Prominent Global Warming Scientists accused of altering data

[Ziner]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... l-cooling/

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james ... l-warming/

This isnt just some whack job fringe guy, it is Michael Mann who is right at the heart of this, the lead author of the paper that developed the "hockey stick graph".

I got ripped by some on here when I suggested that GW scientists could change and alter their data to fit their beliefs.

Manipulation of evidence:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

but then was assured that it didnt happen because it was peer reviewed.

how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”

I am not in the mood to get in to a big discussion over this, I just wanted to hear opinions on it.... mainly aoxo and erie because you guys are the ones I have gotten in to it with about this in the past.

[FUDU]

Shocking, shocking I tell you.

[boilerdaveb]

This seems to be a cascade continuation ever since some within' the global warming community started to realize that their own data seemed to contradict this theory and showed, that in fact, the world was cooling recently. As recently as September these people "lost" some of their data, and apparently these hackers have discovered where it went...the electronic trashcan.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZT ... Y4ZWI5OWM=

It's all well and good except for the fact that nations are using this "threat to the environment" as reason to impose their legislation/taxes/green industrys on us and to pad the pockets of "green" industry. No surprise to me, but I can't wait to see what the excuses will be now. Flush cap and trade is what I say. The good thing is, when the planet cools in thirty years, hopefully people can't claim "it's because we drove fuel efficient cars thirty years ago!" because of this flawed and deceitful science. I mean, the planet cools and warms for millions of years, we learned this in elementary school, how can anyone claim they know why these cycles occur, let alone base it on "pollution."

[exiledbuckeye]

If "pro" global warming scientists are altering data, there's a good chance that some of the "anti" global warming guys are doing it too.

Cap-and-trade and stuff like that aside, I can't fathom how people don't think it's a good idea to burn less coal, use less oil, stop blowing the tops off of mountains, stop throwing mountaintop rubble into streams, or to invest in wind energy.

[FUDU]

If "pro" global warming scientists are altering data, there's a good chance that some of the "anti" global warming guys are doing it too.

Cap-and-trade and stuff like that aside, I can't fathom how people don't think it's a good idea to burn less coal, use less oil, stop blowing the tops off of mountains, stop throwing mountaintop rubble into streams, or to invest in wind energy.

As somebody who calls complete BS on anthropogenic global warming I can agree with you, until it comes down to: just how much it costs to stop doing some of that stuff (or start doing) and telling people how to live their lives.

[British_Pharaoh]

temperatures in England are unusually mild for this time of year.

I really don't know why I'm posting this

It was just an observation of mine

[Ziner]

If "pro" global warming scientists are altering data, there's a good chance that some of the "anti" global warming guys are doing it too.

surely, but dont tell me, tell the people who claim the debate is over.

Cap-and-trade and stuff like that aside, I can't fathom how people don't think it's a good idea to burn less coal, use less oil, stop blowing the tops off of mountains, stop throwing mountaintop rubble into streams, or to invest in wind energy.

I dont think sane people disagree, it is the role of the government in stopping these things and the legislation they can use to do it where sane people disagree IMO.

[noles1]

I mean, the planet cools and warms for millions of years, we learned this in elementary school, how can anyone claim they know why these cycles occur, let alone base it on "pollution."

Careful now, the religious freaks are going to be on full alert now...

Still I agree with you. Just goes to show how fun this shit can be...

[Ziner]

temperatures in England are unusually mild for this time of year.

I really don't know why I'm posting this

It was just an observation of mine

The ski resorts near Denver opened the earliest they have in 60 years because of early snow.

[Orenthal]

If "pro" global warming scientists are altering data, there's a good chance that some of the "anti" global warming guys are doing it too.

While those kinda statements burn me inside when taken in the abstract, I can say its probably 100% true. If this just takes a little bit of the steam out of an almost religious devotion to climate change, I'll be happy. Would it be so hard to take a measured approach on the thing, seeing as how the earth is billions of years old, and humanity is a speck in comparison.

[FUDU]

If "pro" global warming scientists are altering data, there's a good chance that some of the "anti" global warming guys are doing it too.

While those kinda statements burn me inside when taken in the abstract, I can say its probably 100% true. If this just takes a little bit of the steam out of an almost religious devotion to climate change, I'll be happy. Would it be so hard to take a measured approach on the thing, seeing as how the earth is billions of years old, and humanity is a speck in comparison.

IMO the whole argument about how old the Earth is for this debate is pointless. The Earth could be billions of years or or just thousands, with man's age being just as irrelevant seeing as man has only had the capacity/technology to record reasonable climate data for what a hundred years (even if it was 300 years). That is the part that is the important aspect of a speck in comparison.

[hebner20]

It's not global warming it's now called Climate Change.

[Orenthal]

If "pro" global warming scientists are altering data, there's a good chance that some of the "anti" global warming guys are doing it too.

While those kinda statements burn me inside when taken in the abstract, I can say its probably 100% true. If this just takes a little bit of the steam out of an almost religious devotion to climate change, I'll be happy. Would it be so hard to take a measured approach on the thing, seeing as how the earth is billions of years old, and humanity is a speck in comparison.

IMO the whole argument about how old the Earth is for this debate is pointless. The Earth could be billions of years or or just thousands, with man's age being just as irrelevant seeing as man has only had the capacity/technology to record reasonable climate data for what a hundred years (even if it was 300 years). That is the part that is the important aspect of a speck in comparison.

I'm bored so I will agree and disagree. Yes, the big Climate Change pushers are using evil man and his pollution/growth/capitalism as the root cause of the warming, well now just volitility. On that point yes, the age of the earth is only relevant to form a base line to which the change in temp/other shit can be measured. If however the goal was just an understanding of how/what, or if anything is happening its all about sample size and unless you have that, data don't mean shit...

[Orenthal]

It's not global warming it's now called Climate Change.

The "consensus" has built such a fine catch-all, haven't they??? I wonder if the season's change qualifies...

[motherscratcher]

temperatures in England are unusually mild for this time of year.

I really don't know why I'm posting this

It was just an observation of mine

The ski resorts near Denver opened the earliest they have in 60 years because of early snow.

Anecdotal evidence such as this is pointless and meaningless. Unless, of course, it supports climate change.

[boilerdaveb]

It's not global warming it's now called Climate Change.

See...that explains it. Because somedays I run my bathroom fan all day and go outside and it's freezin, and somedays I carpool with my friend in his Prius and it's downright steaming.

I have no problem with people finding reasons to save energy, i.e. costs. If it saves people money to drive more fuel efficient cars, they will be developed as they are now by businesses looking for profit. If it saves on my electric bill if I install a new air conditioner, I will and people will be there to provide it. I DO have a problem with enacting legislation that will cost me MORE money because people/legislators are under the illusion if it isn't enacted, the seas will rise and the caps will melt...which they may or may not do on their own...not necessarilly because of our influence. And then these same people use the arguement, or should I say, change the arguement to: well isn't it just healthier not having so much pollution?

Having a healthy income like I do, the costs of legislation will not hinder my lifestyle...but those costs will hinder a fair amount of the populations disposable income via higher energy costs and possible job loss. It looks as if Cap and Trade will not pass, which is a good thing, but I would have loved to see what the response would have been when individuals felt the affects of the legislation in their pocketbooks.

[General]

As long as the current state of the climate stays more or less the same for the next 40 years, then I am off the hook. If some more ice melts and the seas rise a little, maybe I will end up with Gulf front property and sell to the highest bidder provided the next mega doom hurricane doesn't blow us away.

[boilerdaveb]

As long as the current state of the climate stays more or less the same for the next 40 years, then I am off the hook. If some more ice melts and the seas rise a little, maybe I will end up with Gulf front property and sell to the highest bidder provided the next mega doom hurricane doesn't blow us away.

Ahhh...didn't you ever watch Mr. Wizard? One of his classic experiments is filling a glass to the rim with ice and water, when the ice melts, does it go over the edge? No, because the ice's weight displaces the water to the same level as when it melts.

Check out this picture of the seas level in 1841 compared today, level is the same.

http://www.john-daly.com/

[General]

As long as the current state of the climate stays more or less the same for the next 40 years, then I am off the hook. If some more ice melts and the seas rise a little, maybe I will end up with Gulf front property and sell to the highest bidder provided the next mega doom hurricane doesn't blow us away.

Ahhh...didn't you ever watch Mr. Wizard? One of his classic experiments is filling a glass to the rim with ice and water, when the water melts, does it go over the edge? No, because the ice's weight displaces the water to the same level as when it melts.

Check out this picture of the seas level in 1841 compared today, level is the same.

http://www.john-daly.com/

You just ruined my whole gulf front argument. And no wonder his golf game went to shit with all this worrying about the climate.

[boilerdaveb]

You just ruined my whole gulf front argument. And no wonder his golf game went to shit with all this worrying about the climate

Nah...he was just concerned on locating a pub that wasn't below sealevel when he was retired...money well spent.

[Erie Warrior]

I quickly checked those links and immediately thought two things:

1. Email snippets taken out of context, and interpreted by op-ed writers, mean little
2. If true, that guy is in big trouble. Fucking the alter boy trouble.

Altering data is an egregious crime in the science world, and if he did it, there is no defense for him. All his papers and data are questionable, even if he only did it once. That being said, his research was part of the theory, not all of it. If he lied, that won't invalidate any other research done independent of his.

I will wait and see what else comes out before I pass judgement, or change my opinion on Global Warming. Shooting first seldom gets good results.

[pup]

I quickly checked those links and immediately thought two things:

1. Email snippets taken out of context, and interpreted by op-ed writers, mean little
2. If true, that guy is in big trouble. Fucking the alter boy trouble.

Altering data is an egregious crime in the science world, and if he did it, there is no defense for him. All his papers and data are questionable, even if he only did it once. That being said, his research was part of the theory, not all of it. If he lied, that won't invalidate any other research done independent of his.

I will wait and see what else comes out before I pass judgement, or change my opinion on Global Warming. Shooting first seldom gets good results.

"Altering" data goes on everyday in the science world.

Have not read a word of those links, but if they include altering data as throwing out things that don't make your case, and calling it experimental error. Yep.

If he is in fact changing the actual data, yes, big trouble in little china.

[aoxo1]

Saw this last Tuesday, but was too busy at work and just got back from vacation. But here are a couple posts by people more familiar than I am with both the research and players:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... -cru-hack/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... k-context/

From just a general perspective, I will just say that neither of those quotes you posted seem particularly bad to me. Completely agree with the definition of trick, as used in science/mathematics, given in the above link, not in the manner of trying to fool people.

As far as the peer review process, there are certainly papers that get into the literature that are bad, unreproducible (guilty of those first two myself almost certainly), and fraudulent (very tempting as a short term thing, but ultimately not worth it as you will get caught and you can't do anything with your "results" anyways; even so, I do suspect that a lot of this goes on). It is not a flawless process, and there will be a large amount of disagreement. The people who get appointed as editors of journals wield a lot of power over whether papers get in. They generally get to make the final call AFAIK, and I have had submissions I thought were fine get rejected by an editor after 2 positive reviews. In my experience, papers are reviewed by two relevant experts, who grade them and decide whether minor or major revisions are necessary, then the editor does pretty much the same and makes the decision.

I generally try to avoid debating the merits of climate change research (key word being try), besides noting that there is a mountain of literature out there and pointing out things I know are mistaken (eg: the recent "cooling trend", which so far is consistent with the noise seen throughout the data and as such is not a trend at all or the idea there was a bunch of work or a consensus about global cooling in the 70s). Frankly, I don't really have any special knowledge about it and certainly don't have time to learn the intricacies or keep up with the work.

I will say that it would be totally awesome if the majority of the scientific community was wrong and there is no climate change. I would rather that be the outcome.

[aoxo1]

Should also add that it is not unusual for published work to turn out to be, you know, incorrect. There are mechanisms for arguments, both in person at conferences, and in the journals and things can get very heated.

[Toxicadam]

To me, the most damning allegations contained in the emails are that these scientists would lean on their contacts at other journals (and other media outlets) and prevent papers from being printed.

The entire "consensus" was built on (back in the late 90's) evaluating all the peer-reviewed papers in existence and looking at what their conclusion was about AGW. If all dissenting papers were scrubbed from publication, was it really a consensus at all?

When you look at the amount of money these two fellows (Mann, Jones) have brought into their respective universities, you can see why they would be so protective of their cause. Their entire careers are staked to it.

This event doesn't invalidate the Global Warming Theory. There are still many respected bodies that are doing good work and don't shy away from "controversial" studies that put doubt on the prevailing thought (Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute being one). But these people affiliated over at CRU seem to be suffering from confirmation bias and possibly much worse.

[Erie Warrior]

There are still many respected bodies that are doing good work and don't shy away from "controversial" studies that put doubt on the prevailing thought (Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute being one).

Do you have a link or article for this?

[Toxicadam]

There are still many respected bodies that are doing good work and don't shy away from "controversial" studies that put doubt on the prevailing thought (Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute being one).

Do you have a link or article for this?

Ocean acidification concerns:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34244057/ns ... vironment/

"Strong chaotic variation" in our climate record, possible oncoming Ice Age:
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=282&cid=10046


Confirmation of the Medieval Warming Period:
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=7545&ti ... 106&ct=162

[aoxo1]

You do realize that WHOI recognizes the existence of AGW, and the work you link is within its framework?

[Toxicadam]

I don't know how you would infer that I didn't.

[aoxo1]

Didn't mean to infer, just making sure.

[Erie Warrior]

I don't know how you would infer that I didn't.

Because you said this. I was thinking the same as aoxo.

There are still many respected bodies that are doing good work and don't shy away from "controversial" studies that put doubt on the prevailing thought (Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute being one).

The studies you linked aren't really controversial and don't really place doubt into much. Really, none of them address the impact of humans on Global Warming.

[danwismar]

There are a number of links to articles on the scandal at this post on my blog

http://bit.ly/4GIQM9

Not too much doubt about where I come down on the issue, as my mini-rant at the post will make clear, but I do think some of the supporting links will be informative to those who don't have a good grasp yet of what it all means...

I do think a lot of well-intended environmentally conscious folks have seen their movement taken over and exploited by people who are truly modern day Luddites...ideological anti-capitalists and trans-nationalists who are using the climate issue to build their own global power base.

FWIW, I think one of the key issues for conservatives to address in coming US elections is their ability as a movement (and/or a political party) to de-couple common sense environmentalism (conservation, alternative energy development, recycling, etc) from extremist climate change alarmism of the Gorian variety.

These latest disclosures will surely make it easier for them to do that.

[Toxicadam]

I don't know how you would infer that I didn't.

Because you said this. I was thinking the same as aoxo.

There are still many respected bodies that are doing good work and don't shy away from "controversial" studies that put doubt on the prevailing thought (Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute being one).

The studies you linked aren't really controversial and don't really place doubt into much. Really, none of them address the impact of humans on Global Warming.

Paragraphs are a string of sentences. Each one is interconnected to the other to form thoughts. So, to grasp what one is saying you must apply all sentences within a paragraph to form context.


You're too busy playing fucking GOTCHA to bother reading what people have to say. And yes, those three reports are items that went against prevailing opinion in climate science. The kinds of reports that Phil Jones and his crew would attempt to get scrubbed from peer reviewed journals because they are not part of their narrative.

So, just because your poisoned, polarized mind determined that "prevailing thought" meant global warming as a whole, it's not my issue.

[Toxicadam]

Speaking of things getting scrubbed, here was a letter to a prominent NYT reporter from a Illinois University climate scientist:

Andy (Revkin):
Copenhagen prostitutes?
Climate prostitutes?
Shame on you for this gutter reportage. [Emphasis added.]
This is the second time this week I have written you thereon, the first about giving space in your blog to the Pielkes.
The vibe that I am getting from here, there and everywhere is that your reportage is very worrisome to most climate scientists.
Of course, your blog is your blog.
But, I sense that you are about to experience the 'Big Cutoff' from those of us who believe we can no longer trust you, me included. [Emphasis added.]
Copenhagen prostitutes?
Unbelievable and unacceptable.
What are you doing and why?
Michael

What was so bad? http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/04/roundup-copenhagen-and-climategate/ Just a collection of links that let readers probe deeper into this issue on both sides. You know, reporting.

[Erie Warrior]

So, just because your poisoned, polarized mind determined that "prevailing thought" meant global warming as a whole, it's not my issue.

Hardly. But for you to link 3 reports as examples of research that would be rejected from publication, when in fact they were all published in major journals, because they "went against prevailing opinion" is misleading.

[danwismar]

http://bit.ly/8d6pcO

This is one of the better explanations of the Climategate matter that I've read....a bit long, but pretty effective in explaining the science in layman's terms...by Steven Hayward

[Erie Warrior]

Decent article. Well written, at the very least. A few things that caught my attention

Other important climate research centers with close ties to the CRU--including NASA's Goddard Institute and the Climate Change Science Program at NOAA--should not be exempt from a full-dress investigation.

Close ties does not mean collusion. It is not a logically drawn conclusion to assume that the research GSI and NOAA has done is bad because of the alleged data tampering by Mann.

I disagree with these as well

though there are many thousands more scientists working on aspects of climate change who do not participate in the IPCC process, many of whom dissent from the rigid "consensus" the process produces. One of the things the CRU emails prove is that the oft-cited figure of 2,000 top scientists is misleading; the circle of genuinely active scientists in the work of CRU and related institutions in this country is very small.

This is conjecture by the author- "many whom dissent" and "the circle of genuinely active scientists in the work of CRU and related institutions in this country is very small". The emails in question involve a few people (as emails usually do), but that does not mean that the other researchers at CRU (or other institutes)are not active, or provide any meaningful research.

There is no doubt plenty more of this kind of corruption in other hotbeds of climate science

Again, conjecture, and the author is not without bias as well

Steven F. Hayward is the F.K. Weyerhaeuser fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, coauthor of AEI's Energy and Environment Outlook, and author of the forthcoming Almanac of Environmental Trends (Pacific Research Institute).

From Wiki- "The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI) is a conservative think tank founded in 1943. Its stated mission is "to defend the principles and improve the institutions of American freedom and democratic capitalism—limited government, private enterprise, individual liberty and responsibility, vigilant and effective defense and foreign policies, political accountability, and open debate."

"AEI scholars are considered to be some of the leading architects of the second Bush administration's public policy.[2] More than twenty AEI scholars and fellows served either in a Bush administration policy post or on one of the government's many panels and commissions"

The real shame may be if Mann fudged the data on the hockey stick from 1998, but went back and addressed the issues of his dissenters with the subsequent hockey sticks, it will all be thrown out.

Edit: A little CYA? I hope this is the real answer, but probably not
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/12 ... index.html

[danwismar]

Hayward is perhaps better known as the author of "The Age of Reagan", a 2-volume history of RR's political career. I've only read the first volume, but I highly recommend it.

And yes, he does appear to have his own biases toward those quaint values the AEI supports...individual liberty, capitalism, free enterprise, American exceptionalism, etc.

What that has to do with his reporting on the climate science scandal escapes me.

[Erie Warrior]

What that has to do with his reporting on the climate science scandal escapes me.

To his credit, the article stays away from the political issue for the most part. But Bush is notorious for a lack of environmental concern and policy, and if the AEI and it's scholars were key players in the Bush Administration's policy post and many panels and commissions it would seem that they would also share (probably advised) Bush's skepticism on climate change. The excerpts I quoted seem to me to be examples of this, but should not diminish the article. Worth reading for either side.

[danwismar]

though there are many thousands more scientists working on aspects of climate change who do not participate in the IPCC process, many of whom dissent from the rigid "consensus" the process produces. One of the things the CRU emails prove is that the oft-cited figure of 2,000 top scientists is misleading; the circle of genuinely active scientists in the work of CRU and related institutions in this country is very small.

Just to try to clarify something...the above quote from Hayward that you cited, I believe refers to the "oft-cited" figure of 2000 top scientists involved in the IPCC process. His point here is not only that many, many climate scientists (some skeptics, some not) did not participate in the IPCC process (hardly a controversial statement or opinion...just an easily demonstrable fact), but more importantly, that of the 2000 scientists that DID participate in the IPCC process, only a handful...less than 60...participated in authoring the four IPCC reports that are currently relied upon for global policy-making. On top of that, many of the remaining 1900 or so have publicly renounced the IPCC findings and protested the use of their names in support of its findings. The fact is that there isn't even "consensus" within the IPCC, let alone in the larger community of climate scientists.

I would strongly recommend Christopher Horner's book, "Red Hot Lies" to anyone interested in learning more about the make-up of the IPCC or the politicization of climate science in general. Read it, and you will never again trust anything the IPCC has to say as being legitimately about the temperature of the planet.

As to the position of the Bush administration, I am thankful every day for the skepticism of the Bush people on climate change. We are seeing today the very good reasons for that skepticism. Not only was his resistance to the surrender of US sovereignty to an unaccountable global climate regime principled and proper, and in accord with our Constitution, but it was absolutely necessary to avoid the negative economic consequences to the U.S. that will necessarily result from any coming global climate agreement. What is proposed is nothing short of a massive global extraction of cash from the private sector of the United States.

In fact, Bush's policies were barely distinguishable from Clinton's, although Clinton cynically signed Kyoto, only to refuse for eight years to even submit it to the Senate, where he knew it had no prayer of passing. He could posture as concerned, without actually doing anything. Unfortunately, Obama is another animal entirely in terms of his anti-capitalist ideology. He has no such hesitance to put the US economy behind the 8-ball. The more government dependence, the better.

[Erie Warrior]

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/10/21/world ... al/?hpt=T2

I heard that one of the researchers in this study misspelled warming. It was printed as warning, which clearly shows that this study is biased and wrong, just like the other one that said NEARLY THE SAME THING.

[Orenthal]

Still a shit sample size when the errf is old as fuck.

[Erie Warrior]

Still a shit sample size when the errf is old as fuck.

Seriously?

We may not agree, but I was expecting more.

[Orenthal]

Still a shit sample size when the errf is old as fuck.

Seriously?

We may not agree, but I was expecting more.

I'll give ya it substantiates the earlier findings, until it doesn't of course. However I don't see how you can draw any conclusion other then the earth has warmed the last 200 years. But is that just a simple correlation does not mean causation? How does 200 years of data give you even the remotest chance of determining a baseline?

I'll try to not be closed-minded, but I'm still very skeptical.

[Erie Warrior]

However I don't see how you can draw any conclusion other then the earth has warmed the last 200 years.

Yes. That's the point. To levels higher than the past 100's of thousands of years. Caused by people. Particularly after the Industrial Revolution.

In terms of the Hadean eon, it's a regular cold front. In terms of normal variations, not so much.

Shut off your fucking lights and by a hybrid you right wing, non-science knowing closet gay.

[Orenthal]

^That's the kind of level headed reasoning I can get behind. I'm going straight to the Volt!

S

[Cerebral_DownTime]

Hybrids are stupid.

[Orenthal]

Glen Beck told me to buy non-hybrid seeds for the coming rupture, but then it passed. Bring on the zombies.

[Cerebral_DownTime]

I'm already prepared for the zombies. I read max Brook's Zombie Survival Guide.

[Orenthal]

I'm already prepared for the zombies. I read max Brook's Zombie Survival Guide.

I need more guns, and a crossbow. Reedus style. Oh, and a katana.