploaded 30 megabytes of supplementary information to the Web site," Mann
said. "So anyone who read the paper had access to every piece of raw data
and every piece of code we used to do the analysis."
The stolen e-mails may ultimately provide a sociological window into the
workings of the scientific community. "This is a record of how science is
actually done," Schmidt noted. "They'll see that scientists are human and
how science progresses despite human failings. They'll see why science as
an enterprise works despite the fact that scientists aren't perfect."
The one piece of stolen information that all agreed showed at least a
"lapse in judgment" was CRU Director Phil Jones's e-mail asking Mann
specifically to delete any correspondence related to "AR4," otherwise
known as the report from the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change. "Frankly, the sending of that e-mail demonstrated
unfortunate judgment on the part of the scientist who sent it," Mann said.
"To my knowledge, no one acted on that request. I did not delete any
e-mails." The continuing existence of the e-mail itself would seem to
support Mann's contention, although his response at the time was to agree
to contact a fellow scientist "Gene," as requested by Jones.
Minimal impact is expected from the stolen e-mails at the upcoming
Copenhagen climate conference, although a negotiator from Saudi Arabia has
already pledged to use them to complicate the process of negotiating an
international agreement to combat climate change. But they could play a
role in pending U.S. legislation, particularly in the Senate where a
climate bill is likely to be debated next spring. "Those opposing action
will throw everything including the kitchen sink into the debate,"
Oppenheimer said. "Do I think it will have a significant effect on the
judgment of lawmakers or public opinion? No, I don't, but you never know
with these things."
And it might be that the recent polls are simply uncovering a hardening
partisan divide: 73 percent of Democrats accepted that greenhouse gases
lead to global warming whereas only 28 percent of Republicans agreed, in a
poll conducted by Harris Interactive that matches similar findings from
The Pew Research Center. A decline among Independents sharing that view of
anthropogenic climate change seems to be largely driven by those who "lean
Republican," according to Harris.
As always, weather might also be playing a role: This past October was
among the coolest on record in the continental U.S., which shows that when
it comes to public understanding of global climate change, the local
weather might be skewing the results. And just as glacier levels are
raising sea levels around the globe, scandals like this continue to raise
confusion.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=scientists-respond-to-climategate-controversy
--DpYQmM8oOYdOuGGf-CUkWNivYBuQhLAkUkn4NvG
Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
<html>
<head>
</head>
<body style="background-color: #fff;">
<span style="display:none"> </span>
<!--~-|**|PrettyHtmlStartT|**|-~-->
<div id="ygrp-mlmsg" style="position:relative;">
<div id="ygrp-msg" style="z-index: 1;">
<!--~-|**|PrettyHtmlEndT|**|-~-->
<div id="ygrp-text" >
<p><br>
<br>
December 4, 2009 | 139 comments<br>
Scientists Respond to "Climategate" E-Mail Controversy<br>
Stolen e-mails and computer code do nothing to change average temperature <br>
trends, but they could damage climate researchers' credibility just when <br>
polls are showing public belief that greenhouse gases are warming the <br>
planet is ebbing<br>
<br>
By David Biello<br>
<br>
SUSPECT SCIENCE?: The theft of emails from the Climatic Research Unit at <br>
the University of East Anglia has caused some to question the findings of <br>
climate scientists.<br>
<br>
Courtesy of University of East Anglia<br>
<br>
With all the "hot air" surrounding climate change discussions, none has <br>
been hotter in recent weeks than that spewed over a trove of stolen <br>
e-mails and computer code from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the <br>
University of East Anglia in England. Longstanding contrarians, such as <br>
Sen. James Inhofe (ROkla.), who famously dubbed climate change a "hoax" in <br>
a 2003 speech, has pointed to the stolen e-mails as information that <br>
overturns the scientific evidence for global warming and called on U.S. <br>
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson to halt any <br>
development of regulation of greenhouse gases pending his investigation <br>
into the e-mails. And recent polls have found that fewer Americans today <br>
than just two years ago believe that greenhouse gases will cause average <br>
temperatures to increasea drop from 71 percent to 51 percent.<br>
<br>
Yet, Arctic sea ice continues to dwindleas do glaciers across the globe; <br>
average temperatures have increased by 0.7 degree Celsius in the past <br>
century and the last decade is the warmest in the instrumental record; <br>
spring has sprung forward, affecting everything from flower blossoms to <br>
animal migrations; and the concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases <br>
continue to rise, reaching 387 parts per million in 2009, a rise of 30 <br>
percent since 1750.<br>
<br>
Nor has the fundamental physics of the greenhouse effect changed: CO2 in <br>
the atmosphere continues to trap heat that would otherwise slip into <br>
space, as was established by Irish scientist John Tyndall in 1859. "There <br>
is a natural greenhouse effect, that's what keeps the planet livable," <br>
noted climate modeler Gavin Schmidt of the NASA Goddard Institute for <br>
Space Studies (GISS) during a Friday conference call with reporters <br>
organized by the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank. <br>
"Without it, we'd be 33 degrees Celsius colder than we are. That's been <br>
known for hundreds of years."<br>
<br>
He added: "We're getting up to the point where the total amount of forcing <br>
from these greenhouse gases is equivalent to the sun brightening about one <br>
percent. That's a very big number indeed."<br>
<br>
In fact, nothing in the stolen e-mails or computer code undermines in any <br>
way the scientific consensuswhich exists among scientific publications as <br>
well as scientiststhat climate change is happening and humans are the <br>
cause. "There is a robust consensus that humans are altering the <br>
atmosphere and warming the planet," said meteorologist Michael Mann of The <br>
Pennsylvania State University, who also participated in the conference <br>
call and was among the scientists whose e-mails have been leaked. "Further <br>
increases in greenhouse gases will lead to increasingly greater <br>
disruption."<br>
<br>
Some of the kerfuffle rests on a misreading of the e-mails' wording. For <br>
example, the word "trick" in one message, which has been cited as evidence <br>
that a conspiracy is afoot, is actually being used to describe a <br>
mathematical approach to reconciling observed temperatures with stand-in <br>
data inferred from tree ring measurements.<br>
<br>
The scientists on the conference call, including atmospheric scientist <br>
Michael Oppenheimer of Princeton University, also addressed other parts of <br>
the content of the stolen e-mails, including some that griped about <br>
particular journals (Climate Research) or editors (at Geophysical Research <br>
Letters). "It's important to understand what peer review really is," Mann <br>
noted. "It's not a license for anybody to publish."<br>
<br>
In essence, he argued, in both cases, some papers that "did not make a <br>
credible case to support the conclusions that were reached" were being <br>
published. As a result, climate scientists were complaining, among <br>
themselves, about the quality of the journals.<br>
<br>
"Scientists care very much about the quality of the journals they publish <br>
in," Schmidt noted. "If a journal is perceived to have lax reviewing <br>
standards, then you are tarred with the same brush if you publish in that <br>
journal. Your work becomes devalued."<br>
<br>
And ultimately, even those papers specifically challenged in the e-mails <br>
(one of which featured a vow to "keep [these papers] out [of the IPCC <br>
report] somehoweven if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature <br>
is") made it into the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate <br>
Change's most recent report.<br>
<br>
As for charges that the CRU database is corrupt or compromised such that <br>
its results cannot be trusted, Schmidt noted that a number of other <br>
databases with climate records supporting global warming exist throughout <br>
the worldincluding NASA's GISS, NOAA's National Climatic Data Center and <br>
even the IPCC, all of which provide access to the raw data. Further, many <br>
of the same contrarians arguing that global warming has stopped in recent <br>
years are relying on the same CRU record that they are now disparaging as <br>
untrustworthy.<br>
<br>
"Most of the data have been freely available for decades," Oppenheimer <br>
added. "There's been plenty of opportunity for people to reach a different <br>
conclusion."<br>
<br>
In fact, an independent effort to dispel global warming findings by using <br>
the NASA data and discarding certain parts of it ultimately also revealed <br>
an increase in average temperatures over time. And scientists have become <br>
more open as well over the course of the past decade. (Many of the e-mails <br>
are from the 1990s.) "We published a paper in Science last week where we <br>
uploaded 30 megabytes of supplementary information to the Web site," Mann <br>
said. "So anyone who read the paper had access to every piece of raw data <br>
and every piece of code we used to do the analysis."<br>
<br>
The stolen e-mails may ultimately provide a sociological window into the <br>
workings of the scientific community. "This is a record of how science is <br>
actually done," Schmidt noted. "They'll see that scientists are human and <br>
how science progresses despite human failings. They'll see why science as <br>
an enterprise works despite the fact that scientists aren't perfect."<br>
<br>
The one piece of stolen information that all agreed showed at least a <br>
"lapse in judgment" was CRU Director Phil Jones's e-mail asking Mann <br>
specifically to delete any correspondence related to "AR4," otherwise <br>
known as the report from the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on <br>
Climate Change. "Frankly, the sending of that e-mail demonstrated <br>
unfortunate judgment on the part of the scientist who sent it," Mann said. <br>
"To my knowledge, no one acted on that request. I did not delete any <br>
e-mails." The continuing existence of the e-mail itself would seem to <br>
support Mann's contention, although his response at the time was to agree <br>
to contact a fellow scientist "Gene," as requested by Jones.<br>
<br>
Minimal impact is expected from the stolen e-mails at the upcoming <br>
Copenhagen climate conference, although a negotiator from Saudi Arabia has <br>
already pledged to use them to complicate the process of negotiating an <br>
international agreement to combat climate change. But they could play a <br>
role in pending U.S. legislation, particularly in the Senate where a <br>
climate bill is likely to be debated next spring. "Those opposing action <br>
will throw everything including the kitchen sink into the debate," <br>
Oppenheimer said. "Do I think it will have a significant effect on the <br>
judgment of lawmakers or public opinion? No, I don't, but you never know <br>
with these things."<br>
<br>
And it might be that the recent polls are simply uncovering a hardening <br>
partisan divide: 73 percent of Democrats accepted that greenhouse gases <br>
lead to global warming whereas only 28 percent of Republicans agreed, in a <br>
poll conducted by Harris Interactive that matches similar findings from <br>
The Pew Research Center. A decline among Independents sharing that view of <br>
anthropogenic climate change seems to be largely driven by those who "lean <br>
Republican," according to Harris.<br>
<br>
As always, weather might also be playing a role: This past October was <br>
among the coolest on record in the continental U.S., which shows that when <br>
it comes to public understanding of global climate change, the local <br>
weather might be skewing the results. And just as glacier levels are <br>
raising sea levels around the globe, scandals like this continue to raise <br>
confusion.<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=scientists-respond-to-climategate-controversy">http://www.scientif<wbr>icamerican.<wbr>com/article.<wbr>cfm?id=scientist<wbr>s-respond-<wbr>to-climategate-<wbr>controversy</a><br>
</p>
</div>
<!--~-|**|PrettyHtmlStart|**|-~-->
<div style="color: #fff; height: 0;">__._,_.___</div>
<div id="ygrp-actbar" style="clear: both; margin-bottom: 10px; white-space: nowrap; color: #666; padding-top: 15px;">
<div>
<a href="mailto:[email protected]?subject=Scientists Respond to Climategate">
Reply to <span style="font-weight: 700;">sender</span></a>
| <a href="mailto:[email protected]?subject=Scientists Respond to Climategate">
Reply to <span style="font-weight: 700;">group</span></a>
</div>
<a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PNEWS-L/message/17480;_ylc=X3oDMTM3azM4bnFkBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE5NDc5MjAwBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA4MzQ0OARtc2dJZAMxNzQ4MARzZWMDZnRyBHNsawN2dHBjBHN0aW1lAzEyNjAwNjUxOTcEdHBjSWQDMTc0ODA-">Messages in this topic</a>
(<span style="font-weight: 700;">1</span>)
</div>
<!------- Start Nav Bar ------>
<!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->
<div id="ygrp-vital" style="background-color: #e0ecee; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px; padding: 10px;">
<span id="vithd" style="font-weight: bold; color: #333; text-transform: uppercase; ">Recent Activity:</span>
<ul style="list-style-type: none; margin: 0; padding: 0; display: inline;">
</ul>
<div style="clear: both; padding-top: 2px; color: #1e66ae;">
<a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PNEWS-L;_ylc=X3oDMTJmN3NyaGJuBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE5NDc5MjAwBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA4MzQ0OARzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzEyNjAwNjUxOTc-" style="border-right: 1px solid #000; padding-right: 5px; margin-right: 2px; text-decoration: none;">Visit Your Group</a>
<a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PNEWS-L/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJmZGExdXJrBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE5NDc5MjAwBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA4MzQ0OARzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNudHBjBHN0aW1lAzEyNjAwNjUxOTc-" style="font-weight: 700; text-decoration: none;">Start a New Topic</a>
</div>
</div>
<div id="ygrp-grft" style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 12px; padding: 15px 0;">
<!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->
POINTERS - News/Views <BR>
<BR>
<!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->
</div>
<div id="ygrp-mkp" style="border: 1px solid #d8d8d8; clear: both; float: left; font-family: Arial; margin: 5px 0 10px 0; padding: 0 10px;">
<div id="hd" style="color: #628c2a; font-size: 85%; font-weight: 700; line-height: 122%; margin: 10px 0;">MARKETPLACE</div>
<div id="ads" style="margin-bottom: 10px;">
<div class="ad" style="color: #628C2A; font-family: Arial; font-weight: 700; padding: 0 0;">
<p><a href="http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=14kp6vgpt/M=493064.13814333.13821539.13298430/D=groups/S=1705083448:MKP1/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1260072397/L=/B=C9BvNUPDhCo-/J=1260065197937892/K=3F4tNfZCQoFeI5.x9n2.3w/A=5922843/R=0/SIG=11ckn2mo6/*http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/green/">Going Green: Your Yahoo! Groups resource for green living</a></p> </div>
<div class="ad" style="color: #628C2A; font-family: Arial; font-weight: 700; padding: 0 0;">
<hr style="border: 1px solid #d8d8d8;">
<a href="http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=14kils0gr/M=493064.13814537.13821737.10835568/D=groups/S=1705083448:MKP1/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1260072397/L=/B=DNBvNUPDhCo-/J=1260065197937892/K=3F4tNfZCQoFeI5.x9n2.3w/A=5697381/R=0/SIG=11eaa5dke/*http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mompowergroup/">Mom Power: Discover the community of moms doing more for their families, for the world and for each other</a> </div>
</div>
</div>
<div id="ft" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11px; margin-top: 5px; padding: 0 2px 0 0; clear: both;">
<a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJlNTU1cDFvBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE5NDc5MjAwBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA4MzQ0OARzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTI2MDA2NTE5Nw--" style="float: left;"><img src="http://l.yimg.com/a/i/us/yg/logo/us.gif" height="15" width="137" alt="Yahoo! Groups" style="border: 0;"/></a>
<div style="color: #747575; float: right;">Switch to: <a href="mailto:[email protected]?subject=Change Delivery Format: Traditional" style="text-decoration: none;">Text-Only</a>, <a href="mailto:[email protected]?subject=Email Delivery: Digest" class="margin-rt" style="text-decoration: none;">Daily Digest</a> • <a href="mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe" style="text-decoration: none;">Unsubscribe</a> • <a href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/" style="text-decoration: none;">Terms of Use</a></div>
</div>
<!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->
</div> <!-- ygrp-msg -->
<!-- Sponsor -->
<!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->
<div id="ygrp-sponsor" style="width:160px; float:right; clear:none; margin:0 0 25px 0; background: #fff;">
<!-- Start Recommendations -->
<div id="ygrp-reco">
</div>
<!-- End Recommendations -->
</div> <!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->
<div style="clear:both; color: #FFF; font-size:1px;">.</div>
</div>
<img src="http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=19479200/grpspId=1705083448/msgId=17480/stime=1260065197/nc1=3848644/nc2=5733755/nc3=5170418" width="1" height="1"> <br>
<div style="color: #fff; height: 0;">__,_._,___</div>
<!--~-|**|PrettyHtmlEnd|**|-~-->
</body>
<!--~-|**|PrettyHtmlStart|**|-~-->
<head>
<style type="text/css">
<!--
#ygrp-mkp {
border: 1px solid #d8d8d8;
font-family: Arial;
margin: 10px 0;
padding: 0 10px;
}
#ygrp-mkp hr {
border: 1px solid #d8d8d8;
}
#ygrp-mkp #hd {
color: #628c2a;
font-size: 85%;
font-weight: 700;
line-height: 122%;
margin: 10px 0;
}
#ygrp-mkp #ads {
margin-bottom: 10px;
}
#ygrp-mkp .ad {
padding: 0 0;
}
#ygrp-mkp .ad a {
color: #0000ff;
text-decoration: none;
}
#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc {
font-family: Arial;
}
#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc #hd {
margin: 10px 0px;
font-weight: 700;
font-size: 78%;
line-height: 122%;
}
#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc .ad {
margin-bottom: 10px;
padding: 0 0;
}
a {
color: #1e66ae;
}
#actions {
font-family: Verdana;
font-size: 11px;
padding: 10px 0;
}
#activity {
background-color: #e0ecee;
float: left;
font-family: Verdana;
font-size: 10px;
padding: 10px;
}
#activity span {
font-weight: 700;
}
#activity span:first-child {
text-transform: uppercase;
}
#activity span a {
color: #5085b6;
text-decoration: none;
}
#activity span span {
color: #ff7900;
}
#activity span .underline {
text-decoration: underline;
}
.attach {
clear: both;
display: table;
font-family: Arial;
font-size: 12px;
padding: 10px 0;
width: 400px;
}
.attach div a {
text-decoration: none;
}
.attach img {
border: none;
padding-right: 5px;
}
.attach label {
display: block;
margin-bottom: 5px;
}
.attach label a {
text-decoration: none;
}
blockquote {
margin: 0 0 0 4px;
}
.bold {
font-family: Arial;
font-size: 13px;
font-weight: 700;
}
.bold a {
text-decoration: none;
}
dd.last p a {
font-family: Verdana;
font-weight: 700;
}
dd.last p span {
margin-right: 10px;
font-family: Verdana;
font-weight: 700;
}
dd.last p span.yshortcuts {
margin-right: 0;
}
div.attach-table div div a {
text-decoration: none;
}
div.attach-table {
width: 400px;
}
div.file-title a, div.file-title a:active, div.file-title a:hover, div.file-title a:visited {
text-decoration: none;
}
div.photo-title a, div.photo-title a:active, div.photo-title a:hover, div.photo-title a:visited {
text-decoration: none;
}
div#ygrp-mlmsg #ygrp-msg p a span.yshortcuts {
font-family: Verdana;
font-size: 10px;
font-weight: normal;
}
.green {
color: #628c2a;
}
.MsoNormal {
margin: 0 0 0 0;
}
o {
font-size: 0;
}
#photos div {
float: left;
width: 72px;
}
#photos div div {
border: 1px solid #666666;
height: 62px;
overflow: hidden;
width: 62px;
}
#photos div label {
color: #666666;
font-size: 10px;
overflow: hidden;
text-align: center;
white-space: nowrap;
width: 64px;
}
#reco-category {
font-size: 77%;
}
#reco-desc {
font-size: 77%;
}
.replbq {
margin: 4px;
}
#ygrp-actbar div a:first-child {
/* border-right: 0px solid #000;*/
margin-right: 2px;
padding-right: 5px;
}
#ygrp-mlmsg {
font-size: 13px;
font-family: Arial, helvetica,clean, sans-serif;
*font-size: small;
*font: x-small;
}
#ygrp-mlmsg table {
font-size: inherit;
font: 100%;
}
#ygrp-mlmsg select, input, textarea {
font: 99% Arial, Helvetica, clean, sans-serif;
}
#ygrp-mlmsg pre, code {
font:115% monospace;
*font-size:100%;
}
#ygrp-mlmsg * {
line-height: 1.22em;
}
#ygrp-mlmsg #logo {
padding-bottom: 10px;
}
#ygrp-mlmsg a {
color: #1E66AE;
}
#ygrp-msg p a {
font-family: Verdana;
}
#ygrp-msg p#attach-count span {
color: #1E66AE;
font-weight: 700;
}
#ygrp-reco #reco-head {
color: #ff7900;
font-weight: 700;
}
#ygrp-reco {
margin-bottom: 20px;
padding: 0px;
}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov li a {
font-size: 130%;
text-decoration: none;
}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov li {
font-size: 77%;
list-style-type: square;
padding: 6px 0;
}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov ul {
margin: 0;
padding: 0 0 0 8px;
}
#ygrp-text {
font-family: Georgia;
}
#ygrp-text p {
margin: 0 0 1em 0;
}
#ygrp-text tt {
font-size: 120%;
}
#ygrp-vital ul li:last-child {
border-right: none !important;
}
-->
</style>
</head>
<!--~-|**|PrettyHtmlEnd|**|-~-->
</html>
<!-- end group email -->
--DpYQmM8oOYdOuGGf-CUkWNivYBuQhLAkUkn4NvG--